This is getting beyond a joke!

[Shady Vision]

Its funny how the "races/coinflips" stopped when dropping back down.

Why is nobody ever able to consider the fact they might not be good enough yet to beat the next level up.

It's probably not that they stopped, more like selective memory and being at a new higher level they stood out more so than they did before.

I know I seem to suffer from that kind of memory loss... I easily remember the bad beats I've had far easier than any winning pot I get.

 

[Tom Goldberg]

It is not because I am not good enough for the next level I dont think. How can I go from having an ROI at the $5 of around 22% to sucking that bad at the $10 it really isn't possible and the players really aren't that much better either. They still donk of their chips with middle pairs and chasing draws.

 

[koalas75]

Do you ever get the feelings if it wasn't for luck, some of these players would be out first hand? It's frustrating.

 

[doops]

A few thoughts, while appreciating the dilemma.

First, the players at higher levels, at each higher level do play differently. So your game has to adjust. There is usually an increase in aggression, more than anything else. The gaps between the TAG players and the calling stations becomes greater.

Second, if you are killing one level, that's a good level to be at. Yes, you want to move up, but move up gradually, as bankroll permits and be very ready to move back down.

Third, pay attention to who is at the table. SNGs are ripe territory for collusion teams. Watch for other players doing a gang-up or squeeze play on you, especially on the bubble. Collusion teams rarely play at levels below $10. If you see play that looks fishy -- the same 2 or 3 guys doing the raise-reraise-shove or the flip side of 2 or 3 players somehow never making it to showdown against each other -- report your misgivings.

 

[OzExorcist]

It is not because I am not good enough for the next level I dont think. How can I go from having an ROI at the $5 of around 22% to sucking that bad at the $10 it really isn't possible and the players really aren't that much better either. They still donk of their chips with middle pairs and chasing draws.

Sorry but yes, it is possible. Going from $5 to $10 is one of those jumps where there's a big increase in the skill levels of your opponents. It could be for all sorts of reasons but trust me, it's real. Being good enough to beat the $5s is in no way any indication that you're capable of beating the $10s. As for your opponents yes, there are still donks but there will be loads more solid regs and they are what'll eat into your winrate quickly.

Also, how big is your sample at the $5s? Anything under 1000 games and you probably only have a partial idea of your true ROI at that level. I'm not saying 22% is impossible but it's definitely on the high side and I'd be surprised if it stayed that high long term.

 

[Tom Goldberg]

Right okay, I can definitly accept that and in no way was expecting to beat the 10s like I have the 5s. I just didnt think It would go that badly, two days full of losing sessions, few break evens and minimal win sessions.

Correction my ROI as of the last games I have just played is 20% ROI and that is having played 555 games. Based on that I thought I would at least break even at the start of the 10s lool perhaps not

Oh well I am going to work my arse off this weekend to try get up to the 10s very soon! any advice on what to do once I do move up again will be much appreciated

 

[pdid5000]

I've been getting owned on FT the last week too. Having dominating hands then getting sucked out on 4th and 5th street. Always remember that your playing low stakes for the most part and playing against donks that will always get lucky no matter what. Nobody cares in the $1-$10 sngs, they'll put it in with anything. online poker has gotten bad the last couple years with all the advertising on T.V.

 

[teebee]

keep focused and the cards will turn around eventually if even for 1 day you run good then for 2 days you lose every flip and so on... they will turn around for you

 

[OzExorcist]

I've been getting owned on FT the last week too. Having dominating hands then getting sucked out on 4th and 5th street. Always remember that your playing low stakes for the most part and playing against donks that will always get lucky no matter what. Nobody cares in the $1-$10 sngs, they'll put it in with anything. Online poker has gotten bad the last couple years with all the advertising on T.V.

Why are you talking like this is a bad thing?!?

 

[TheKAAHK]

I've been getting owned on FT the last week too. Having dominating hands then getting sucked out on 4th and 5th street.

Remember if you have the better hand, a loss will always be at the reult of a suckout. That's the nature of the suckout.

Always remember that your playing low stakes for the most part and playing against donks that will always get lucky no matter what.

This made me lol. "Lucky no matter what." Comletely untrue.

Nobody cares in the $1-$10 sngs, they'll put it in with anything.

I play the $5 gng and I have been quite profitable. I care, and I don't put it in with anything. I make calculated decisions based on the following factors (And I think about these every hand I play/don't play): Stack sizes, position, player tendencies/percieved ranges, personal image/percieved image, blind to stack ratio, payout structure, and nearing the bubble, ICM factors.

If you are not considering at least most of these things when you are faced with a pre-flop decision, then you are not making informed decisions and will be at a loss to esplain why you are losing thus blaming "donks that will always get lucky no matter what". And I'm sure I don't need to remind you that you must constantly re-evaluate your holdings vs opponents range based on betting, tendencies, image, your image, etc on each street of the hand.

Online poker has gotten bad the last couple years with all the advertising on T.V.

And this is a very good thing.

..

 

[Colbefc]

I would suggest that when you move up from $5 to
$10 that you start off playing just one table or maybe
two, to see how things go

I played S n go's exclusively for 2 years and the bad
runs can be frighteningly long and a decent bankroll
for $10 sit n go's would be 100 buy ins which is
$1000, moving back down to $5 s n go's if you go down
to $500

I wouldnt get too worried about the bad runs, if you
play sit and go's you will get some great runs and some
terrible ones

I am a decent sit n go player but more than once I have lost
nearly half my bankroll on a bad run

In any case if you are crushing the FT $5 s n go's well done,
I play on PS cos I cant win a sit n go on FT to save my life,
for some reason me and FT dont mix

anyhow good luck

 

[Tom Goldberg]

Thanks for the advice Colbefc

I was wondering seen as you just play sng's, what level do you play at? and I was wondering if it was at all possible to realistically multi-table Sng's for a living aswell?

 

[OzExorcist]

Thanks for the advice Colbefc

I was wondering seen as you just play sng's, what level do you play at? and I was wondering if it was at all possible to realistically multi-table Sng's for a living aswell?

There's a few of us on here who play SnGs as our main game. If you're looking to do the same it's probably time you introduced yourself to this thread:

https://www.cardschat.com/forum/tournament-poker-59/january-sng-thread-189641/

 

[zackryan28]

I mean the number of tables you're playing has nothing to do with whether you're rolled for a level or not - whether you're playing one, two, ten or twenty tables, either you have your 50 / 100 / whatever buy ins for the level and you're rolled for it or you don't and you're not. So it doesn't matter that you're four-tabling, the requirement is still the same.

I totally disagree with this. If you are playing 24 tables at once, you need to have more buy ins than if you are only 4 tabling

 

[Theblueduce]

you will get there and good luck with your future poker endevors.

 

[OzExorcist]

I totally disagree with this. If you are playing 24 tables at once, you need to have more buy ins than if you are only 4 tabling

Why?

We practice bankroll management to protect ourselves from variance and variance is completely unaffected by the number of tables we play.

I can see a technical / computer related argument if we're really mass multi-tabling, on the basis that we could stand to lose huge chunks of money if we had a computer or internet failure while we had 20+ tables loaded. Barring something like that though why do you think you need more buyins to multitable?

 

[zackryan28]

Why?

We practice bankroll management to protect ourselves from variance and variance is completely unaffected by the number of tables we play.

I can see a technical / computer related argument if we're really mass multi-tabling, on the basis that we could stand to lose huge chunks of money if we had a computer or internet failure while we had 20+ tables loaded. Barring something like that though why do you think you need more buyins to multitable?

That is one major component to what I'm saying. If you say "okay, I need at least 50 buy ins at my level". If you play 24 at once, and God forbid, something major happens like a power outage, you have lost almost half of your roll.

Variance IS affected by the number of tables we play. If you have 24 tables open and start tilting badly, you can suffer some major downswings. Now, in general, more tables=lower variance, but if you go through a major downswing, if your # of buy ins is limited, you can quickly find yourself in trouble. If you only 4 table or 6 table, it will take much longer to reach that point.

 

[OzExorcist]

Variance IS affected by the number of tables we play. If you have 24 tables open and start tilting badly, you can suffer some major downswings. Now, in general, more tables=lower variance, but if you go through a major downswing, if your # of buy ins is limited, you can quickly find yourself in trouble. If you only 4 table or 6 table, it will take much longer to reach that point.

You know that variance and losing because you're playing bad (because of tilt or whatever) are two different things, right?

 

[Logan2]

When you see the require BR to make you feel safe, i do think #tables have some importance.

Is not the same that i have 50 buyins and want to take a shot for the next level 4 tabling, lose a couple of sessions and still have a healthy BR, than 20 tabling have a couple bad sessions and then almost get broke or only 10-20 buyins left wich will make you drop in level.

For that case i do think 50 buyins is ok for 4 tables but not for 20 tables because with 20 you are investing almost half of your BR in 1 session.

I remember seeing some where (i think was S&G planet) that in the BR calculator suggest BR considering 1-4 tables or 5+.

For 1-4tables i think suggest 50buyins and for 5+ suggest at least 15 extra buyins (65 buyins) if are semipro (who got some extra income from poker) or recreational or pro)

Let me see if find it.

 

[Logan2]

Find it.

For Recreational i think suggest 25-30 buyins and for Pro 75/100

At the end important is where we feel safe, i feel safe with 100 (7-8 tabling), when was 4 tabling feel safe with 50, some feel safe with more, some with less.

 

[OzExorcist]

*sigh*

Can we all at least start by agreeing that the number of tables you're playing has zero effect on your variance?

 

[Logan2]

*sigh*

Can we all at least start by agreeing that the number of tables you're playing has zero effect on your variance?

LOL

Don´t understand this until read 2nd post of Zack, yes, agree with you with that Oz. tables played have nothing to do with variance.

Now, by general rule i know that most people say that #tables played have nothing to do with the buyins required, and to some point is true. In teory with 50 buyins have the chance to play 50 games, no matter if are 50 games in sessions of 1 game (50 sessions) or 50 games playing 2 tables (25 sessions), you should be safe to not go broke (if are a winning player if not will go broke 1 tabling or 20-tabling), but also need to consider that is not the same to risk less than 10% of your BR at a time(example 4 tabling with 50 buyins), to risk 20% 8-10tabling or 40% of your BR if want to 20 table with 50 buyins.

I think your point is that BR is for protect to not go broke because of variance, and looking in that way that you play 1 table or 20 have nothing to do with variance. True.

But varience also is not something that you can measure in games, i mean stadistically some people have bad streaks of 20 buyins, some more, some less, but that don´t mean you going to reach the game 20 and variance will stop.

We see it every day, some times it take a couple of days when you dont hit nothing or you hit and other hit harder, or your 80/20 never hold, some times take more than a couple days, but how you measure how long will take?. If some one play 100 games and do it super great could be a heater or if go super bad could be a downswing.

I think there is where #of tables make his important prescence, if your bad days going to last 2 days no matter what (just and example) and you only 4-tabling maybe you go 8-16 buyins down depending how much games you play, but if you play 20 tables can end busting all your BR just in that, not because more tables mean more variance, but because more tables means more games inside that variance (good or bad).

I mean, variance is not only downswings, we all have sessions when you win everything no matter what, and you want to keep playing and playing, the thing is what when bad variance come, have couple of horrible days, even take a break and downswing go all the week, and not because bad play (maybe also bad play but not only because of that).

In other words, like you comment variance is the same playing 1 or 20 tables, but if variance come still will hit but if play more tables means could hurt more your BR.

For that point of view i don´t see wrong have more buyins if play more tables, and not because more tables mean more variance, but because more tables mean more games inside that variance, and more % of your BR in risk in any given time.

 

[OzExorcist]

In other words, like you comment variance is the same playing 1 or 20 tables, but if variance come still will hit but if play more tables means could hurt more your BR.

Sorry but it just doesn't work this way.

Variance isn't something you can wait out. It poses the exact same risk to your bankroll over the space of 20, 50 or however many games whether you play them one at a time or all at the same time and whether you play them over the space of an hour or a week. You can't dodge its negative effects by stretching out time it takes you to play your games. The only difference is the effects will show over a period of days or weeks instead of hours.

Don't get me wrong, if people want some extra bankroll padding when they're multitabling there's nothing wrong with that. As we've discussed above there might even be some good reasons (like crashes and disconnects) if you're mass-multitabling. Players that are prone to debilitating monkey tilt might also want some extra padding given that they can't just quit the games they're already registered for when a beat on one table causes them to play bad on the other 15 they're seated at - though I'd suggest that players with this problem should deal with it before they start playing that many tables.

All I'm saying is know why you're doing it. Because the flipside is people believing that they're protecting themselves from variance by only playing a few tables at a time or only playing a few games a day when the truth is it makes absolutely no difference. The swings (both positive and negative) won't be any smaller and there's absolutely no change in terms of risk to your bankroll.