Logical or not?

[Chipsteal_jj]

So I've been thinking about this a lot. Finally I've decided to write it here instead of just keeping it to me.

My idea is if you have $1000 in br -
Play 1 game, stt 9 max with a buyin of $100 instead of multi-tabling 10 games with $10 buyin. This way you'll save time as well as play better because you are focusing only on one table and only 8 other players which can give you more chances of winning. Not to forget in 9 handed stt 30% (3 players) get money compared to mtts where its around 10-20% winning.

Benefits are-
1. Save time. If you lose you can work on something else and earn money alongside. If you win your return of investment is pretty decent and you can still work on something else for extra money. ( Imagine working 9-5, coming home and spending less than 2 hours to make money you wouldve made on smaller tables all day)

2. Better concentration. You dont have to focus on different tables so you dont miss the mistakes other players made and can get better reads.

3. Improve game. Playing a higher stake may sometimes mean better players to compete with.



This is just a little theory I have. I would love all of you to give some critic and opinion on this.
Thank you

Chipsteal_

 

[Peak92]

I would love all of you to give some critic and opinion on this.
Thank you

Ask you shall recieve.

So let's start saying it's just wrong thinking. That's first.

Your benefits - wrong assumptions aswell. You can't treat this like a saving time. In poker, patiece is an virtue.

Better concentration. You dont have to focus on different tables so you dont miss the mistakes other players made and can get better reads

I play better, playing on 8 or 10 tables. Depends on player.

Improve game. Playing a higher stake may sometimes mean better players to compete with.

You still can find weak players in 100$ tourneys.

My friend played once spin&go for 100$, despite having to small BR for that. He won 2500$ in it, still you won't say he made right decision.

 

[S3mper]

So I've been thinking about this a lot. Finally I've decided to write it here instead of just keeping it to me.

My idea is if you have $1000 in br -
Play 1 game, stt 9 max with a buyin of $100 instead of multi-tabling 10 games with $10 buyin. This way you'll save time as well as play better because you are focusing only on one table and only 8 other players which can give you more chances of winning. Not to forget in 9 handed stt 30% (3 players) get money compared to mtts where its around 10-20% winning.

Benefits are-
1. Save time. If you lose you can work on something else and earn money alongside. If you win your return of investment is pretty decent and you can still work on something else for extra money. ( Imagine working 9-5, coming home and spending less than 2 hours to make money you wouldve made on smaller tables all day)

2. Better concentration. You dont have to focus on different tables so you dont miss the mistakes other players made and can get better reads.

3. Improve game. Playing a higher stake may sometimes mean better players to compete with.



This is just a little theory I have. I would love all of you to give some critic and opinion on this.
Thank you

Chipsteal_

That's only 10 buy-ins. For SnG's I like to have around 100 buy-ins. I have bad BRM though so usually do 70 buy ins.

Of course with single tabling you can cut this down but definately not to 10 Buy-ins.

 

[rytciaq]

Not a wise choice. It will make you get bad-beaten like 5 times in a row and you'll get on tilt, since you would've lost half of your bankroll. Then, wanting to come back, you go all-in $500 sit'n'go. Probably lose it all.

Even if you are very good with managing tilt, it's still not wise to play with only 10 buy-ins.

 

[rickroll]

Most of the time you either won't cash or basically just earn double your buyin. This means you need a large sample size of sng and mtt play before even a winning player can reliably show a profit.

It's not about the amount wagered at a single time, it's the amount wagered on a single bet (or in this case sng).

Don't do it, you'll either bust or run well - not learn your brm lesson - move up and then bust.

As a micro stakes mtt player that occasionally makes a move trust me it's not worth it. If it pays out great but you need to finish deep to really profit and 10 is not enough to guarantee a deep finish even if you are a good player. Several times I've shot for the moon and put in half my bankroll on six mtts at once only to cash in 4 of them but because none were deep I'd still end up in the negative.

Look at it this way, you could feasibly cash in 4 of those sngs for a very very ITM% but still have lost money because you didn't win any of the heads up coin flips after the bubble burst.

 

[Poker247]

Very risky move to jump from comfortable playing $10 Sngs to playing $100 Sngs with (most likely) stronger players. Sure, there will still be a couple rec players at the table, but unless you play those stakes every day and cash at least 1/2-2/3 of the time, the variance will eat you alive. If you have a hard time concentrating because you are playing too many tables, then play one less. Some people are comfortable playing 2 tables, others 8-10. Just depends on experience and whether you are using a hud (most big multi-tablers use huds). While I think it is awesome that you want to challenge yourself to improve your game, if you have a huge win rate at $10 tables, then go for $20 tables and keep working your way up. When you get to a level that you struggle at, you will definitely have to improve your game. All that said, variance can damage even a professional's bankroll, so try to keep enough of a bankroll behind you to sustain losing some flips for your entire stack (happens to everyone). Gl!

 

[MASURON2KE]

very bad thinking BRM=0
variance in 100$ can be worse then 10$ sng

 

[westside1950]

You won't learn anything playing just one SNG.

More SNGs, less variance, and a lot of more tough spots and situations where you can build your experiance on and learn more quickly...

 

[ph_il]

Playing 1 $100 SNGs =/= playing 10 $10 SNGs in any way.

Yes, you are risking the same amount of money, but the margin for error is much wider the less buy-ins you have. Most top $100 SNG players can expect an ROI of 5%-10% over a large sample size. It's very possible you can hit way below/above this with only 10 games, but you'll never truly know unless you play 10K+ $100 SNGs. At least with the $10 SNGs, you play more games and can get better ROI from 100 games than you can 10 games, and even then 100 games 1% of 10K+ games needed.

If multi-tabling and concentration is an issue, stop multi-tabling. Or reduce the number of tables. Yes, it's easier to concentrate one game at a time, but that added concentration doesn't prevent variance from happening. At least with 100 games, you can handle those downswings but easier than you can 10 games.

As far as making more money, it would really depend on your expected ROI and how many tables you multi. Online expect ROI of good players for $10 SNGs is ~15%. If we say you can multi-table 5 games and each session takes 1.5 hours each or 30 hours total. With an ROI of 15%, you're making $1.50 x 100 games or $150 in profits. With the total time spent, you're making $5/hour. If we lowered the ROI to 10%, you're making $3.33/hour.

Now for $100 SNGs, the expect ROI of good players is ~5%. With that ROI, you're only making $5 a game x 10 or $50 in profits. With an average time of 1.5 hours per game or 15 hours in total, you're making $3.33 an hour. Of course, the 5% is based off of a large sample size. If you manage to do slightly better, say 8% ROI, then you're making $8 a game or $80 in profit. This equals to $5.33/hour. At 10%, you're making $6.67/hour

So, you're either breaking even with multi-tabling $10 SNGs or you're pulling slightly ahead when playing $100 SNGs. Keep in mind that 10 games is nowhere large enough and it's very possible to have a much lower ROI with just 10 games played, making the $10 games more profitable in the long run.

 

[Chipsteal_jj]

Your benefits - wrong assumptions aswell. You can't treat this like a saving time. In poker, patiece is an virtue.
What I'm trying to say is that you can save time as you're not playing a lot of games. I'm not saying that you should hurry up while game is on. Be patient in poker and take as long as you want for the right decisions. But since you are playing less games you will have time for doing other things too.


I play better, playing on 8 or 10 tables. Depends on player.
How do you judge your players then? Do you use HUDs or do you manage to watch every hand?


You still can find weak players in 100$ tourneys.
I did say 'may sometimes'

My friend played once spin&go for 100$, despite having to small BR for that. He won 2500$ in it, still you won't say he made right decision.
I cant disagree with you on this since its a spin&go

Thanks

 

[Chipsteal_jj]

Not a wise choice. It will make you get bad-beaten like 5 times in a row and you'll get on tilt, since you would've lost half of your bankroll. Then, wanting to come back, you go all-in $500 sit'n'go. Probably lose it all. Can't this happen playing smaller tables too?

Even if you are very good with managing tilt, it's still not wise to play with only 10 buy-ins.

That's only 10 buy-ins. For SnG's I like to have around 100 buy-ins. I have bad BRM though so usually do 70 buy ins.

Of course with single tabling you can cut this down but definately not to 10 Buy-ins.

Investing more in BR then? Is that a better option?

 

[S3mper]

Investing more in BR then? Is that a better option?

Depends if your either

*A winning player at $100 SnG's
or
*Have enough to where you just consider it as entertainment money


If you are a winning player at $100 SNG's then I don't know why a person wouldn't play them as much as possible unless they can make more somewhere else.

lol.



To play in those games right you'll need at least $10,000

/The reason 10 buy-ins isn't even relatively close enough is because a winning player can go on a 20+ Buy-in down swing. I think the number is something like 20 Buy in down swing every 500 games.

Don't quote me on that though.

 

[newbie in training]

So I've been thinking about this a lot. Finally I've decided to write it here instead of just keeping it to me.

My idea is if you have $1000 in br -
Play 1 game, stt 9 max with a buyin of $100 instead of multi-tabling 10 games with $10 buyin. This way you'll save time as well as play better because you are focusing only on one table and only 8 other players which can give you more chances of winning. Not to forget in 9 handed stt 30% (3 players) get money compared to mtts where its around 10-20% winning.

Benefits are-
1. Save time. If you lose you can work on something else and earn money alongside. If you win your return of investment is pretty decent and you can still work on something else for extra money. ( Imagine working 9-5, coming home and spending less than 2 hours to make money you wouldve made on smaller tables all day)

2. Better concentration. You dont have to focus on different tables so you dont miss the mistakes other players made and can get better reads.

3. Improve game. Playing a higher stake may sometimes mean better players to compete with.



This is just a little theory I have. I would love all of you to give some critic and opinion on this.
Thank you

Chipsteal_

if you really want to gamble try 50+5 and if your a good player should be able to get a profit without going bust keep in mind these stakes arent typically for the entertainment oriented player theyre for the guy making a living busting your balls and knocking some benjamins out of them

 

[BogdanStark]

I've better play 5 than 10 SnG but more expensive.
If you're good in SnG 5 tables must be comfortable to see all opponents moves.
But honestly, I would like more cash games than SnG, you ask why? Cause If you're playing well and profit, you already see it, and if you're very unlucky you can immediately leave bad tables and open new ones.

 

[S3mper]

if you really want to gamble try 50+5 and if your a good player should be able to get a profit without going bust keep in mind these stakes arent typically for the entertainment oriented player theyre for the guy making a living busting your balls and knocking some benjamins out of them

$55 games is still less than 20 buy-ins.

Maybe taking one shot in one game but not to grind.

 

[starting_at_the_bottom]

My idea is if you have $1000 in br -
Play 1 game, stt 9 max with a buyin of $100 instead of multi-tabling 10 games with $10 buyin. This way you'll save time as well as play better because you are focusing only on one table and only 8 other players which can give you more chances of winning. Not to forget in 9 handed stt 30% (3 players) get money compared to mtts where its around 10-20% winning.



Benefits are-
1. Save time. If you lose you can work on something else and earn money alongside. If you win your return of investment is pretty decent and you can still work on something else for extra money. ( Imagine working 9-5, coming home and spending less than 2 hours to make money you wouldve made on smaller tables all day)

** You will not save time. Say the average tourney lasts 30minutes, you will be playing for about 30 minutes wether you are playing 1 on its own or 10 at the same time.

2. Better concentration. You dont have to focus on different tables so you dont miss the mistakes other players made and can get better reads.

Players at $10 tourneys make shed loads of mistakes, players at $100 games make much fewer.

3. Improve game. Playing a higher stake may sometimes mean better players to compete with.

This is a common misconception. I like playing football, indeed I play for a team. If me and my mates challenged FC Barcelona to a game and subsequently got whooped 73-0, would it make us better players? No, of course it wouldnt. Poker players improve by reading up on theories, reviewing hands etc, not via getting owned by better players.

This is just a little theory I have. I would love all of you to give some critic and opinion on this.
Thank you

Chipsteal_

My comments in bold.

Plus you need to consider if a 10 buy in bankroll when playing against decent players is a good idea (hint it isnt).

 

[detroitjunkie]

well everyone here pretty much already summed it up, its a bad idea altogether. And to top it all off you should not be multitabling 10 sngs at the same time either, its a mistake unless you have a great computer, a HUD, and the experience doing this...plus absolutely no distractions - ive seen and heard stories of people folding monsters by mistake doing this, ive done it myself, there is no need to do it. if you want to play higher stakes then get a bigger bank roll, if you dont you will be depositing more sooner than later anyways

 

[MoeJurphy]

Surely we play the 10x $10 BI sng to balance out variance. 1 bad beat = 10BI instead of 10%.

 

[joe777]

For sng of 9 player i recommeend you follow at least 20 buy-in brm.