sit and go binge concept

[strategy 4]

I'm aware that many people have done something similar to this before. They probably didn't have as great a name for it as I do.I've started playing sit and gos at a pretty ridiculous rate lately. I've named the concept the "sit and go binge," and it entails starting 12 or more tournaments simultaneously and playing f0r 4+ hours, starting new tournaments as you bust from the existing ones. It sounds really stupid, right?I'm a broke college student. Pokerroom's vicious pot limit omaha game "felted" me in short order this August. For those of you who haven't played the $100PLO game on PR, there's usually about $3000 on the table and every pot is raised and re-raised pot preflop. This is PLO, high variance style. I lost because of some negative variance, but this was my fault for ignoring bankroll requirements after I hit a rough stretch. I digress.I had a tiny bankroll (~$200) and I'm an impatient person. I felt adventurous one night and started 16 $5.50 tournaments on PokerStars with a mixture of 1, 2, 3, and 5-table sit and gos. I staggered my registrations so I could focus on the crunch time (shorthanded play) in 5 tournaments and coast through the others. I did this on a laptop with a touchpad. Yeah, I bought a mouse the next day.I really like it. It sounds crazy, but it stresses the fundamentals and really allows you to see the math in action. There's variance, but it's much less exaggerated this way. By far the most positive effect I've seen is my steam control. I don't get mad when I lose as a favorite--I'm disappointed in myself when I lose as a dog as a result of my own bad play. There's simply no time to mourn over the demise of my cowboys at the hands of acey-deucey. I've had people watch me play these and the most common complaint I hear is that I'll jam the money in with a small pair and run into AK and switch over somewhere else and not even pay attention to who won the race. It becomes less entertainment and more profit-motivated this way. I watch to see see whether I'm behind or ahead, assess the situation, and move on in a split second before all the cards are out.The result of this all is a pretty low ROI. At the $5 level, I was showing something like $1.25 on every $5.50. I've only been able to play more than 10 at PokerStars. PartyPoker's terrible software makes it difficult and I need the user pictures to remember the table layout and my various observations on a table-by-table basis.Has anybody else tried this? Has my testimonial convinced anybody to take a shot at it? I have a pretty efficient system for playing a sit and go from start to finish almost on cruise control from start to finish and I'd be glad to elaborate if anybody shows interest.

[mk 11]

i've done this exact thing on stars and full tilt. i really enjoy it when i feel like playing NLH. if i play 5 $20 S&Gs simultaneously, I feel like the variance is minimized moreso than if I were playing in NL cash games with the same $100 amount at risk.i agree completely about the steam control part. you simply have to move on. there's no time for pity parties.

[nell789 0]

Has anybody else tried this? Has my testimonial convinced anybody to take a shot at it? I have a pretty efficient system for playing a sit and go from start to finish almost on cruise control from start to finish and I'd be glad to elaborate if anybody shows interest.

I'd be interested in your "efficient system" as I play alot of sng's myself, and it never hurts to see different perspectives on strategy.

[strategy 4]

I'd be interested in your "efficient system" as I play alot of sng's myself, and it never hurts to see different perspectives on strategy.

I read a journal entry by a guy named Jerrod Ankenman a long time ago where he was in one of the step 5 $1k sit and gos on Party. It was at level 2 and he still had his initial 1k in starting chips, dealt AKs in late position. Four people limp in for 30 ahead of him and he jammed for the full 1000 and got called in one spot: an UTG limper decided to look him up with A5. Since then, I've done the same. I jam with AA-TT, AK whenever more than a few people have limped in before me. Yeah, I run into AA occasionally, but I also get called by AK-A9, KQ-KT, 99-22 pretty often.In the early stages, I'm always looking to do these types of things. I gamble (within reason) and try to build up a stack and use it as a weapon when the tournament gets short-handed. At that point, it becomes a clear math game. Even when you're jamming your money in and will only be called by a better hand, the blinds are so huge that you are getting way the best of it even if they will only call you when dominated.There's a lot more to it, but that's the basic idea: build up a stack, beat them over the head with it when the blinds get big and the table gets short. The fact that you're gambling more than usual is what allows you to maximize the effort you put into each tournament--you double your equity right out of the gate or move on to the next tournament.

[nell789 0]

I'd be interested in your "efficient system" as I play alot of sng's myself, and it never hurts to see different perspectives on strategy.

I read a journal entry by a guy named Jerrod Ankenman a long time ago where he was in one of the step 5 $1k sit and gos on Party. It was at level 2 and he still had his initial 1k in starting chips, dealt AKs in late position. Four people limp in for 30 ahead of him and he jammed for the full 1000 and got called in one spot: an UTG limper decided to look him up with A5. Since then, I've done the same. I jam with AA-TT, AK whenever more than a few people have limped in before me. Yeah, I run into AA occasionally, but I also get called by AK-A9, KQ-KT, 99-22 pretty often.In the early stages, I'm always looking to do these types of things. I gamble (within reason) and try to build up a stack and use it as a weapon when the tournament gets short-handed. At that point, it becomes a clear math game. Even when you're jamming your money in and will only be called by a better hand, the blinds are so huge that you are getting way the best of it even if they will only call you when dominated.There's a lot more to it, but that's the basic idea: build up a stack, beat them over the head with it when the blinds get big and the table gets short. The fact that you're gambling more than usual is what allows you to maximize the effort you put into each tournament--you double your equity right out of the gate or move on to the next tournament.

Hmm, that's interesting....I think I'll try that, as I think I have a really good bubble/shorthanded game, but am always fighting from the short stack because I find it nearly impossible to build a stack from the first 3 blind levels (Party).

[flyingmoose 0]

I 8-tabled the PartyPoker $22 and $33 tournaments for a while. It was fun at first, because it was the first time in my life I made good money playing poker, but it turns into a grind pretty quickly. By the way, a >20% ROI in single table tournaments is pretty good, regardless of the buy-in.

[strategy 4]

I 8-tabled the PartyPoker $22 and $33 tournaments for a while. It was fun at first, because it was the first time in my life I made good money playing poker, but it turns into a grind pretty quickly. By the way, a >20% ROI in single table tournaments is pretty good, regardless of the buy-in.

I've taken to doing much the same with party and I haven't gotten bored with it yet. I guess I gotta give it some time, huh?What ROI were you showing at the $22 tournaments?

[TeeSludge 0]

I just recently started a quest that is similar to what ZeeJustin did when he played 1,000 200+15 SnG's. My goal is to play 500 30+3 SnG's. He 8 and 12 tabled and completed it in like a month I think. I will be 3-4 tabling and it will take me a bit longer because I play more live then I do online.

[copernicus 0]

I'll be the lone dissenter here. I dont think you can more than 3 table SnGs and maintain your maximum ROI. If the $ amount of income is insufficient, raise the buy in and still3 table.It is a common mistake to think that multi-tabling "reduces variance". It does not. Variance increases the more tables you play, just not proportionally to the number of tables, but with the square root of the number of tables.

[flyingmoose 0]

I 8-tabled the PartyPoker $22 and $33 tournaments for a while. It was fun at first, because it was the first time in my life I made good money playing poker, but it turns into a grind pretty quickly. By the way, a >20% ROI in single table tournaments is pretty good, regardless of the buy-in.

I've taken to doing much the same with party and I haven't gotten bored with it yet. I guess I gotta give it some time, huh?What ROI were you showing at the $22 tournaments?

I never really got "bored" per se. Poker is always at least a little fun, even when mechanically 8-tabling a mostly mathematical format. I just had a lot LESS fun than I did playing multi-table tournaments and ring games. I held an 18% ROI over about 1200 22s.

[strategy 4]

I'll be the lone dissenter here. I dont think you can more than 3 table SnGs and maintain your maximum ROI. If the $ amount of income is insufficient, raise the buy in and still3 table.It is a common mistake to think that multi-tabling "reduces variance". It does not. Variance increases the more tables you play, just not proportionally to the number of tables, but with the square root of the number of tables.

For whatever reason, I've always felt uncomfortable playing at the limits my bankroll can sustain. It seems sick to be playing $100 tournaments when I should be pinching pennies and trying to pay off a student loan. The end result is that I'm playing a maximum of $50 buy-in on a $4000 bankroll. It makes sense to someone like me who doesn't want to see big swings to play multiple $20 tournaments over a single $100. I didn't mean to say that it reduces variance. I meant to say that you hit the 'long run' much faster when you're playing a ton of tournaments. I never assumed that loading up a sick number of tables could magically circumvent the laws of math. Why would it be anything but the same amount of variance?I don't think I ever claimed that the ROI was any higher this way. I will admit that it is probably significantly worse--I caught myself making minor mistakes on a constant basis in the early going. I've since moved on, but the experience taught me many things about playing shorthanded. Should I call it accelerated education?