5 Or 10 Sitngos

[delasoul 0]

Was curious to know when starting with a hundred dollars would you prefer a 5 or 10 dollar sitngo. I totally destroyed my bankroll which was only 550 but I started with .25/50 and 84 dollars and built it up to each staked until I had 300x the bb and then moved up. Last night I was being the biggest donkey from being on TILT over the past few months from not being able to grow at the pace I was at the other stakes. After doing the normal thing that any poker player on TILT does when they aspire to make money and become a proffesional they go to higher stakes where there bankroll is nowhere close to what is needed. After that miserably failed a poker player of my caliber decided to do the next great thing and decided black jack was the next best thing so after 5 months of blood sweat and tears I have to start over.Instead of playing limit to build it I want to try sitngos this time as that was what I started doing last minute before donkey me showed up to the party. I started keeping track lately on the 5 dollar one briefly and was 3-9 in the 5 dollar ones before I decided it was a good time to hit the rail.Any advice would be appreciated. If 200 would give me more breathing room on the 10 dollars then that is something I would consider too. I couldn't sleep last night because of the donkey move I made. I could have easily just transfered the remaing money to netteller and waited till i calmed down to play poker again. A lesson definitley learned and I hope none of you do that.Sorry for all the B.S. and the flapping of my gums. I laid in the fetal position in my bed last night pondering where it all went wrong haha

[jjgoldy5 0]

100 / 10$ = 10 Buy-InsI think this is not enough. I would start with the 5$ ones if I were you, they are extremely soft (as are the 10's), but if you go on a bad run in the 10$ SNGs, you could be out half your bank roll in a few bad hands.Concentrate on survival for the first few levels, avoid big confrontations with marginal hands (play tight)... Doing so serves two purposes. 1. The crazy donks who are likely to suck out on you are eliminated, (you can easily coast into 5th or 6th with a decent stack without playing a hand in many SNGs)2. You develop a tight image, so when you get aggressive at the end of the tourney --which you should-- you are more likely to have your raises respected.Good luck

[delasoul 0]

100 / 10$ = 10 Buy-InsI think this is not enough. I would start with the 5$ ones if I were you, they are extremely soft (as are the 10's), but if you go on a bad run in the 10$ SNGs, you could be out half your bank roll in a few bad hands.Concentrate on survival for the first few levels, avoid big confrontations with marginal hands (play tight)... Doing so serves two purposes. 1. The crazy donks who are likely to suck out on you are eliminated, (you can easily coast into 5th or 6th with a decent stack without playing a hand in many SNGs)2. You develop a tight image, so when you get aggressive at the end of the tourney --which you should-- you are more likely to have your raises respected.Good luck

Thanks for the info...i was thinking the same thing. Getting off to a good start will be a big factor

[strategy 4]

If you're playing $5 SNGs (and you should with only $100) you probably want to play at PokerStars where they only charge 10% rake. Most of the other online sites charge $5+$1, which is enough of a difference to turn a slightly winning player into a losing one. Don't move up to $10 until you have about $300. The rule is 30 buyins.I have a friend that did exactly what you did for the longest time. I'm sure if you repeat this process a few more times you'll start sticking to your rules.

[jjgoldy5 0]

I have a friend that did exactly what you did for the longest time. I'm sure if you repeat this process a few more times you'll start sticking to your rules.

Yeah I have a "friend" who did that too.....

[strategy 4]

Yeah I have a "friend" who did that too.....

LOL. I never had a problem with bankroll management in terms of sitting at the right limits. It was spending money on alcohol and other things that did me in. From the very beginning, I always felt like I was losing money if I was sitting at a higher limit than I could afford to play. Going out and spending $2k on a laptop with a $3k roll didn't bother me for some reason, though.

[delasoul 0]

LOL. I never had a problem with bankroll management in terms of sitting at the right limits. It was spending money on alcohol and other things that did me in. From the very beginning, I always felt like I was losing money if I was sitting at a higher limit than I could afford to play. Going out and spending $2k on a laptop with a $3k roll didn't bother me for some reason, though.

I'm still in shock from it. I should have just had someone kick me in the nutz as hard as they can and called it good. It would have had the same effect and saved me a ton of money.

[Peak01 0]

I think everyone has gone through that and there really isn't much someone can say to make you feel better. Just know that you are not alone then do the following.1) Crank up the "Rocky" Theme song.2) Step up like you have a pair of Cannon Balls! 3) RELOAD!

[Actuary 3]

usually those that preach BR discipline get laughed at by those that don't know why you need it or by those that have excess income and thus see no need for a BR.that being said: Isn't 30 Buy-in's awefully high?that is to say: If you lose $300 at $10 SnG's, could you still possibly be a long term winner?

[strategy 4]

usually those that preach BR discipline get laughed at by those that don't know why you need it or by those that have excess income and thus see no need for a BR.that being said: Isn't 30 Buy-in's awefully high?that is to say: If you lose $300 at $10 SnG's, could you still possibly be a long term winner?

I doubt anyone could go broke on $300 playing winning poker at the $10 level, yeah. I think the 30 number is right though. It's partially a psychological thing: you don't have to win this SNG to keep playing... you've got 25 chances after this one.It's possible to have a horrible run that can last that long, though. ZeeJustin has a post about losing 40 in a row on his website.

[Peak01 0]

usually those that preach BR discipline get laughed at by those that don't know why you need it or by those that have excess income and thus see no need for a BR.that being said: Isn't 30 Buy-in's awefully high?that is to say: If you lose $300 at $10 SnG's, could you still possibly be a long term winner?

I think you can. I have a decent ROI and a good ITM percentage at the $22 sng's but did go through a 4-30 ITM downswing at one point so I think 30x the buy-in is a minimum requirement.

[thenamezjohn 0]

when is it a good idea to move up a level in SNG.. when your BR reaches 30x also?when you consistently place in the money (1 out of every 2-3)?or is there a different standard?im findin myself somewhat succesful in SNG in my short time playing, and any insight would help.. thanks..

[Peak01 0]

when is it a good idea to move up a level in SNG.. when your BR reaches 30x also?when you consistently place in the money (1 out of every 2-3)?or is there a different standard?im findin myself somewhat succesful in SNG in my short time playing, and any insight would help.. thanks..

If you don't want to go broke I really think a 50-100x the buy-in is a must. As for percentages I think the standards are 15-25% ROI (return on investment) and around 30-40% ITM (In the money). You want to make sure you have a good sample for your stats of at least 100+ sng's to.

[Actuary 3]

If you don't want to go broke I really think a 50-100x the buy-in is a must. As for percentages I think the standards are 15-25% ROI (return on investment) and around 30-40% ITM (In the money). You want to make sure you have a good sample for your stats of at least 100+ sng's to.

really?those #'s just don't jive.Lose 50 Buy in's... and still a winning player?If you are ITM 35%, you are barely winning, unless you have a skew of 1st places.$2200 to play 20+2'snah.. c'mon?

[Peak01 0]

really?those #'s just don't jive.Lose 50 Buy in's... and still a winning player?If you are ITM 35%, you are barely winning, unless you have a skew of 1st places.$2200 to play 20+2'snah.. c'mon?

My stats and most forums I chat on don't seem to show much better numbers. 30-40% ITM does produce a 15-20% ROI. You should have a higher percentage of 1st & 2nd place finishes than 3rd place finishes. You could easily have better numbers after 100 sng's but a large sample of 1,000 will tend to level out to these numbers. As for the $2,200 to play 20+2's I have never gone through that big of a swing. The largest I downswing I had was around 20 buy-ins but if you only have 30 buy-ins it could cause some mental anxiety when you lose 66% of your bankroll.

[Actuary 3]

ok..but if you start with 30 Buyins, it's highly unlikely you will lose the first 20 in a row.I always assume for these that we are not withdrawing funds, and thus the BR builds as we win.Why do you say "You should have more 1st and 2nd's than 3rds?"35% ITM distibuted 1-2-3 evenly results in a 6.1% ROI35% ITM distibuted 1st & 2nd 40% and 3rd 20% results in a 14.5% ROI

[thenamezjohn 0]

ok..but if you start with 30 Buyins, it's highly unlikely you will lose the first 20 in a row.I always assume for these that we are not withdrawing funds, and thus the BR builds as we win.Why do you say "You should have more 1st and 2nd's than 3rds?"35% ITM distibuted 1-2-3 evenly results in a 6.1% ROI35% ITM distibuted 1st & 2nd 40% and 3rd 20% results in a 14.5% ROI

whats your take then actuary? what are your answers to my ?s..?

[psujohn 0]

really?those #'s just don't jive.Lose 50 Buy in's... and still a winning player?If you are ITM 35%, you are barely winning, unless you have a skew of 1st places.$2200 to play 20+2'snah.. c'mon?

If you're playing 10-man SNGs 35% ITM is nearly 20% better than average. If you're 33% ITM and equally hit 1/2/3 you'll still make money. That said I think 50 buy-ins is ridiculous. I'm not sure you could lose 50 SNGs in a row without ever cashing even if you tried. If you're reasonably confident that you're a winning player I'd guess that 20 buy-ins would be plenty to start. I'd probably want at least 20% ROI at a level before moving up and 30 buy-ins for the higher level.

[Actuary 3]

whats your take then actuary? what are your answers to my ?s..?

I'd listen to those that know more. (not me)And, I did not start with a SnG BR, but used my Limit BR.As it turned out, I would have needed $33 to play 10+1's because that's as low as I ever got.But if you want to avoid going broke, I'd certainly suggest mroe than 3 buy-ins.You can always move down.20 Buy In's at 20+2 = $440If you were playing 10+1's, you could move to 20's and just go back down if you slip to $220.... that's 10 BuyIn's in a row with no cash. I've had that happen 3 times in the 400+ I've played. Usually before another good upswing (variance).If you move down when you fall to 20x the lower levels BuyIn, you'd have to lose quite a bit to ever go broke.much better than staying at the higher level and losing 20 in a row, imo.

[Peak01 0]

ok..but if you start with 30 Buyins, it's highly unlikely you will lose the first 20 in a row.I always assume for these that we are not withdrawing funds, and thus the BR builds as we win.Why do you say "You should have more 1st and 2nd's than 3rds?"35% ITM distibuted 1-2-3 evenly results in a 6.1% ROI35% ITM distibuted 1st & 2nd 40% and 3rd 20% results in a 14.5% ROI

You are correct. Sorry, was making a general statement. I am just saying that you should get 1st and 2nd more often than 3rd. I even have a higher percentage of 1st place finishes compared to my 2nd place finishes.

[Actuary 3]

I even have a higher percentage of 1st place finishes compared to my 2nd place finishes.

wish I did.I'm about even across all 3, or 2 if 6 Man.Working on that though, it makes a big difference.for me, I try so hard to get into the money that I end up there short stakced a lot and am not enough better HU to compensate. I'd say I have a higher proportion of 1st given my short stack..but not enough to raise the ROI up high

[iggymcfly 0]

I've got a couple things on this thread. First off, I don't see how you'd be a winning player if you have a 35% ITM with an even distribution. Shouldn't the tournament fees eat up all your profit until you're say 3% above average or so?Second, when I was all brokeish 2 months ago, I went on a bad run with SnGs where I lost about $500 playing $11-$33 buy-in levels, so it's certainly possible. I'm not sure that I'm better than break-even at those levels, but I'm definitely sure that I'm a winning player at the $55 - $109 level. (17% ROI through 300+ SnGs.)

[Peak01 0]

wish I did.I'm about even across all 3, or 2 if 6 Man.Working on that though, it makes a big difference.for me, I try so hard to get into the money that I end up there short stakced a lot and am not enough better HU to compensate. I'd say I have a higher proportion of 1st given my short stack..but not enough to raise the ROI up high

You probably have a higher percentage of ITM finishes than me playing that way since I am very aggressive on the bubble. Not sure of the ROI results between the two styles. Would be a good comparison to look at.

[Actuary 3]

You probably have a higher percentage of ITM finishes than me playing that way since I am very aggressive on the bubble. Not sure of the ROI results between the two styles. Would be a good comparison to look at.

if nothing else, you take less time making the same money (if it comes out the same).And 2nd place takes just as long to make as first.I'm not laggy by nature, so the building a big stack is not natural for me... but I am certainly shooting to improve my # of 1st's w/o jeopardizing cashing too much.

[psujohn 0]

I've got a couple things on this thread. First off, I don't see how you'd be a winning player if you have a 35% ITM with an even distribution. Shouldn't the tournament fees eat up all your profit until you're say 3% above average or so?

35% ITM is 5% above average. 33% evenly distributed is break even due to rake - I was wrong earlier when I said it was profitable.

I'm not laggy by nature, so the building a big stack is not natural for me... but I am certainly shooting to improve my # of 1st's w/o jeopardizing cashing too much.

I'm not convinced that taking risks at the bubble to build a big stack makes sense in SNGs. Typically by the time the bubble bursts everyone is short enough stacked that it's going to be push/fold territory. I think better than average push/fold skills combined with the inherent luck of the situation means that you're probably more likely to take first by crawling into the money and getting lucky than taking chances and occassionally making the final 3 with a big stack.