Is this SNG BR managment article any good?

[shysti]

http://pokerforums.fulltiltpoker.com...er-play51.html

I want you guys opinion on it, I've read the ones on our site but does this make sense to you?

[DogOnMySide]

I quite like that... although if you're not actually a winning player it looks like a way to lose what money you have at a faster rate.

I guess I better boot up a $55 this afternoon!

[JeffreyGB]

Sounds like a bad idea to me. He's talking about moving down when you don't have the proper roll as if it's innovative - it's not. And there's nothing else in there that helps counter the added blow of variance that will come from this.

The main fallacy I see is the claim that it will be easy to make back what you lose on a bad streak. Because you're always playing with a big chunk of your roll on the line, when you hit a bad streak, you lose big. Then you're left with peanuts in your roll to try to pick up the peices.

The only way this would be imaginable is if you PLAN to redeposit if/when you hit a bad streak.

Personally, I think even 20-30x is too liberal for the games at/above the $55 level.

[DogOnMySide]

Another thought I had whilst out doing the shopping is this - it's really weirdly susceptible to the results you get.

Start with a bankroll of 550... Let's say you play a set of 5 tournaments.
You win 1
You 2nd 1
You OOTM the other 3. (between 4 and 9)

Imagine the order in which these results come is:
1, 9, 2, 4, 8, 6
Your bankroll does this:
55, 1st = 225. Bankroll = 550-55+225 = 720
55, 9th = 0. Bankroll = 720-55 = 665
55, 2nd = 135. BR = 665-55+135 = 745
55, 4th =0. BR=745-55 = 690
55, 8th = 0. BR=690-55 = 635
55, 6th = 0. BR=635-55 = 580

OK... Now assume you have the same run of results but in this order:
9, 6, 8, 2, 1
Your bankroll goes:
55, 9th = 0. BR=550-55 = 495 (NB you're no longer bankrolled for the 55s)
33, 6th = 0. BR=495-33=462
33, 8th = 0. BR=462-33=429
33, 2nd = 81. BR = 429+81 = 510
33, 1st = 135. BR=510+135 = 645

See what I mean? You make more money if you lose three then do okay than if you win straight away, as all future losses come at a higher cost!

I'm not saying this is a terrible thing, it's just a weird one. Perhaps if you started the above example at a different level than the minimum for 55's then it might pan out differently.

I can't be arsed to work it out, I have a $22 to win.

[shysti]

Another thing I was thinkin about too is this doesn't seem to take into account your skill level, I meany sure anyone can start out with $500 bankroll, I just deposited that myself into my own account this week.

But can I play the 55 sng level? Hell no and wouldn't try either just because I can follow his diagram b/c I have the starting roll for it.

[THaC]

Another thought I had whilst out doing the shopping is this - it's really weirdly susceptible to the results you get.

Start with a bankroll of 550... Let's say you play a set of 5 tournaments.
You win 1
You 2nd 1
You OOTM the other 3. (between 4 and 9)

Imagine the order in which these results come is:
1, 9, 2, 4, 8, 6
Your bankroll does this:
55, 1st = 225. Bankroll = 550-55+225 = 720
55, 9th = 0. Bankroll = 720-55 = 665
55, 2nd = 135. BR = 665-55+135 = 745
55, 4th =0. BR=745-55 = 690
55, 8th = 0. BR=690-55 = 635
55, 6th = 0. BR=635-55 = 580

OK... Now assume you have the same run of results but in this order:
9, 6, 8, 2, 1
Your bankroll goes:
55, 9th = 0. BR=550-55 = 495 (NB you're no longer bankrolled for the 55s)
33, 6th = 0. BR=495-33=462
33, 8th = 0. BR=462-33=429
33, 2nd = 81. BR = 429+81 = 510
33, 1st = 135. BR=510+135 = 645

See what I mean? You make more money if you lose three then do okay than if you win straight away, as all future losses come at a higher cost!

I'm not saying this is a terrible thing, it's just a weird one. Perhaps if you started the above example at a different level than the minimum for 55's then it might pan out differently.

I can't be arsed to work it out, I have a $22 to win.

You had 4 losses on your top "set"?

[MAX]

This strategy is basically written for a player whose skills are greater than their bankroll. You should be playing at the level which gives you the highest ROI/Hourly rate/satisfaction-- whichever is most important to you. I guess if you had the skillz to play the bigger buyins, but not the roll, this might work to get you there quicker.

[shysti]

This strategy is basically written for a player whose skills are greater than their bankroll. You should be playing at the level which gives you the highest ROI/Hourly rate/satisfaction-- whichever is most important to you. I guess if you had the skillz to play the bigger buyins, but not the roll, this might work to get you there quicker.

Hmm, I normally play at the 11 sng on stars but I know my skill level is above this, I played in one of the 33 sng and found just as easy as the 11 level, so my question is based off of what you said should I try that level or even try this guy's article strategy for maximizing my ROI, even though I am putting my BR at a higher risk?

[MAX]

One or two SnGs doesn't reliably indicate the skill level of the 33s. If you have a 500 roll, the ability, and the discipline to move back down, why not just take a shot at the 22s (or whatever stars offers between the 11s and 33s)? I think that long term there is a benefit to moving up slowly after thoroughly crushing each level. There is no replacement for experience. That article seems like something an underrolled pro would use to make their way up to bigger games.