Large (20 table) Sit n Go's???

[Byrddogg]

I'm just curious about some of your opinions on the larger sit n go's?? PokerStars does a 20 table (180 people). I've seen more discussion on the smaller one table and 2 table SnGs and have read DavSimon's great guide on here.

I'm just wondering what some of you think about the larger ones and if they are worth it and if any of you have had much success with them?

[donkbee]

I've had a lot of success at the 2 table SnGs on Stars. Before I hit $1k, I built my entire bankroll playing them. I like them because you only have to play around half an hour longer than a one table SnG but the payout is so much better if you place first. Also, I like the payout structure more. In a one table SnG, you have to place first to make any decent money because the payout is 50%, 30%, 20%. In a two table SnG, the payout is 40%, 30%, 20%, 10%, which I like a lot more.

When you play a multitable SnG, you have to think slightly differently. It's more important to play more hands early-ish because you will be at a full table again once half the field busts and you will need an okay stack. In a one table SnG, you play super tight early and try to get to the bubble. In these things, you try to see cheap flops early and build more of a stack so that when you are at the FT, you aren't in desperation push mode (since it's hard as hell to push at a full table sometimes).

Ask more questions if you wanna know more. Welcome to FTR

[Renton]

the 22/180's are good.

Fields are ultrasoft, one fills up about every 15 minutes.

However, if you want to make real money at poker they really aren't the way to go. You could probably have a 75% return on investment maximum, so that means you'd only win like 15 dollars per each tourney over the long run.

[PokerBarney]

I was under the impression that a 75% ROI was pretty good?

I play the 5 table SNGs. They're a pleasant cross between STT and MTT. Take 1 1/2 hours to play to final table on average, and you get a healthy payout when you win. Plus, they're full of donkeys.

[donkbee]

I loved the 5 table SnGs, I wish they were offered at buyins over $11

Whether or not a ROI is good depends on the game you're playing. For example, you cannot obtain a 75% ROI playing one table SnGs (over a large sample size), but you can playing MTTs. However, if you're playing MTTs, I think people aim for a ROI of over or at least around 100% ... therefore if Renton is right about 75% being around the maximum ROI you ever obtain playing 180s, that kinda sucks depending on what you're looking for.

[Renton]

... therefore if Renton is right about 75% being around the maximum ROI you ever obtain playing 180s, that kinda sucks depending on what you're looking for.

ROI which is possible is directly correlated with field size, i am told.

So 100% is probably more standard at larger field MTTs.

[Byrddogg]

Thanks for the replies. Courtiebee...Which 2 tables are you talking about? The 5, 10 or 20 buy-in variety?

I'm just really starting out. My bankroll is very slim at the moment until around February when I can afford to "really" beef it up. I did a minimum deposit of 50.00 and I have about 90.00 right now. I guess that kind of forces me to deal with the 5 or 6 dollar buy-ins for now but just wanted to know what a potential better ROI is between the 1, 2, 3 or 5 table variety.

I'm an "online" beginner so-to-speak but have been playing locally in various forms for years so I'm not a donkey. So far I seem to be taking to the online game very well and I'm pleased with my results.

Thanks again for the replies. Keep em coming. I'm glad I found this place. Seems like lot's of great people.

[donkbee]

Thanks for the replies. Courtiebee...Which 2 tables are you talking about? The 5, 10 or 20 buy-in variety?

I'm just really starting out. My bankroll is very slim at the moment until around February when I can afford to "really" beef it up. I did a minimum deposit of 50.00 and I have about 90.00 right now. I guess that kind of forces me to deal with the 5 or 6 dollar buy-ins for now but just wanted to know what a potential better ROI is between the 1, 2, 3 or 5 table variety.

I'm an "online" beginner so-to-speak but have been playing locally in various forms for years so I'm not a donkey. So far I seem to be taking to the online game very well and I'm pleased with my results.

Thanks again for the replies. Keep em coming. I'm glad I found this place. Seems like lot's of great people.

If your bankroll is around $90, I would recommend you don't play the two tables for now because they're higher variance and require a bigger roll. If you want to play $5.50 SnGs, I probably wouldn't play the two tables (as my main game) until I had at least $200 (preferably 40 buyins IMO). You're underrolled for even one table SnGs, so playing $5.50s might be a little risky if you can't readily redeposit if you go on a bad run and bust. Personally, I won't play two table SnGs without at least 50 buyins.

That being said, if you are a good player, you could take a shot. It's just a better idea not to if you can't redeposit.

Maybe play some $3.40 turbos on Stars and get your bankroll up to around $120. When it's $120, move up to the $5.50s. Just an idea.

And to answer your question, I was talking about all stakes of two table SnGs on Stars. Most of my experience is at the $11 and $22s, but I have played every buyin up to $55.

[Byrddogg]

That sounds like solid advice actually. I feel like I've actually done better staying away from the SnGs and just been playing the very low stakes .05/.10 games. I'm gonna try to build what little I have right now into something. Come early next year my plan is to have about 400.00 to commit just to my online bankroll.

Until then, I'll deal with what little I have and see what happens. And by the way...I can re-deposit if I HAVE to but only about 50.00 at a time and not more than 2 times a month.

Thanks again.