How do you know when you've 'beat' a stake or level

[wonderland]

Hi there,

Just wondering, some people say they've managed to beat certain levels of SNGs. Let's say they claim to be able to beat $3 and so then go on to $5.

What does it mean, for those of you who can say they've acheived something like the above, to win at that level?

Does it mean you come 1st like 6 times out of 10? does it mean you come 3rd 7 times out of 10? or a combination of 1st, 2nd, 3rd over 6 games out of ten?

I need a marker to aim for so i know how i'm doing. Obviously this is on average, not the first or second time you finish in those positions out of a ten game count.

Cheers.

[taipan168]

I'd focus less on whether you have "beat" a certain level and more on playing your A game and therefore building your bankroll so you can move up to the next level.

However, as for your queries, 10 games is a microscopic sample size to analyse any results. You need to look at it over at least 1000 games. Over that sample size, about 38-45% ITM would be a good result. Personally, I have a roughly even distribution of 1st, 2nd and 3rd places of my ITM finishes but I know others have different spreads.

[wonderland]

hmm. If 45% is a good result, that's not a lot if you consider the 55% you've lost in SNG buy-ins.

I'm trying to figure out if it's worth making money off them and i figured if you finished ITM 60% of the time with 40% 3rd place and 20% 2nd place and the remaining 40% not in the money (sounds about average). You'd be up 1 buy in for every ten games you played.

Now in the 45% model that's not even a full buy-in if you don't finish 1st those times.

Thinking of switching to cash games but i lose 90% of the time at them, whereas in SNGs i lose about 45% of the time and break even.

Any words of advice here would be also appreciated. Cheers

[taipan168]

Well, if you finish ITM 40% of the time and have an even distribution of 1sts, 2nds and 3rds then (assuming a 9 person table) you'd be up just under 1 buyin for every 10 games you played. Remember that poker is a game of pretty small edges over the long run.

[Kijjo]

The math in your example wonderland, didn't include 1sts. Remember that depending on what level (and rake %), 1 first place finish might be worth 4 or 5 third place finishes as far as profit.
I don't think you could manage a reasonable expectation for being a profitable player without a decent amount of 1sts, you'd have to be piling up the 2nds like mad!

[wonderland]

yeah, i find it incredibly hard to make 1st.

i need some good headsup tutorials.

But you're right, finishing 1st two out of ten times would pay off a good amount of the investment. But i can't imagine anyone consistently doing that and you'd still have to finish ITM another 3 times to start to get near the profit.

Gonna put SNGs to bed now and get to work on cash games.

[Ghaleon]

After years of the deposit, win, tilt, lose, deposit again, cycle, I finally decided to stop the bleeding and get more disciplined about my online poker.

I made a rule for myself when playing SNG's. I only play if I have 30 buy-ins at that level. At that time I had $45 dollars in my bankroll so I played the $1.25 SNG's.

My rule was to play the level that allowed me to have 30 buy-ins. However, once I moved up, I would not drop back down until I got below 15 buy-ins.

I grinded my way for about 6 weeks and made enough to start playing the $2.25's. That translates to about a $25 profit over 6 weeks. It doesn't sound like much, but I think it was pretty good when you consider the 25% rake in the $1 SNG's!!

I found the play at the $2.25 to be SIGNIFICANTLY WORSE than the $1.25's. I don't know why, but I got killed there.

I dropped below the 15 buy-in threshold and was ready to move down to the $1.25's again to re-grind my bankroll up so I could take another shot at the $2.25's.

But around that time I played in a live tournament and hit it for a couple grand. So I took $200 and put it online so I could skip over the $2.25's and move right up to the $5.50's.

It's been about two months and I've played about 65 games (I don't play quite as often as alot of people here. Just one or two SNG's a day really). Over those 65 games, I'm up 12 buy-ins. I think that's a healthy profit, but the sample size is probably too small for me to get very excited at this point.

Anyway, to sum it up, you don't really "beat" a level. It has more to do with your bankroll, and the amount of money you feel comfortable playing. 30 buy-ins is my rule, but I've read articles that suggest as little as 10, and as many as 100. But do whatever you're comfortable with.

[Rycky4Golf]

Variance is everywhere, doesn't matter what buy-in, what speed, or even what site you are on. I just did an evaluation of my own play at the $5/$6 turbos and found I had a 19% ROI over 250 games. Still a small sample but it was better than the 10% ROI I posted over 300 regular-speed games of the same buy-in level. Its likely due to a better understanding of push/fold that I have now over when I played the regulars, but it could easily be that I've run better in that time as well.

Also, on both AP and Bodog I held an ROI of around 35%! AP has 9-man tables while Bodog goes with 10 but I had about the same success. However, sit me down at a Stars 6.50 turbo 9-man and my ROI is 30% or so.... in the negative! I play the same game, make the same type of decisions but yet I have run noticeably worse at Stars.

Am I concerned? No. I have less than 100 games on all three sites in those games so while it might be very unusual to get such a breakdown, it can happen. I've always found each level to be just a shade tougher as I go, at least in my experiences, however as long as you make correct decisions, no matter what level you play at, you will be successful.

At these lower levels you'll have plenty of opportunity to let your opponents make the mistakes and play themselves out of the game and that is why a solid player can do so well. Sure, we'll take vicious beats but over the long haul we'll be taking advantage of all those errors.

Continue to learn and stick with it and do not be concerned with results so much. Like my coach/friend tells me: Make decisions, F*** results.

[brian1175]

So you only play if you have 30 blinds but your not willing to drop down untill you have 15?
That doesn't make sense.
Playing poker is very little about the cards, how you play them etc.

It's about:
bankroll management
position
and
Bankroll management

Soupie said something to me when I first started " Out of position you win small pots and loose big pots, In position you win big pots and loose small one's"

That is the most important thing next to bankroll management......

[brian1175]

Also, to answer your question about moving up....When Im not afraid of loosing on the bubble do I move up. Not saying that im loose on the bubble but meaning im going for the win...not folding to make a small profit.

[Ghaleon]

So you only play if you have 30 blinds but your not willing to drop down untill you have 15?
That doesn't make sense.
Playing poker is very little about the cards, how you play them etc.

It's about:
bankroll management
posistion
and
Bankroll management

Soupie said something to me when I first started " Out of posistion you win small pots and loose big pots, In posistion you win big pots and loose small one's"

That is the most important thing next to bankroll management......

I didn't say it was very scientific, but if I only play when I have 30 buy-ins, that doesn't allow me enough wiggle room if I don't win at the new level right away.

So if I'm playing 1.25 SNG's, that requires a bankroll of 37.50. At 2.25, I need 67.50. So if I get to 67.50 and lose my first SNG, does that mean I should drop back to 1.25's because my bankroll is now only 65.25?

As I said, I've read plenty of advice on bankroll management and seen guidelines ranging anywhere from 10 buy ins to 100. I would say the average of what I've read is probably around 20 buy-ins.

So I picked a conservative number (30), and use that as a starting point. So when I hit that threshold, I move up. If I lose 10-15 buy-ins, even in a short amount of time, I know that I'm in over my head and should drop back down. And 15 buy-ins at the $2 level still leaves me a very adequate bankroll to play the $1 games. So by not dropping down immediately, I've given myself ample time to evaluate my play at a certain level and determine if I should continue. At the same time, I'm not hurting my bankroll so much that I can't drop down and still play comfortably.

So to clarify my earlier post. My rule of thumb, is that I play at a level where I have between 15 and 30 buy-ins. Then I move up when I achieve 30 buy-ins at the higher level.

It all really depends on your bankroll, and how much you're willing to lose. When I play live, I play tournaments with buy-ins ranging from $50 - $250 dollars and generally try to stay away from anything smaller. I could easily do the same thing online and be financially comfortable even if I lose. But for me, it's more of a personal challenge to sharpen my playing skills, and measure my development as a player. By setting these kind of rules, and moving up to more difficult games, I have a clear measuring stick of my improvements over time.

I think this thread has taken a turn toward bankroll management, and I think the intent of the OP was to find out how to measure improvement over time. I used my own system as an example of that. But as far as bankroll management goes, I don't think what I'm doing is all that bad.

[brian1175]

Just the fact that you are talking about bankroll management is a good thing.

I play SnG's on a 20 buy in rule, however If I have $400 bankroll and lose a $20, then I play 10's till I get back up.

Im sure if your playing on a bankroll that's $40 then your not playing for a living. But if you want to be a good poker player then you have to live by bankroll management. Thats all there is too it. Ask anyone who has gone busto if they were playing in their bankroll and 99% say "NO".

Not to toot my own horn but I have built a bankroll from $4 to $10,000 and right now I currently building from like $30 or $60. My current bankroll is $650. Look at my sharkscope and look how my buy ins increased with my roll.
I understand everyone wants to know how to play XX from this Pos, but you have to learn to add before you can multiply etc.
Take my advise and I promise you that you don't go busto.....

[wonderland]

hey brian

just checked out your sharkscope. Very impressive. The early part of the graph is SO steep!

I have a couple of questions.

1) how come you're playing with a $650 bankroll, you said you made 10k? i would imagine a bankroll of around $3k?
2) can you give me a breakdown of the games you played over that time and how you managed to win so consistently?
3) is poker a part time thing for you or getting to be full time?

Thanks!

[Ghaleon]

Bri,

I get what you're saying, and really we're just splitting hairs here. You play with a 20 buy-in rule, I play with a 15 buy-in rule, but don't move up until I get to 30. Pretty simple.

And, as I alluded to earlier, my online bankroll isn't necessarily all the money I'm willing to spend on poker. I play live games for higher stakes quite often so losing $200 online isn't quite the financial disaster as it might be for some other people trying to grind out a bankroll on shorter money.

Believe me, winning $22 on a $5 sit n go is not where I want to be in my poker career. Even if I did it relatively often. But I do it because it's good practice for my live play, and I can find relatively competitive games at the $5 - $10 level that provide a good measuring stick of my ability and my improvement.

Just to reiterate my point. The OP's question was "How do you know when you 'beat' a level?"

I think the answer is "When you've earned enough to be properly bankrolled at the next level".

Just an example, let's use round numbers. You need $150 to play $5 SNG's (30 buy-ins). So let's say you start with $150 and work your way up to $300. Now you can play the $10 games comfortably. If you lose your first one, do you drop back to the $5's until you get over $300 again? You're saying yes, and that's fine.

But I'm saying no. If you've truly "beaten" the $5 level, then you should continue playing $10's until you're convinced that it's too much for you. And for me, I would have to lose my $150 profit first. Then, when I drop back to the $5's, where I would still have a solid, 30 buy-in bankroll to rebuild with. And losing that profit shouldn't be devastating. Because since you've already "beaten" the $5 level, it shouldn't be very difficult to rebuild yourself back to $300.

Again, focus on the question. We're assuming that we've "beaten" the $5 games. That means that we are comfortable and confident that we can win consistently and generate a profit at that level given an adequate bankroll. We are assuming that we've mastered all of the skills and tactics necessary to beat the players at that level. If that's the case, then why play it at that level? I play poker for two reasons; 1) To make money, 2) To improve my game. #1 becomes easier if I am successful at #2. If I've truly beaten the $5 games, then there is no reason to play them. Winning $22.50 for first place isn't going to fund my next tropical vacation, and I'm not learning anything about the game by playing a level that I've already "beaten". The only reason I would play it is because I am not adequately bankrolled at the next level. And the only explanations for that is 1) I lost all my profit because I'm not skilled enough to play the $10's profitably, or 2) I'm not skilled enough at the $5's to make enough money to play the $10's.

Also consider this. You make it up to $300, play a $10 SNG, lose then drop back to the $5's until you make back your $10 loss. Then you play another $10, and lose. You could yo-yo like this for a while. You're $10 play will be based on such a small sample size, how will you know what leaks you have, or what you need to improve in order to be successful at that level?

You need to play more than once to find out if you can really make it at the next level. Again, remember, we are assuming that we've beaten the $5's. Therefore there is nothing to gain in terms of skill development by playing them. By yo-yo'ing back and forth between stakes it will be much more difficult to gain any traction in the higher level and develop your game. So you lost the first one....did you play poorly, or just run bad? To answer that question, you need to play more at that level. And all you're risking to do so is the profit that you made at a level that you've already "beaten".

Now, my model doesn't work if we haven't really "beaten" the five dollar games. If we've run good for a while, and are riding the high side of variance when we move up to the $10's, it's going to be a fiery, and painful crash landing.

[brian1175]

I totally understand where your coming from. I think the problem is we are using the word "beat". You never "beat" a level. Lets use the word graduate. I agree that you graduate when you are bankrolled for the next level.

What I notice from your post is that you think the $10 are harder to beat than the $5's. The only differance from the $10's to the $5's is that it cost $5.50 more to play a $10. Thats it, so on a bankroll perspective I will yo yo for ever if thats what it takes..... but Iwon't go bust...

[Ghaleon]

I totally understand where your coming from. I think the problem is we are using the word "beat". You never "beat" a level. Lets use the word graduate. I agree that you graduate when you are bankrolled for the next level....

Fair enough, glad to see we're on the same page.

What I notice from your post is that you think the $10 are harder to beat than the $5's. The only differance from the $10's to the $5's is that it cost $5.50 more to play a $10. Thats it, so on a bankroll perspective I will yo yo for ever if thats what it takes..... but Iwon't go bust...

Well I can't really comment. Right now I'm bankrolled for the $5.50's. I could probably move up to the $10's pretty soon but my bankroll growth is stunted by somewhat by my desire to have success at forms of poker other than SNG's. MTT's, Cash Games, and this nasty little game called Omaha are are flattening out my learning curve a bit.

Once in a while, if I run really good for a while, or I hit a MTT for some good money, I'll jump into a $10 SNG and see what happens. I've played 8 since I began my little 'disciplined bankroll experiment' and I have two cashes. Nothing to write home about, but my first impression is that the play is a bit tougher.

[bjsaust]

I've beaten a level when my bankroll has grown to the point where I can play the next level according to my BRM plan.

Anything more than that is just making things difficult.

[wonderland]

Brian,

Could you answer my questions a few posts up, they got lost in the last few replies.

It is my original post after all hehe

thanks!

[brian1175]

hey brian

just checked out your sharkscope. Very impressive. The early part of the graph is SO steep!

I have a couple of questions.

1) how come you're playing with a $650 bankroll, you said you made 10k? i would imagine a bankroll of around $3k?
2) can you give me a breakdown of the games you played over that time and how you managed to win so consistently?
3) is poker a part time thing for you or getting to be full time?

Thanks!

1. Went on a downswing and cashed out the bankroll.
2. Generally I play 1 table SnG's and 5 card draw. I think I win consistently because the people I play against are really bad.
3. I was playing for "fun". This Sept my son started school so I had to figure out something to do (I work 24hrs on with 3 days off) on my days off when he's in school. So I started grinding the ol bankroll again...I kinda think of it as a part time job.

My biggest problem is that Im such a cheap azz...In the past when I would have a downswing I would cash out instead of donating it back. Not proper thinking, but thats what I was thinking. Now I wanna grind it up till I can start playing MTT and making decent money again.

[wonderland]

Cheers for that.

Wow, SNGs... i've just about given up trying to make money with them. I break even only. And i consider that more or less beating the level because you have to win SO much to make any money from SNGs.

I'm moving to cash.

I get really worried when i hear about people cashing out because of a downswing. That's exactly my mentality. But i've heard of people coming back to do amazing.

You might like this article:

http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/show...0&fpart=1&vc=1

[taipan168]

Wow, SNGs... i've just about given up trying to make money with them. I break even only. And i consider that more or less beating the level because you have to win SO much to make any money from SNGs.

I'm moving to cash.

Just to address your point, you CAN be a long term winner at SNGs. Sure, in terms of hourly rate etc. you will most likely do better at cash, but you certainly can win over the long term (and by long term, I mean 1000+ games).

Ultimately it comes down to what game you prefer to play. I'm a winning player at 25-50NL cash but I just prefer SNGs (maybe I'm a masochist?).

[wonderland]

I would that it were more profitable to play 'em. They're not to bad playing and you can only lose your buy-in which i like.

But i want to earn a living, so want to be making $100 a day minimum.

That said, i HATE the coin flips in SNGs. I think i'm likely to have a heart attack with rage one of these days because of them. I can imagine maybe multi tabling $50 games but if you look at how many $50 SNG games run on pokerstars... there only seems to be like one an hour.

[taipan168]

That said, i HATE the coin flips in SNGs. I think i'm likely to have a heart attack with rage one of these days because of them.

Meh, you get used to it after a while. Once you reconcile yourself to accept whatever the results might be once you've made a good decision (eg. right push/call) then life becomes a lot easier.

I can imagine maybe multi tabling $50 games but if you look at how many $50 SNG games run on pokerstars... there only seems to be like one an hour.

Most of the action at that buyin happens at the turbos. However, the problem with the turbos at $60 and up is that it becomes hard to beat the rake because of all the good players who are at those tables. This is the real reason why most SNG players who play professionally or semi-professionally end up switching to cash.

[JeffreyGB]

On a similar vein, cash play (and to a lesser extent MTT play) allows for a lot more variables to create an edge than SNGs do. Just like two years ago, I'm convinced that at the $200 level, to have an edge you have to turn your game around and play laggy early against tight players to build a stack and edge them out of the late game. But that requires very precise reads across the entire table...which takes a hell of a lot more work than beating $1/$2 for a much healthier profit.

[Ryski]

You don't think coin flips happen in cash games except for more than just 1 buyin? Those would piss me off a hell of a lot more than when they happen in SnG's. Btw for me, I say I can beat a level if I can confidently grind my way up to the next buyin ( 30 buyins -- ) about 3 times ( from 165 to 330 3x )... so like 495 profit or so for the 5.50's. I prefer turbos now though and I personally like SnG's better because I feel like my buyin is forfeit as soon as I sit down and I play it like a video game -- to win. I absolutely HATE waiting around for hands in a ring/cash game and I like being forced to make moves. To each his own though but SNG's are definitely beatable for good profit.

[brian1175]

I think it depends on what you consider a good profit.

[Ryski]

Very true. I don't beat SnG's for a good profit but that's cuz of the level I play at. I don't know about the high levels because I'm not there yet. As the limits go up, I wonder when people switch over to cash or MTT's.

Good profit also depends on how many hours you put in too.

I think it depends on what you consider a good profit.