$5, $10 and $20 SNG - Stars
I started playing these a year ago, and they are pretty much all I play. I have heard many people say they are all similar, and they don;t notice much difference between the levels. Now, I've only recently started playing only the $20+2, levels but here is what I have seen so far...first my result, generally from memory:
$5+.50 100 played 60% ROI (about 3.34 per SNG)
$10 +1 160 played 16% ROI (about 1.75 per SNG)
$20 +2 7 played 40% ROI (about 8.60 per SNG)
As you can see, I am a casual player only, this is about 13 months opf play. Not included here are a dozen or so Turbos, that I stopped playing as I did terribly at the 15+1's.
Now my comments. First, I fully undertand that even the 160 at the $10 is not enough play to get a true picture. As I played, I felt my $5 results were a bit better that I should expect long term, and the $10 a bit worse. I know I moved to $10 tables after I was comfortable, and I know that my play loosened a bit. I generally play very tight, as I did when I started. I had the minimum bankroll, and was very conscious of trying to play my best. When I moved to $10 I suspect I sub-conciously loosened up due to the comfort of believing I was a winning player, and concsiously loosened up a bit because I believed I should have to as I moved up. First of all, this idea was wrong. No loosening up is required IMO. Also, I DID notice an improvement in play from $5 to $10. The play was noticably tighter IMO. Now, I have only played the $20 7 times, and in those admittedly very few games, the play seems no better than the $10 tables. I have consciously tightened up my game out of respect for the higher buy-ins (and my bankroll management!) and have re-focused on playing my best poker when I play. I think this is making a difference, as I am playing more like I did at the $5 tables when I first started out. But having said that, I have seen nothing in quality of play here that distinguishes it form the $10 level.
I guess my main point, and the surprising thing to me is the level of play at the $20 tables. I expected an improvement form the $10 as I noticed from $5 to $10, but so far nothing. One factor could be that I have purposely started our only playing weekends, when I feel the games are softer (All of my result show Sat as the most profitable, at all levels). I theorize that most beginners start at the $5 level, and move up when they show a profit, to the $10 and $20 level. To me, there is a big difference between $5 and the other two, which ar ethe same in quality to me.
Has anyone progressed up the rungs of Stars SNG's and taken note of the level of play? I am curious to hear other's opinions. What about the $30+3? I think I read here that your game has to change once you hit $50+5, as you have to start getting more creative. I would like to know I could at least maintain a profit level at $30 +3 that could make me some fun money while giving me the entertainment, which is my prime reason for playing (entertainment).
$5+.50 100 played 60% ROI (about 3.34 per SNG)
$10 +1 160 played 16% ROI (about 1.75 per SNG)
$20 +2 7 played 40% ROI (about 8.60 per SNG)
As you can see, I am a casual player only, this is about 13 months opf play. Not included here are a dozen or so Turbos, that I stopped playing as I did terribly at the 15+1's.
Now my comments. First, I fully undertand that even the 160 at the $10 is not enough play to get a true picture. As I played, I felt my $5 results were a bit better that I should expect long term, and the $10 a bit worse. I know I moved to $10 tables after I was comfortable, and I know that my play loosened a bit. I generally play very tight, as I did when I started. I had the minimum bankroll, and was very conscious of trying to play my best. When I moved to $10 I suspect I sub-conciously loosened up due to the comfort of believing I was a winning player, and concsiously loosened up a bit because I believed I should have to as I moved up. First of all, this idea was wrong. No loosening up is required IMO. Also, I DID notice an improvement in play from $5 to $10. The play was noticably tighter IMO. Now, I have only played the $20 7 times, and in those admittedly very few games, the play seems no better than the $10 tables. I have consciously tightened up my game out of respect for the higher buy-ins (and my bankroll management!) and have re-focused on playing my best poker when I play. I think this is making a difference, as I am playing more like I did at the $5 tables when I first started out. But having said that, I have seen nothing in quality of play here that distinguishes it form the $10 level.
I guess my main point, and the surprising thing to me is the level of play at the $20 tables. I expected an improvement form the $10 as I noticed from $5 to $10, but so far nothing. One factor could be that I have purposely started our only playing weekends, when I feel the games are softer (All of my result show Sat as the most profitable, at all levels). I theorize that most beginners start at the $5 level, and move up when they show a profit, to the $10 and $20 level. To me, there is a big difference between $5 and the other two, which ar ethe same in quality to me.
Has anyone progressed up the rungs of Stars SNG's and taken note of the level of play? I am curious to hear other's opinions. What about the $30+3? I think I read here that your game has to change once you hit $50+5, as you have to start getting more creative. I would like to know I could at least maintain a profit level at $30 +3 that could make me some fun money while giving me the entertainment, which is my prime reason for playing (entertainment).
Comments
1. You only have a 7 sample size, it could be a run of good luck. I went on a 5 tournament 1st place bonanza once, so it does happen.
2. You mention that you only recently moved up to 20+2. I have to assume that over 13 months you've improved as a player, so the 20+2 are showing you the results of that progress. Could some of the 100+ games in the lower limit have been bad play?
3. Perhaps your style of play is more suited to games which have a bit more on the line?
There could be a variety of reasons, but congrats on doing so well so far!!!!
I've had a lot of success with the $200 SNG's at Stars. While this may be obvious SNG strategy, and therefore obvious to most, my strategy is to play really tight for the first few levels. Then, with around 4 or 5 players left (when nobody wants to bust out) I come to life, betting and raising big, sometimes with real hands, more often with nothing.
The whole 'fear of busting on the bubble' factor for my opponents combined with them having me pegged as a tight player for the first half of the SNG allows me to become aggressive almost to the point of ridiculousness. And the blinds are big enough to be building my stack nicely throughout. And, by the time they catch on, it's usually too late.
I feel comfortable saying that there are a LOT of weak players playing the $200 Stars SNG's. That being said, there are several good players too. (Hassan, EarlBry, Epokeman, Marene all come to mind). Take careful notes on who is who, and you shouldn't have too much trouble.
I am fully able to admit I could be negative after 4 more SNG's, I'm really looking for others to support my observations, which is that the $20 tables are not different than the $10. I also wonder about the $30 for those that have played.
2. I hope I have improved, but I don't think my game is much different than at the $10 level. The one change I have made is re-focusing to play tight, "good" poker. I would hope there has been some improvement though, and for sure there has been. But my results were worse at $10 than at $5.
3. As silly as this may sound, I think it is true. I really only play at the $20 tables when I know it's my primary activity. I might watch a game on TV while I play otherwise, but I have more focus now, as the $$ are more meaningful to me in terms of % of my bankroll. This has to be a factor, but again, 7 games means nothing. I am most happy that the game seems very beatable.
I guess part of my question is "Is there achance I have only had a 7 game good luck run of playing shitty players. and things figure to get harder?" I wonder if others have an opinion.
Thanks for the kind words, nice nuts.
This is my startegy in general, as well, although perhaps it is more useful at the higher levels. I think I over-did the "aggressive near the bubble" thinkg there for a while, and it hurt my results.
I daydream about playing the $200 and $300 SNG's someday. It's cool because also, Pamela Anderson is there with me, and she does stuff when ever I win a pot. Talk about wanting to see some flops!
Can you give examples of what you consider weak? I mean, at that level, how weak is weak? Do you see people with average stacks calling all-in flush draws, or is weak as subtle as missing value-bets at the river? I suppose I could watch some, but If my wife is letting me sit at the computer with Poker on the screen, I'm playing not watching baby. hehe.
Does this mean it's never a good idea to bet the river in NL? Of course not... but just be careful. It would be disastrous to build a nice pot preflop, on the flop, and on the turn, and then have to release your decent-but-not-great hand because somebody decided to move all of his chips into the pot after he checked it to you on the river and you bet. I'd rather not face those types of river decisions in NL. Maybe that's a leak in my game, but nonetheless, there you have it.
Another example of weak play is the classic 'fire one bullet' player. eg: (from a SNG yesterday). We're 3-handed, I have the chip lead, and I'm in the BB. The button triples the blinds, SB folds, and I call with 67s. Flop: KK2 rainbow. I check, he bets about 4XBB, and I call, because I know he won't be able to bet the turn without a king, and I know he wouldn't have bet the flop if he HAD a king. Furthermore, I know that the turn will go check-check (which it did) and I know that he won't be able to call a decent river bet from me (which he didn't). I'm not mentioning this hand to brag about my play, which may or may not have been good and is far from innovative, but more to point out that if you know what your opponents will do in a given situation, you can run them over.
And it obviously works in reverse: if they know what you're going to do, you're in a lot of trouble.