For experienced players: For every 10 games, how many do you win?

[ihtennis]

i kinda doubt that you do good 80% of the time

 

[LizzyJ]

You cannot make any money at the 9 person SnG's with a 10-15% ITM rate. At the 45 person SnG's you would do alright. It's the power of leverage; at the 45's you are getting around 15 to 1 on your money if you win the whole thing.

 

[CashinJen]

my average

My average has been about 1 or 2 wins and 4 to 6 cashes on average and i make money with this average

 

[dmorris68]

You cannot make any money at the 9 person SnG's with a 10-15% ITM rate. At the 45 person SnG's you would do alright. It's the power of leverage; at the 45's you are getting around 15 to 1 on your money if you win the whole thing.

And this explains my confusion then -- I rarely ever play single table SnG's. I prefer the 90-player, sometimes 180-player, although lately I've played a few 27's and 45's. As these are essentially small MTTs, I'm assuming the typical ITM% numbers would be more similar to MTTs than 9-player SnG's.

It makes sense now that I think about the higher ITM% because in a 9-player, 1/3 of the field cashes. Duh.

 

[HoldemChamp]

The 10 to 15% ROI is for MTTs not SNGs. SNGs ITM for very good players is higher.

The reason is that MTTs can be lower because they in the money winnings are generally much higher.

20% of SNG 10 players $10 SNGs is $20 where the same buy in amount for an MTT of say 500 people and only say 5% of the would be $250 in winnings with 10% being $500 in winnings and 20% would be $1000.

 

[Tom1559]

I doubt that many, if any pros, have got stats that good. 40% win rate in SnG's in ridicoulous. How many games have you played. You sure you are not counting only a lucky streak. If you rally have got stats like that give up your day job and play full time.

 

[Poker Orifice]

I doubt that many, if any pros, have got stats that good. 40% win rate in SnG's in ridicoulous. How many games have you played. You sure you are not counting only a lucky streak. If you rally have got stats like that give up your day job and play full time.

40% isn't that outstanding actually... not for 9-plyr. SNG's. This is I.T.M. we're referring to ("In The Money")... not R.O.I. ("Return On Investment")

After reading & responding in this thread I decided to pay a bit more attention to some stats. on a handful of SNG's I was playing in (all were 9-plyr. reg. speed). Any player below ITM 37% was actually in the red (not making $$'s, with a negative ROI) although there was the occassional player with an ITM of 35% who actually had a +ROI, must've had a fair amount of 1st place finishes imo.

Just a few more games under my belt since last posting on here and once again checking stats. out of curiousity.... and just on one of the sites I play on for now.... I.T.M. is exactly 40.0%... with ROI +6% and that is 599 games (probably enough for an accurate sample size I'm figuring).
^^
THese aren't 'Big' numbers. They're just a barely winning player actually.

In regards to giving up the dayjob if a player manages an avg. ITM of 40%.... realistically they'd have to be multi-tabling 4 tables at a time for 20hrs. per day to eek out $30K/yr. Not likely in other words.

SNG players who are actually making money (from my experience) are the ones who are doing well in the 45's between $26 & $75 buyin level as there's a bunch of them who seem to manage to keep a 2digit ROI in them. Even on the LowLimit Stars Turbo 45's ($6's) there are a bunch of regs. who do quite well in them... but obviously not well enough to sustain a living from them.

 

[dmorris68]

So am I correct to assume that a "decent" multi-table SnG ITM% lies somewhere in between the 15% of MTT's and 40% of single-table SnG's? Say, 25-30%?

 

[PurgatoryD]

Wow, there are a lot of numbers flying around here. So for a 10 person SAG with top three positions ITM, an "average" player would win 10% of the time and be ITM 30% of the time, right?

Over time, if you are above these numbers, then you are "better than average" and if you are below these numbers you are "worse than average". Is there a better way to gauge yourself, i.e. using ROI numbers or something like that?

Thanks,
-Dave

 

[BM0529]

I began keeping track of my cash games last August, at one point in December after 43 sessions I had won in 30 of them which was a winning percentage of 70% (profit wasnt huge given it was 1-2 stakes but I think I was up around 7-8K at that point...that quickly came back to earth and I closed out the year on 8/12/09 at 56%....probably still above average but I was on fire for 3-4 months late last year and again from March-May of this year.

 

[badab]

i think that is good are u talking about 9 man games and what is the buy in when i play in the 550 or lower games i cash about 65% of the time so it not hard to do gl at the tables and in life aka badab ub

 

[baghead]

thats easy play lots and remorgage the house