SSS or Sit n Gos?

    • midgetjay
      midgetjay
      Bronze
      Joined: 07.05.2008 Posts: 241
      **sighs**

      I'll just stick to Sit n Go's, SSS just doesn't work for me for some reason. Seemed as though I was running even for a couple thousand hands and then BOOM! Bad beat after bad beat after bad beat. I'm not doubting the system of SSS, it's just that in my case, it's taking forvever for the odds to even themselves out. Before I know it, I'll be broke.

      I'm not flaming or venting, in fact, I'm happy. I finally know that SSS is something that maybe one day I'll come back to. I fare much, MUCH better in the $1.00 Sit n Go's at Full Tilt, lol. That's how I built my bankroll up to $100 anyway, so I guess I'll stick with those. Gotta go now, I'll probably recoup my losses in a couple weeks or so, so no harm done. Take a look!






  • 9 replies
    • chenny8888
      chenny8888
      Bronze
      Joined: 03.10.2007 Posts: 19,324
      that sux. i can't see if you're not following the SSS properly (it seems the stats are about right, if not too tight..?) but yeah.... it's a small sample and variance is a bitch.

      sng is fun ^^; if you're doing well in those, for sure... keep playing them! :) .
    • midgetjay
      midgetjay
      Bronze
      Joined: 07.05.2008 Posts: 241
      I did the mathematics behind it and if I were to play every hand on the SHC regardless of raises or position, my VP$IP would be 8.4%. But that doesn't take into account that about 1/2 the hands can't be played unless you're in late position. And even then, some of the hands must be folded due to raises in front of you.


      Probabilities of being dealt certain cards:

      AA = 0.45%
      KK = 0.45%
      QQ = 0.45%
      JJ = 0.45%
      TT = 0.45%
      99 = 0.45%
      88 = 0.45%
      77 = 0.45%
      AK = 1.2%
      AQ = 1.2%
      AJ = 1.2%
      + KQ = 1.2%
      8.4%

      (could someone verify this? I could be wrong here..)



      I've heard from many people that SSS doesn't seem work on Full Tilt because of the ridiculous rake, the 9 handed (instead of 10 handed) tables, and the overall tighter opponents. I dunno... TehChipDonk said he broke even after a month of 12-tabling, so I guess it is possible at FTP.

      But yeah, I :heart: LOVE:heart: Sit n Gos. I'm just gonna be grinding for a while to win back, --er excuse me, earn back my $80.

      (Does anyone think I'll get rakeback? Just curious..) :D
    • camicio
      camicio
      Bronze
      Joined: 25.04.2008 Posts: 118
      i think that the rake at the micro levels at full tilt is just ridicolous
      0.05$ for every 0.5$ in the pot compared to the more normal 0.05$ for every 1$ in the pot that pokerstars offers.
      that means that i would have paid less than 50% of the rake had i played at pokerstars...
    • cannell555
      cannell555
      Bronze
      Joined: 06.03.2008 Posts: 2,410
      Yes many people have stated not to play SSS on the low limits, at full tilt. But at low limits I think SnG's are pretty easy money, and if I had my time again, I would start with SnG's for sure.

      GL
    • redskwerl
      redskwerl
      Black
      Joined: 03.03.2008 Posts: 3,802
      Originally posted by camicio
      i think that the rake at the micro levels at full tilt is just ridicolous
      0.05$ for every 0.5$ in the pot compared to the more normal 0.05$ for every 1$ in the pot that pokerstars offers.
      that means that i would have paid less than 50% of the rake had i played at pokerstars...
      this

      build up a roll with SNGs, then if you wanna give SS another shot, move up a limit and try there
    • matkov
      matkov
      Bronze
      Joined: 15.11.2007 Posts: 202
      yeah on nl10 FTP I'm at best a breakeven player, but no way a wining player..maybe this does have smth to do with the high rake, and 9 people full ring..
    • camicio
      camicio
      Bronze
      Joined: 25.04.2008 Posts: 118
      heh i'll try rebuilding my bankroll multitabling sit and go's, lol
      it sucks because i played so many hands multitabling thinking that at least i would have seen if i was profitable or not, but it seems i didn't even prove that
      lol, im down to 25$ and i was at around 100$ (with the 50$ bonus, so even then i was just breakeven) but i would be over 100$ with a 5% rak

      should have taken some risks and moved up in limits at 100$ rather than pay all the rake :D

      however, the low limits sit and go's have a 10% rake or more at fulltilt too
    • Kruppe
      Kruppe
      Black
      Joined: 20.02.2008 Posts: 2,144
      the $1 sngs have 25c rake. still more profitable than NL10 though, i think.

      @OP: i'd be interested in how much rake pokertracker says you paid.
    • camicio
      camicio
      Bronze
      Joined: 25.04.2008 Posts: 118
      around 130$
      i multitabled around 17000 hands