6-Max SnG

    • Meemawuk
      Meemawuk
      Bronze
      Joined: 27.05.2009 Posts: 758
      I'm currently playing the $2+0.40 jackpot sitngos on Titan and am fairly disgusted with the amount of rake that I'm required to pay relative to the buy-in. I'd like to say the 20% of the buy-in as rake is simply to contribute towards the jackpot, but the regular $2 sitngos are the same, and the $5 only rake $0.50. Anyway, back to my point.

      The Jackpot micro tournys are 12 players 2 tables of 6 where top 4 get paid. 1st: $12, 2nd: $6, 3rd: $3.40 and 4th $2.40. I currently run an ROI of around 20% despite the rake, and I'm wondering how much people would think I'd need to start playing $5 6-max tournaments?

      Do the same rules of BRM apply for 6-max as to FR? My concern is that in the regular 6-max tourny's, only the top 2 places are paid, so variance might result in a significant 'non-winning' spell (even though I recognise that top 4 being paid of 12 and top 2 of 6 is mathematically the same).
  • 10 replies
    • conall88
      conall88
      Bronze
      Joined: 02.01.2009 Posts: 1,715
      stop playing them they aint worth your time. as number of players decrease, rake has a more significant impact on the game.

      imo a 30% deeper bankroll for 6 max in comparison to full ring seems tolerable.

      the actual bankroll size you need is normally based on:

      -size of potential swings
      - size of your edge
      -whether you are withdrawing.

      etc

      if I have an ROI of 10% over a couple of thousand games, Id be happy to play with 60 buyins.

      if it was 5% id opt for 130 buyins.

      this is off the cuff, so dont take the numbers for what they are. theres a nice section on BRM in the other section ( strategy section with articles)

      http://www.pokerstrategy.com/strategy/others/26/1/

      http://www.pokerstrategy.com/strategy/sng/1072/1/
    • Meemawuk
      Meemawuk
      Bronze
      Joined: 27.05.2009 Posts: 758
      By stop playing them do you mean micro/low stakes sit n gos entirely, 6-max entirely, or just the jackpots?

      Rake seems to be a problem generally for micro/low stake sit n gos. It's easy to understand why so many people elect to play micro cash tables instead.
    • andreibalint
      andreibalint
      Bronze
      Joined: 11.04.2009 Posts: 872
      Screw jackpot sng's! Do the math. On the long term you get ripped off.

      Strangely enough i had smaller swings in 6max rather then FR. I think my biggest drawdown was like 30-40BI or so.

      I think playing them with 50BI bankroll is not exagerated, but the more the better. At 100BI bankroll you should be reaaaaaally confortable playing them and like 75BB is great.
    • cgoldie
      cgoldie
      Bronze
      Joined: 03.08.2010 Posts: 73
      I think paying more than 10% rake even with rakeback for sngs just isnt worth it long run. Even at the micros you should be looking to pay 10% max, otherwise the variance will most likely tilt you.

      On the buy in side I think 50 buy ins could be an issue for a lot of players. The variance is hefty and a bad swing of 20+ could tilt you pretty bad. I'm currently experimenting with $1+10 super turbos, I'd like to play higher but my bankroll won't cut it. I think if i had 50 or less buy ins I could tilt on a bad day easily. After 2 days I've played 72 $1+10 and it only feels like I've played 10, a downswing without 100+ BI would tilt most.
    • Meemawuk
      Meemawuk
      Bronze
      Joined: 27.05.2009 Posts: 758
      Originally posted by andreibalint
      Screw jackpot sng's! Do the math. On the long term you get ripped off.
      I fail to see how this is the case when the rake for the Standard $2 SnG's is also 40c. Not playing the Jackpots when the investment is the same surely must be -EV.

      Anyway, I'm currently playing on IPoker and the rake for all of the Micro-stake SnG's (except Heads-up) is 20%. The next best option is to play the $5+0.50 SnG's.
    • conall88
      conall88
      Bronze
      Joined: 02.01.2009 Posts: 1,715
      dont play sngs with 20% rake. its not worth your time when you have a choice in the matter.

      think of it this way.

      For example someone making an average of $2 per game at the $10+1 level would have an ROI of 18.2% ($2/$11 = 18.2%)

      if this were to be $10+2 ( 20% rake)
      his ROI would be 16% ($2/$12= 16%)

      for you this could mean:

      ($2+20 sng earning $0.22 per game)

      $0.22/$2.20=10%

      $0.22/$2.40=9.1%


      so what its just under 1%!

      for every hundred games you play, thats a buyin!

      so what?

      poker players play hundreds/ thousands of games!
    • Meemawuk
      Meemawuk
      Bronze
      Joined: 27.05.2009 Posts: 758
      I'm aware of the math. I'm just suggesting that there is little alternative in terms of SnG's at microstakes. Thanks for your input anyway.
    • jbpatzer
      jbpatzer
      Bronze
      Joined: 22.11.2009 Posts: 6,944
      FT $1.10 or $2.15 super turbos ftw! :f_biggrin:
    • Meemawuk
      Meemawuk
      Bronze
      Joined: 27.05.2009 Posts: 758
      Yup. Just another thing to add to the list of why IPoker Sucks!
    • nibbana
      nibbana
      Bronze
      Joined: 04.12.2009 Posts: 1,186
      Originally posted by jbpatzer
      FT $1.10 or $2.15 super turbos ftw! :f_biggrin:
      Basic Boris actually made $10/hour playing $2.15. Hero IMVHOHTMO