PokerStars homepage
  • If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.


No announcement yet.

More mindless boggle!

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • More mindless boggle!

    Hello all I am sure by now most of you are geting use to my mindless boggle, however ask your self how mindless it really is, when I get every answer I am looking for.
    So to by next boggle have decided to cover a topic i feel is worth looking at.


    Ok looking at all the formats and buyins, what is best for me/you.

    Firstly cash games, what do we expect when we enter a cash table, I imagine most of us look to double our buyin.
    Most of the times we lose our buyin, why?.

    I look at it this way, entering a six seater, or nine seater , straight away our odds are 5-1, 8-1, this been the number of players to beat.

    So 5-1,8-1, does not make sense to me as we are only looking for 2-1 on our buyin.

    Secondly I looked at STTs, my example is a $1.50 buyin, 8-1 nine seater. MY win ratio to look at would be roughly 3-1 if i won.

    So again this does not make that much sense to me.

    Then I looked at the format I am playing at the moment,25c 45 people sngs, this is 44-1,
    my return would be roughly 13 -1 on my buyin.

    At this stage confused? me too, its hard to explain what I am on about but sure some of you will understand.

    I know the prize structure is obviously based on the percentage of total buyins, but to me some structures seem more value for your money.

    Example - I spend $3 on STT $1.50 to win a possible of roughly $11.60

    Example 2- I spend $3 on 25c sngs 45 players to win a possible of roughly $36

    So to me the sngs is the better value and gives you far more hours of play.

    Probably a lot of you will not see it this way as obvious theres more people to beat in sngs than stts, but to me this is how i see it and some formats do seem to have a better value,

    I am just waiting now for Moxie and the gang to rip me apart on this and then we will have some answers.

  • #2
    Originally posted by holdemace486 View Post
    Firstly cash games, what do we expect when we enter a cash table, I imagine most of us look to double our buyin.
    Doubling up then moving on to another table is a hit and run strategy. You see it frequently but I have never tried it. If I think the table is good I am staying. But doubling up and cashing out, banking the buy-in won and setting at another table means you rarely risk more than one buy-in at a time. A decent player can minimize variance with this method.

    Wins per table don't matter. It's how much you bank in the session that counts whether your strategy is "hit and run" or "stay and play".


    • #3
      Don't know how many of the American contingent will answer. If you think of it, we're barred from the cash side, so any answer given will seem like the "thems that don't, teach." That said, let me give you my bend on the selection process I would use. Remember, the old hedgehog is an American.

      Methinks the numbers are a bit off in your estimation of our intelligence. The fool thinks double. A professional gambler looks to make a profit of 10% at a casino. Yes, that is their target when they play the table games. Reason is that the house has an advantage, and over time, will win.

      If you're smart, you're calling the old hedgehog an idiot. That benchmark of 10% is in a game where you play against the house. Poker is different. Players go against other players. So the recommendation of a 10% gain is coming from a fool. I beg to differ. The longer you play, the more prone you become to tilt or varience. The idea is to leave when you're winning, which means having a defined exit plan.

      This doesn't answer the question you posed, but I'm getting there. My philosophy has always been to reach the money - PERIOD. When you do, you experience a profit. That gain might not be much, but it is a gain. As an example, a $1.32 + $0.18 game has a third place payout of $2.37, a profit of 58%. I'm willing to take third place every time.

      Playing for the money changes the dynamics of the question. Instead of seeing the odds as one in nine, your odds are three of nine, or one in three. A 45-player game has seven payouts, which is one of seven players with a minimum 43% profit. Larger tourneys will depend on the number of players registered and the payouts. If memory serves me right, PokerStars keeps the payout ratio somewher around the one in every eight participants.

      A player who consistently hits the money will most likely double-up over a number of games. I'm learning that in my Mercury play money games you need not win every game. A winning percentage can be as low as 20% of the games. Players who finishe in the last money slot in more than half the games will show a profit. Every higher placed finish lowers the number of games needed to reach that point.

      Don't believe me? Check out the Cowboy Challenge. Players that win the challenge, which is defined as doubling their initial stake, do not win every game. I'm willing to guess the better players finish first less than a dozen times in that hundred game stretch. They do consistently reach the money, which is how they build up the bankroll.

      To answer your question in its simplest terms, I'm looking for a format that offers me the best opportunity to consistently finish in the money. Notice how I did not say win. Any player can win a game, the trick is to end in the money often enough to profit.

      My thinking is that the STT are a good introduction to this fact. When you feel confident in one format, you move up to the next. Play at the MTT offers greater rewards, but the risks will reflect it. If I were able to play cash games, here's how I would look at the pickings.

      50/50 games - ten players and half in the money. I like those odds. What might dissuade me is the payouts as some of these are based on stack size. For somebody that has troubles being super aggressive, this might not be for me.

      STT - nine players and three in the money. Odds are good, and stack size doesn't determine the winner. My goal is to reach the money, third, and then try advancing.

      SNG - number of players and payout vary. Odds will mirror the bigger games, but with fewer players, a greater chance of making the money.

      MTT - too many players, but offers higher return. In a game with approximately 9,000 players there are 1,300 paid, or one in seven.


      • #4
        Great guys some more great thoughts, and thanks was in a tilt and reading this helped me pull back out of it.umbup:


        • #5
          Originally posted by holdemace486 View Post
          I look at it this way, entering a six seater, or nine seater , straight away our odds are 5-1, 8-1, this been the number of players to beat.

          So 5-1,8-1, does not make sense to me as we are only looking for 2-1 on our buyin.
          The odds of 5:1 and 8:1 against are only true if all players are robots programmed to play in the exact same way.

          if you think you have a equal chance at the poker tables then you are going to lose money over time becuase you do not have an edge of the other players.

          If you are trying to make money, you should be trying to play against players that are worse than you?

          If you are playing 8 players who are at an equal skill to you you are reling on luck alone.

          if you are playing players better than you your going to lose.

          Grade b
          I am always ready to learn although I do not always like being taught. ~Winston Churchill

          13 Time Bracelet Winner


          • #6
            I'm not so much going to rip you apart as I'm just going to say that your focusing your expectations on the wrong criteria when you base the odds on the number of runners in the field. That's seriously flawed unless it's a format with but ONE prize paid out.

            You need to divide the number of prizes paid out by the number of runners to get a clear view of the odds of banking a payout in any STT or multi-table SNG. In a standard 9 seat STT 3 players cash so you're percentage of cashing,all things being equal,are 33.3333%---3-1 against essentially. I a 45 man SNG 7 spots in 45 cash,15.56%---roughly 6.5-1.

            Scheduled MTT's are also similarly set,as some pay the top 20% of the field,some 15% and some 10%. Take the .10 ($50 added) MTT that just started for example as I type this. 5768 runners and the top 1170 cash---1170/5768 = 20.28%. So slightly more than the top 20% (they rarely land right on the 20,15 and 10% numbers...). So basically you have a 1 in 5 chance of making the money here. But what if the lowest min-cash rung doesn't interest you? Instead say that you eschew the bottom 3 payout levels in your expectations when surmising whether or not you want to enter a tourney. Then look at the cutoff for that level---in this case it's the top 405 and better in the field---405/5768 = 7.02%--a little more than 14-1 against.

            As to the ring table thing...meh. It's NOT you against 8 or 5 other players,per se. Rings aren't a zero sum game,all the chips don't have to be in one stack for the game to end. The game ends for each individual player only when they CHOOSE to get up from the table. Until that point the only thing that's really "against" you are the blinds as they are the only thing that can force you to put money in the pot when you don't choose to do so.

            As to the "double and ditch" strategy...again,meh. Like many things in poker it depends. If I double and feel that there are exploitable players still on the table I'm loathe to leave...why trade a proven profitable seat for another? If I feel that I don't have any discernible skill edge against the table then I'll be more apt to leave that table,having seen my good variance on that particular table already happen I'm not inclined to wait for the correction.

            And lastly I think you're dismissing the most important by far odds in all of poker...1-1. Because for most losing and mediocre players and many winning ones even the toughest odds to beat are 1-1...the battle we all have with ourselves every day.
            Last edited by Moxie Pip; Mon Mar 05, 2012, 11:46 PM.



            X Cookies Information

            We have placed cookies on your computer to improve your experience on our website. You can change your cookie settings at any time. Otherwise, we'll assume you're OK to continue.