This isn't meant to be some kind of brag post just for starters.

But... I was browsing through my sharkscope this morning and took a look at my 6 max figures at various levels on stars. Before I go further, let me just list the relevant ones I am talking about.

$72 6 max - 741, $4, 6%, $3244

$36 6 max - 512, $5, 14%, $2734

$23 6 max - 414, $5, 22%, $2236

And overall over them 3 levels (including the $55s which run less frequently)-

1961, $5, 12%, $9890.

Ok, the one I want to discuss mainly is the $23.

A few months ago, i actually got offered a bet on PXF that I couldn't maintain my 20% roi over my next 200 games at $23 6 max. At the time I had just hit 200. For the sole reason the guy wanted me to play the 200 in a week, i declined the bet. But I mean, I know this sample size isn't huge, but I do genuinely feel i could maintain somewhere between 15-20%, if not higher at the 23s.

Is that ridiculous? And what kind of influence on the results of that thought do my results from the $36+ 6 max have? I mean, 14% roi over 500 is pretty high aswell, so surely if you add them together, your gonna have around a 20% roi over 1000 games at the 23s + 36s :s And then take into account the (slight) weakness of the $23s compared to the 36s aswell...

I dunno, I hope I've explained this well enough, it is kinda confusin. Thoughts without any cocky responses would be appreciated.

it's ok u can mantain that ROI, but u need to play 1k games of $23 to see the real result...just play $23 instead of higher buyins, and once u get up to 1k games take a new decision.

gl with it

You'd have to run kinda hot (especially if you're playing turbos), but it's definitely possible.

over 200 games I think it would be a bit hit or miss, but over a longer period of say 1000-1500 games I actually think with the right incentive i could do it. Maybe i'm just being naive though.

Are you 2 or 16 tabling these? I think that factors in greatly