Check out our brand new Local Poker Communities! Get updates and interact with poker players in your area.
Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local

Sharks?

Reply to Thread
  1. h3llo7 h3llo7 is offline

    Birmingham, MI
    United States

    Posts: 274
    Joined: Oct 05

    Jan 3rd, 2006 (1/3/2006 1:24pm)

    How many are there really? I mean how often will you sit in a lower buy in SnG and easily be the best there? Or in the 45k guarantee? Any ideas?
  2. Adam Adam is offline Emperor

    Atlanta, GA
    United States

    Posts: 12,631
    Joined: Dec 04

    Jan 3rd, 2006 (1/3/2006 1:30pm) in reply to h3llo7

    It depends how good you are, honestly. When I first started playing $10 SNGs 2 and a half years ago, I was a serious player, paying a lot of attention and trying very hard to win, and I was still probably rarely the best player at my table at that level. I typically play the 30s and 50s now on party, and I rarely encounter a player who I think is stronger than me, and pokertracker helps reinforce this by showing me that the people I've played with multiple times are all consistent losers (over a pretty small sample, though). I'd suggest tracking as many sngs that you can at the levels you play, whether you're playing or not, and find out over time if there are players who are actually profitable in these games. The problem at the lower levels, of course, is that there's an enormous amount of turnover that isn't so common at the higher levels. If players are winning at the 10s, they generally move up, etc. Usually they don't wait to have a big enough roll either--they just go. So you're unlikely to find many "gidders" type guys who stay at a low level and consistently beat it. But who knows till someone tracks it?
     
  3. doomed222 doomed222 is offline

    Canton, MI
    United States

    Posts: 5,005
    Joined: Aug 05

    Jan 3rd, 2006 (1/3/2006 1:34pm) in reply to h3llo7

    Most people, IMO, play stakes above their skill level (or in the case of really high stakes, at their skill level). And prolly not too many people play below their skill level as most wouldnt be content after they saw they could win at that level. Thats why gidders is so successful. He could easily play the 100's and prolly do good, but hes happy grinding at the 30's and dominating them.

    So I'd say not too many.
  4. gidders gidders is offline

    Albania

    Posts: 2,106
    Joined: Jan 05

    Jan 3rd, 2006 (1/3/2006 1:39pm) in reply to Adam

    I think Adam makes a good point. If someone is beating that level, the example of $10+1 - they will most likely move up.

    The other thing to think about is that a lot of people who AREN'T beating this level will STILL move up anyways... "I can't play with these donks" comes to mind.

    I truly believe that the number of CONSISTANT winners..... not the player who plays 30 SNG's the whole year and makes a couple bucks, I mean the people who play for profit is probably 2% or less, and most likely less.

    The reason I, in particular don't move up is similiar to the reason why a player (I can't remember right now) who plays lazy poker in terms of table selection - it's just really easy.

    The funny question would be to ask everyone if they consider themselves a "shark" and the reverse percentages would probably be true... - 98% of people would probably say yes they are... lol

    There's so much dead money at all level's its scary. It's pretty cool when your home computer is like your personal ATM.
  5. Fearlez Fearlez is offline

    Germantown, OH
    United States

    Posts: 42
    Joined: Nov 05

    Jan 3rd, 2006 (1/3/2006 1:43pm) in reply to gidders

    The person you are thinking of gidders is Todd Brunson.
  6. gidders gidders is offline

    Albania

    Posts: 2,106
    Joined: Jan 05

    Jan 3rd, 2006 (1/3/2006 1:44pm) in reply to Fearlez

    Naw, I was actually thinking of someone who posted an article about this recently... I *think* it was grapsfan but I'm not positive.
  7. Cashweekly Cashweekly is offline

    United States

    Posts: 2,427
    Joined: Aug 05

    Jan 3rd, 2006 (1/3/2006 2:02pm) in reply to Adam

    If you guys are right, I am atypical. I beat the $11 sngs for over a year before I moved up to the $22 level. I am doing very well here as well. I do not think I am a great player. I do however, understand many things about sngs, that my opponents do not.(especially party ones)

    Are there any others here like me, that stay at lower levels, and beat them soundly?

    Also there are people (teams?) that are getting that monthly leaderboard rewards$ on party by playing a few thousand $22 or similar level sngs.
  8. grapsfan grapsfan is offline Head Curmudgeon

    Rosemount, MN
    United States

    Posts: 7,980
    Joined: Jun 05

    Jan 3rd, 2006 (1/3/2006 2:05pm) in reply to gidders

    I wrote about this as part of being a Middle player stuck with Low players, mostly because practicing smart bankroll management keeps you there. My general point was that it's OK to view poker as a means to make a steady stream of "beer money" income while being fun at the same time. If you can consistently make $1000/month playing $10 SNGs, and you could use that $1000/month for school clothes for the kids or rent or whatever, it's OK to take it out and keep playing those $10 SNGs, rather than try and move up to Mahatma stakes.

    It wasn't necessarily a laziness thing, although that can certainly play a part. A bunch of people have bagged on Gidders for staying in the 10-30 range..."if he's so good, why doesn't he move up?" Well, why should he? He knows there's a game he likes, he's been oustandingly successful at it...and if he's too "lazy" to pick up a new skill set and search out a new challenge, why is that a bad thing? I'm not saying Gidders is lazy...far from it. He's probably the most ambitious, hard-working, grind-it-out poker player you'll find. I know I certainly don't have the focus and drive to play 1000 SNGs or more a month. He just chooses a different challenge than the "I'm moving up to Table 1" philosophy that most players have.

    The funny thing is that, since I wrote that article for P5s, I've decided to move up in stakes and keep my bankroll liquid rather than withdrawing after a couple of solid cashes. I've gone from 10-30 SNGs & MTTs to 50s & 100s, staying within my bankroll, but challenging myself to play at a higher level. After the first set of 50 or so, ROI is 13% and ITM around 41%. Not great, but certainly not ugly either. It's been an intriguing change, one that I might write an article about sometime.
     
  9. epicatc epicatc is offline

    New York City, NY
    United States

    Posts: 1,704
    Joined: Apr 05

    Jan 3rd, 2006 (1/3/2006 2:05pm) in reply to doomed222

    At the levels I play ($10-30 mainly), I almost always feel like I'm the best at the table. I am not one of the delusional 90-whatever percent; my stats support it, and having that mindset is very helpful to your play. That being said: I usually play 6-handed games. At a given 6-handed table in that buyin range, here is how it usually breaks down. There is almost always 1-2 total maniacs/calling stations/uber donks. The people that insta-push with a flush draw every time, or check/call bottom pair to the river for all their chips. Then there are 3-4 tight/weak players. These are usually the kind that can be consistently raised off their blinds and reraised off of hands. They're OK at playing big hands (AA,KK, sets etc.) when they find them, but lose far more than they should with mediocre hands and never "play the player" to steal pots. They also usually overpay for big draws, rarely continuation or probe bet, and are by far the easiest to read. There is usually no more than one (out of five) who is, what I consider to be, a good player. Creative, agressive, and makes me think when I'm in the hand with him. In these situations, I'll end up HU with that player probably 60-70% of the time. In the many, many SNGs Ive played at these levels, I don't think I've seen a 6-handed table with more than two other good players, and those are rare.
  10. h3llo7 h3llo7 is offline

    Birmingham, MI
    United States

    Posts: 274
    Joined: Oct 05

    Jan 3rd, 2006 (1/3/2006 2:09pm) in reply to doomed222

    So say I wanted to start on the 5.50 sngs on stars how many would I have to play and what ROI would I need to very comfortably move up..? And what about the Multi table sngs??
    Thread Starter
  11. epicatc epicatc is offline

    New York City, NY
    United States

    Posts: 1,704
    Joined: Apr 05

    Jan 3rd, 2006 (1/3/2006 2:10pm) in reply to epicatc

    I'm with you Cashweekly...I've been playing mainly $10 6-handed SNGs on UB for the last six months. Out of about 1,200 total games, around 80% of those were $10, and the rest were 20's and 30's. My ROI has swung between 25%-35%, and is around 29% right now. True, I've stuck to those games mostly because I've had to constantly withdraw money, screwing my bankroll. In 2006, I'll probably play mainly 20s and 30s, but for the last 6 months I fit the description...
  12. epicatc epicatc is offline

    New York City, NY
    United States

    Posts: 1,704
    Joined: Apr 05

    Jan 3rd, 2006 (1/3/2006 2:14pm) in reply to h3llo7

    How many you'd have to play depends on how much you win. A good conservative rule of thumb would be to make sure you have 50-60x the buyin for a SNG before you play that level. In addition, I would make sure you've logged at least 200-300 games at a level with at least 20% ROI before you move up. There are exceptions, of course, but I believe that is a good, conservative system.
  13. h3llo7 h3llo7 is offline

    Birmingham, MI
    United States

    Posts: 274
    Joined: Oct 05

    Jan 3rd, 2006 (1/3/2006 2:18pm) in reply to epicatc

    so after 300 sngs i should be up 300 bucks
    Thread Starter
  14. AceRunner AceRunner is offline

    Thailand

    Posts: 3,722
    Joined: Nov 05

    Jan 3rd, 2006 (1/3/2006 2:23pm) in reply to Cashweekly

    Are there any others here like me, that stay at lower levels, and beat them soundly?

    Yes. For example someone who consistently beats lower limit MTT's, SNG's, Rings but depends on that money so is never able to build much of a bankroll. I unfortunately am in that situation right now. I have had good success at higher limits than I am forced to play right now, but since I use poker winnings to pay bills during college I have never been able to build my bankroll.

    Another type of shark could be someone who has a lot of success, but for some reason does not feel confident when playing higher limits. So they stay in their comfort zone and win consistently.
  15. misterizx misterizx is offline

    Woodlake, CA
    United States

    Posts: 2,345
    Joined: Aug 05

    Jan 3rd, 2006 (1/3/2006 2:28pm) in reply to gidders

    Bit of a highjack. Gidders people continously say they think you can beat $100 sitngos. I know you are doing a bankroll build, but have you ever considered doing 10 $100s to see if it is profitable?
Reply to Thread

Similar Threads