I just read a post about a person having a 2% ROI and asking if it was good stats. That is what made me trigger to post this.

I had a conversation with a buddy about my sng stats. I don't track my results on my own (I know thats a bad thing) so I'm going to use sharkscope's stats.

<table id="t1" border="1" bordercolor="black"><thead> <tr><th>Username</th><th>Games Played</th><th width="45">Av. Profit</th><th width="45">Av. Stake</th><th width="45">Av. ROI</th><th width="50">Total Profit</th><th>Form</th><th>Network</th><th width="50">Filter</th></tr></thead> <tbody id="tablerows"><tr id="Cliffy1013#pokerstars&null"><td align="center">Cliffy1013 </td><td align="center">5,643</td><td title="The Av. Profit is the Average Profit Per Game after rake has been subtracted." align="right">$2 </td><td title="The Av. Stake is the average tournament buy-in amount." align="right">$10 </td><td title="The Av. ROI is the Average of each game's Return On Investment. It is the average of each (Payout-(Stake+Rake))/(Stake+Rake). This is not the same as total ROI which is (Total Payouts-(Total Rake+Total Stakes))/(Total Stakes+Total Rake)." align="center">18%</td><td title="The Total Profit is the net profit for this player (and includes rake)." align="right">$9,081 </td><td title="Super Hot=6 straight payouts. Hot=3 straight payouts. Tilt=4 straight losses. Super Tilt=8 straight losses." align="center">Super Tilt</td><td align="center">PokerStars</td><td>x</td></tr></tbody></table>
Ignore the Super Tilt, I obviously know that isn't good.

When compared to stats like below (his name is removed and replaced with SHARK) my friend tells me that my stats are better. Is he correct? and how so? My buddy states that SHARK proboly just hit a good run of sng's and because I'm still profitable over over 5500 games that my stats are better. Is this true?
<table id="t1" border="1" bordercolor="black"><tbody id="tablerows"><tr id="Jamie217#pokerstars&null"><td align="center">SHARK
</td><td align="center">774</td><td title="The Av. Profit is the Average Profit Per Game after rake has been subtracted." align="right">$8 </td><td title="The Av. Stake is the average tournament buy-in amount." align="right">$19 </td><td title="The Av. ROI is the Average of each game's Return On Investment. It is the average of each (Payout-(Stake+Rake))/(Stake+Rake). This is not the same as total ROI which is (Total Payouts-(Total Rake+Total Stakes))/(Total Stakes+Total Rake)." align="center">39%</td><td title="The Total Profit is the net profit for this player (and includes rake)." align="right">$5,956 </td><td title="Super Hot=6 straight payouts. Hot=3 straight payouts. Tilt=4 straight losses. Super Tilt=8 straight losses." align="center">Hot</td><td align="center">PokerStars</td><td>x</td></tr></tbody></table>
I don't exactly know how to word my question. I don't believe my stats are as good as what my friend states. If you were going to play 5500+ games wouldn't you want/expect more than $2 profit per game (given the fact that a $12 45 player game takes an hour to complete)? I've played all different ranges of sngs but I mostly play $12 45 player games. You can sharkscope me yourself if you have a membership there to get further details about me if you want.

Another statement my friend said is that I should start playing higher buyin sng's ($12+), claiming that if once you "mastered a sng game" you try something higher. I've tried both $27-$60 45 player games with no success. Should I still try those games or should I stick with what is working for me? Thanks in advance.

"If you were going to play 5500+ games wouldn't you want/expect more than $2 profit per game (given the fact that a $12 45 player game takes an hour to complete)? "

And this is why God invented multi-tabling. $2 per tournament isn't a whole lot, but if you are playing 5, 10 or 35 tournaments at a time, it adds up.

When I first started playing the $12 45 player games, I use to play 1 table at a time so I could fully concentrate on what was happening. Eventually it started to annoy me that by playing 1 at a time, I could very well spend 30 minutes-40 minutes and not cash in the game. For this reason I started to multi-table (changing my strategy along with it) and I found that I was able to pretty consistently make a profit playing 5 or 6 games at the same time. At this point was when I realized I would make a profit multi-tabling, but if I was able to eliminate the games that I would lose in, I'd make that much more profit (variance is a *****... nuff said). This is what made me play 2 tables at a time, I was able to concentrate on both tables and not make stupid moves I would make if I was playing 6. According to my stats I would overall make $4 an hour. Is that really worth playing?

Doesn't playing perfect poker make the most money?

My problem with playing more tables is that it will obviously change my strategy/style of play. Not that I'm not capable of doing that but I don't exactly know if I WANT to.

Overall I want to <span>consistently</span> get the most return out of my money, which is exactly why I started playing the 45 player games. 180 player games weren't out yet and the variance of 180 is insanely huge compared to 45 players (or maybe it's just me?). Just because my current average profit of $2 a game doesn't mean that every single game I play I'll make $2 profit. If I was gareenteed $2/game I'd auto register every single game all day long.

Dude, bottom line is... if when you play 1 table you're playing 100% your best game... and with 10 tables you're playing at 80% (ignore the random percentages, just making a point)... then you're god damn right you should be playing 10 tables. Perfect poker and being consistent on 1 table is all well and good... but if you're losing a huge chunk of change over the long run by not multi-tabling (which you're almost surely doing) then you're obv doing yourself a huge disservice.

Tyvm for your response. Thats an idea I haven't thought about... go from the $12 45 player game to the $16 18 player games instead of the $27 45 player games. I'll have to give the $16 18 player games a try next time I play.