[nxtyear]

so i'm just wondering how many of you build bankrolls thorugh Sitngos
many times have i tried this approach and failed miserably

(except a day where i colluded with my friend playing in the same sitngo and made a 100 profit from 5 dollar sitngos... don't do that anymore don't worry, i think i've heard enough of the feared consequences...)

well anyways, alot of times i start out by playing quite well, i would have a bout 3 games in a row where i'd win by cominng first and second and do really well, then i'd lose a few rounds, yet my bankroll is still up, then i'd come second maybe again to move it up, but a series of losing streaks come along.
eventually my bankroll ends up going lower and lower, kinda like in an upside down J shape, starst going up, then back down below....

i realized if i play 10+1 for example. 10 people (rather than 9 for simplicity)
that means winning once will allow me to lose 3 times more atleast.

in ten games, i would have wasted 110 dollars, and to achieve that money back i have to win atleast 2 first places with one third place finish minimum to gain a profit.

(someone who does better mathematics please supply the longrun average stuff..)

if i only place first place once, i have to place atleast 2 second places to break even.

now somehow it doesn't seem that hard as i do place first place and second place or third place often, but i just don't get why my bankroll is heading downwards when i do sitngo rallies....

ok this post probably doesn't make much sense, i'm not sure what i'm writing either.
but i just won another sitngo just now, (after losing two) so i'm up so far.
no comments now ....

[beriac]

I actually find that I have the same issue. The SitnGos, while lots of fun and great for building your tournament skills, are tough to build a bankroll on. I guess the math would go like this:

- 10 players, paying 5x/3x/2x, with a 10% entry fee
- So over 10 games, you will pay 10 buy-ins and 10 entry fees, or equivalently 11 buy-ins
- Thus, over 10 games you'd need any of the following combinations or better to break even: 1st/3rd/3rd/3rd, 1st/2nd/2nd, 2nd/2nd/2nd/3rd, 2nd/3rd/3rd/3rd/3rd... basically anything even slightly better than 1st/2nd/3rd

So you don't have to drastically outperform to break even or beat the rake, but you do need to outperform (since on average, with players of equal skill, we'd expect performances of 1st/2nd/3rd/4th/5th/6th/7th/8th/9th/10th over 10 games from each player).

The way I tend to think about it, you just consistently need 1 really bad player in the game. If you think about it, his share pays the rake, and then you just have to win your fair share against the others to break even. Maybe 2-3 "fairly bad" players will do.

One other thing I'd mention is that the variance in playing SnG's is quite high due to their inherent structure, so you have to play quite a lot to know if you're really winning or not.

It does seem harder to win consistently in ring games, though. I wonder if anyone can shed some light on why?

[Texas72]

I think it's harder to win in a ring game because there is the element of being able to reach back in your pocket and get more money. That makes people take more risks, etc. as they're searching for that big score. Your variance therefore tends to go way up. In a tourney, since you don't have that factor, your opponents are likely playing a much more solid game.

[beriac]

On a session by session basis, I agree with you. But $ for $ wagered (and this would sort of eliminate that bias of reaching into your pocket...), I think that the all-or-nothing nature of SNGs would make the variance there higher.

I guess it just depends on what we mean when we say variance. I think the way you're talking about it, it means how much you're up/down at the end of a session, but for me it's measured based on the number of dollars actually wagered. So for a ring game, I'd mean the variance of starting with a stake the same size as your SNG entry and spending about the same amount of time at the table.

Still, point taken...

[Takethepot25]

ive tried building a bankroll many times by playing sit n goes. I find it to be close to impossible if that is the only kind of game your playing. Sit n goes are like slot machines. You can hit big possbily. But you'll lose thousands of times before you hit big. Your chances of making money in these is very bad. Once in a while you can make a run at the jackpot but usually just let them go. I've found for good players the best way to make money is big multi table tournaments. I came 1st out of 209 at Titan and won $307 in one shot. Not bad for 4 hours of work.

[beriac]

Aren't MTT's basically big jackpots themselves? I'm not saying it doesn't take tremendous skill -- of course it does -- but the cards have to fall your way more than a few times to get to #1. As a consistent way to build a bankroll up, you really think MTTs beat STTs?

[BadAndy]

I agree with you. Sit n Go's seem to drain my bankroll all the time. I go into them thinking wow, this will be a breeze considering I am a pretty good player and there are usually only 6 players sitting at the tables, two of which usually are paid. But of course, I always seem to get busted by the guy that calls my 300 raise with 33 or 44, and then calls my 600 bet with the same small pair on the flop when I have hit my Aces, and of course hits his damn set on the turn. Stupidity is rewarded in online poker. Sit N Go's should be a safe way to make a bankroll but I reccomend $.50/1 Limit tables or small buyin MTT's(Multi Table Tournaments). As for myself, I get $50, I will play about 8 or 9 $5 buyin MTT's. My game is good enough to make the money in atleast 3 of those if not more, and most likely make solid money in atleast one of them, reloading me for another round of 9-- if not more. I prefer playing tournaments opposed to the small games, they seem to burn the better players more often.

But that's just me.

[BadAndy]

Oh yea and I don't reccomend trying to build a bankroll on freerolls as it is VERY tempting to spend the $5 you make each day... I was lucky enough to WIN the biggest freeroll I've ever played in, so I didn't have to win 30 different ones. The one I won was the Titan Poker $2500 Loyalty Freeroll(645 Entrants). I won first and got $625. It was AWESOME. I reccomend the small buyin MTT's for bankroll building. That's what put me on top!

[beriac]

What size of MTT do you find is optimal for bankroll building? Seems like too big, and your chances diminish -- would be great to win, but ex ante not as obvious that this would be a winning strategy to "build".

[Yearbookpoker]

I don't necessarily build my bankrolls through SNG's. I like to play on the regular tables during the week and on friday I take the amount of money I made and put 10% of it towards SNG's. Then about half the time I will place and sometimes I win it. It's a good way to build a bankroll. I know if I played SNG's very often I would start playing poorly because I often times try and build a big chip stack so quickly in a SNG tourney that I play like an ass. I for now like my way and am sticking to it.

"If it ain't broken, don't fix it."