You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Sky Poker forums will be temporarily unavailable from 11pm Wednesday July 25th.
Sky Poker Forums is upgrading its look! Stay tuned for the big reveal!
Profit from Double Your Money Sit&Go's
Hi Folks,
I'm sure most people will be aware of what I’m going to say here, but from what I've been seeing I believe there is a fair few people who aren’t. If there's a post already about this then my apologies but I did check before writing this and couldn’t find one.
To make money from these types of sit & go's you have to be able to be consistently make the top 50% of players and should therefore NOT and mean NOT be bumping heads (all in's) when blinds are still levels 1/2/3 with hands that are at best 45-55% chance of winning. Now I know we all like our AK's and pocket pairs, my self included, but here’s the maths behind why it is far better to play poker with these hands then go all in :Example
Buy in £1.00 - £0.15
Pay out £2.00
Profit - £0.75
Therefore if you cash in 50% of the games you play in, your actually losing money due to Sky rake on these games.
Using the same game stake and assuming you win 66%/2 out of 3 then you will only make £0.55. With is still less than 50% of you buyin
I'm not a maths genius so have not worked out the exact % of wins you need to exactly double your money. But if you win75%/3 out 4 you will make a profit of £1.40 which is double the buyin and rake.
Without trying to hammer home the point, but if you need to win 75% of your games, taking a 55-45% advantage when it can ruin your game in the early stages is a no no. For anyone who is not as conservative as me, by thinking winning 2 out of 3 games still deliver’s a profit and you still get experience of playing, I get this point but in my opinion it would be better to play a cash game, as your profit is not impacted by a rake (in lower stakes). Quick Summary
I have used the £1.00 - 0.15 game to help with the maths but as the payout/buy-in structure is the game for all double money games then this can be applied to any levels.
I hope this makes sense but any constructive criticism or comments welcome.
I'm sure most people will be aware of what I’m going to say here, but from what I've been seeing I believe there is a fair few people who aren’t. If there's a post already about this then my apologies but I did check before writing this and couldn’t find one.
To make money from these types of sit & go's you have to be able to be consistently make the top 50% of players and should therefore NOT and mean NOT be bumping heads (all in's) when blinds are still levels 1/2/3 with hands that are at best 45-55% chance of winning. Now I know we all like our AK's and pocket pairs, my self included, but here’s the maths behind why it is far better to play poker with these hands then go all in :Example
Buy in £1.00 - £0.15
Pay out £2.00
Profit - £0.75
Therefore if you cash in 50% of the games you play in, your actually losing money due to Sky rake on these games.
Using the same game stake and assuming you win 66%/2 out of 3 then you will only make £0.55. With is still less than 50% of you buyin
I'm not a maths genius so have not worked out the exact % of wins you need to exactly double your money. But if you win75%/3 out 4 you will make a profit of £1.40 which is double the buyin and rake.
Without trying to hammer home the point, but if you need to win 75% of your games, taking a 55-45% advantage when it can ruin your game in the early stages is a no no. For anyone who is not as conservative as me, by thinking winning 2 out of 3 games still deliver’s a profit and you still get experience of playing, I get this point but in my opinion it would be better to play a cash game, as your profit is not impacted by a rake (in lower stakes). Quick Summary
I have used the £1.00 - 0.15 game to help with the maths but as the payout/buy-in structure is the game for all double money games then this can be applied to any levels.
I hope this makes sense but any constructive criticism or comments welcome.
Comments
Cash games are raked.
The rake in higher buy-in DYM's is less than in the lower buy-in's. (15% rake at £1 and 10% at £20, for example)
Apart from those errors, your post makes sense. You shouldn't be risking your tournament in marginal spots early in DYM's.
EDIT: If you were winning 2/3 of your games over a long period, that would be astonishingly brilliant at most levels. Perhaps it's possible at £1 games if the opposition is particularly poor but it's not really possible at higher levels.
I think it's either the £3s or £5s where the rake drops to 10% and so acheiving better ROIs becomes easier (assuming the playing standard in £5s was identical to 30ps obv)
In general though, people can't make nearly as much money as they think in the short term even if they crush a game, for instance...
1) A good cash game player may win 10BB per 100 hands, so at 10NL for instance, he's making £1 per 100 hands which takes a little over 1 hour (1tabling)
2) A good DYM player may have a 10% ROI, so from £5.50 games, he's only making 55p per game, and each game takes at least 30 mins so £1.10 per hour (if 1tabling)
3) A good HU Turbo SnG player may have a 8% ROI, so from £5.25s he's earning 42p per game, and can probably play about 6 per hour (when 1 tabling) so £2.52 per hour.
4) A good MTT player will have say 50%+ ROI so if he plays a £10 MTT he will make £5 profit (long term obv) and each MTT may take 3-4hours, so that's about £1.60 per hour (assuming 1tabling again).
The moral of the story is, you gotta be very good, play at least half decent stakes and put ALOT of volume in to make serious money.