Relax MVP - I was just giving you some chit

Actually, I agree with you. I posted a response to Nash's strategy post and felt like a pariah when nobody added anything. I had killed an excellent thread. I know darn well it wasn't the definitive reponse, I'm not that good - hell, I'm not very good at all.

I'm all for more regular postings on this wonderful forum!

About variance... I try to stay away from NL cash games. I play $0.50/$1 and $1/$2 limit games. That way when I get sucked out on, I don't lose my entire buy-in and can win it back the next pot or two. Think about it this way... you have trips but there's a flush draw, if someone in NL stays to the end and hits the flush, you will probably lose your entire buy-in. But if someone stays to the end in limit, you'll lose one or two bets.

For NL games I play the $5 and $10 SNGs. I find the variance much lower there. When you're all-in with the better hand at the moment and get drawn out on by a 2-4 outter, you only lose your $5 or $10 buy-in. You don't lose any more. Plus, I also like how SNGs force you to change gears at the right times.

I've only played 44 $5 SNGs so far... but I have a 45% ROI. At the moment I stick with two-tabling SNGs, but I'll probably move up to three tables soon. I like to pay attention to my opponents and note what their bets usually mean and how loose, passive, aggressive, etc they are. Right now two tables at once pushes me to concentrate heavily. I wouldn't recommend starting off playing 3 or 4 tables at once.

And I think 100 SNGs in a week would be difficult.

I think what he means is more short-term variance (ie.. you lose a couple stacks in a couple days due to assholes hitting their river flushes... it can REALLY suck)...

I've often heard variance is higher in limit. I'm not sure I agree with that. With NL, your entire stack can be at risk in every pot. It seems your variance would be much larger in NL. You'll still win more money in the long run by playing your hands correctly, but when you lose, you lose a LOT more. Within two hands you can be down 50BB or more! That never would happen with limit.

Your variance would be higher in NL... higher positive swings and higher negative swings. I personally wouldn't like the higher negative swings part. I prefer the lighter swings with limit.

This was one of the best responses I've ever seen to this question. Take it for what its worth.

I've played 600 SNGS at the $6 and $11 level now. My ITM is 45% and ROI is 21%. I'd like to get the ROI up, but who wouldn't.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showt ... 14&fpart=1

Yeah, he was a little angry and didn't specify enough.

My take away from what I've read is that you can have significant variance in SNGs if you play enough of them. ROIs vary. Many would be pleased with my 21% over 600. I am, but still mad its not more (I'm greedy, so kill me). ROIs will vary, that's for sure. Don't be so hard pressed about precise numbers. Focus on playing good poker and if you do that, the ROI will take care of itself. Maybe put this sentence above your computer.

That's why bankroll management is so important. I've dropped as many as 8-10 buy ins. I play with a 30 buy-in rule, but normally when I drop 5 in a row, I'll duck back down to the $5.50s, regain my confidence and move back to the $11s. Nothing left to prove at the $5.50s.

Luck is definitely a factor and I'm hard pressed to say that anyone can be ITM more than 50% over an extended number of SNGs at any level. I will say that as I added tables, my ROI went down. Now I play max 2 tables, otherwise you are only playing the cards, with no read on the players.

I'm obviously no great player (as all of you guys that read my posts can attest to), but if my ROI on $33 SNGs was 22%, $55 was 18%, and $109 was 12% , I'd be hanging from a ceiling fan somewhere...