I think I need a boost...

[Talking Poker]

You probably know that I've been playing almost exclusively $200 HU SNGs for a while now - pretty much all of 2008 (I played a bunch of $100s in January, but all $200s since). I've played 938 this year, and have a 6.6% ROI. Note that that is including 150 $220 turbos where I had a -13.3% ROI (ugh - nasty combo of running AND playing badly resulted in me going 68-82). Lifetime in the $200 regulars (838 matches), I have a 9.3% ROI. These numbers are not including rakeback, bonuses, etc.

I will be the first to admit that I have been running pretty damn hot for the past week and change, but I also had two ridiculous downswings earlier this year. I think approaching 1000 SNGs is probably a decent sample, right?

So, here's the problem (and I guess it's a good problem to have): I keep building up my account and then cashing out, rinse and repeat. I WANT to take it to the next level (I think I do anyway), but $500 buy ins are 2.5x what I'm playing at now - and knowing how easy it is to lose 4, 5, 6 in a row (I once lost TEN straight $220+10 turbos), I'm not sure I'm ready for that kind of potential downswing.

How many buy ins do you think I should have (leave) online before taking a shot? Should I maybe try to play a set number of them (maybe 10?), and move back down if I win 5 or less, and continue with the shot if I win 6 or more?

I really don't know what to do. I feel like I'm at a crossroad, and I'm torn. Quite frankly, I'm happy to keep grinding out the $200 SNGs, so I just might do that. But I'm interested to hear people's thoughts.

[Windbreaker]

Like with everything else in life....it depends.

I'll comment on my own experiences. My main game are $60 - 5 table turbo sngs. If anyone wants to experience some huge swings....I recommend playing these...haha.

I started with with the $27 dollar tourneys. And had a crazy ROI. The jump to the $60 was a simple...as I continued to play the $27 and mixed in a few 60s. The jump was really easy, even though the competition was a lot harder. I went through a massive up swings at the start. Since that time, I've played probably over 5000 5-tbl sngs. My worse downswing was for about 9k (maybe a bit more).

I could only absorb the lost because I leave a lot of money on my online roll. It never got to the point where I had to switch games or move to a lower level. If it came down to it, I would probably move down to a lower level first.

For your situation, I would probably continue playing the $200s....and when you're having a good or break even day...feeling good...then play one or two $500s to end the session.

Continue to do so until you feel confident you can beat the game....if you can't, stay at the $200s. I don't see why you would have to force yourself to move up to a higher level first and stay there.

The swings in the HU's are probably a lot less swingy than the 5 tbl turbos as you game selection is a lot easier to decide...instead of joining every one possible.

Good luck in any case.

[Zybomb]

HU SNGs the standard req is 40-50 buy ins

[Kurn]

I would say that number sounds reasonable, but Moshman says for any SNG 100 buy-ins is best. That sounds extreme to me, but the SNG wonks on 2p2 seem to agree.

[Wes]

I would think that 100 buyins is more suited towards 9-man since it is pretty regular to drop 10-15 buyins in a day, but losing that same amount of buyins at HU sngs would be an odd occurrence.

And I'd just take a shot at $500s whenever you feel comfortable. I'm sure you are bright enough to realize not to go broke at the above level so you can always move down if things don't go well.

[Kurn]

That's my gut feeling, too. On the other hand, some statistics geek might have a formula that says my gut is wrong.

[Talking Poker]

Well, that's just it. I could play 5 in a row and win or lose all 5, but that doens't mean I can or can't beat the game. 5 isn't any kind of sample.

I'm confident that I can beat the $500s, but I'm wondering how much my ROI would drop, and if it's worth the larger swings to grind out what may not amount to any additional winnings (and could be losings) at the end of the day.

Similar to what Windbreaker said, and I think it's good advice.

I think I will continue to primarily play the 200s, but keep an eye on the 500 lobbies. If I see a weak player sit down, I'll take a shot.

Zy - your boy Adrian is a HU SNG specialist, right? What's his screen name?

[Talking Poker]

Oh... and the other consideration here that I didn't really mention... If the reason I am considering moving up is to make more money at the end of the day (and I don't even know what it is, but I guess it's that - I just kind of feel like I "should"), there is another option.

Rather than play the same couple of hours per day that I play now but at higher stakes, I could get off my ass and play MORE at my current levels.

938 matches in 2008 is about 10 per day on average. I could focus on getting that number up to 15 or 20, and then reevaluate down the road sometime.

[Wes]

Zybomb's friend is Pokts on stars

[Talking Poker]

Damn.

(Sharkscope)

[Zybomb]

If you're saying damn now, You should have seen him b4 this past month....

[Windbreaker]

Oh, almost forgot about this:




2 player SnG, top 1 itm.

return on investment : 15.0%
kelly criterion : 15.79%

return on investment : 10.0%
kelly criterion : 10.33%

return on investment : 5.0%
kelly criterion : 5.22%


Cliffnotes on kelly criterion for those unfamilar:

The formula specifies the percentage of the current bankroll to be bet at each iteration of the game. In addition to maximizing the growth rate in the long run, the formula has the added benefit of having zero risk of ruin; the formula will never allow a loss of 100% of the bankroll on any bet. An assumption of the formula is that currency and bets are infinitely divisible, which is not a concern for practical purposes if the bankroll is large enough.

[Talking Poker]

I know how to read graphs, thanks.

And yeah, he's playing at a level that I don't think I would ever be comfortable with. I'd love to chat with him sometime about this HU SNG progression. Hook it up.

[Talking Poker]

I need to read more about this, but this is very interesting - I think the bold above is what I should be focusing on (we all should, in theory).

Thanks. +Rep.

For those interested:

[Windbreaker]

Should note the disadvantages....in the wiki link.

The optimum bet for the greatest growth of bankroll is making the full bet suggested by the Kelly criterion, but this produces a volatile result. There is a 1/3 chance of halving the bankroll before it is doubled. A popular alternative is to bet only half the amount suggested which gives three-quarters of the investment return with much less volatility. Where money would accumulate at 9.06% compound interest with full bets, it still accumulates at 7.5% for half-bets.

[Talking Poker]

I can not get over these numbers. I keep going over it different ways, and I keep coming out with results that tell me I am a puss.

If I am reading this right, let's say you have a $1000 bankroll. If your HU SNG ROI is 10%, what this is saying is that you should be betting 10% (I'm going to round all numbers down - this almost exactly covers the rake anyway) of your bankroll to maximize your growth rate, or in this case, playing $100+5 matches. By doing so, there is a 1/3 chance that you will halve your roll to $500 before doubling it to $2000 (implying that there is twice as good a chance of you doubling your roll before cutting it in half).

Can that be right?

Taking it a step further, many people prefer to bet half of the optimal Kelly numbers, because doing so will yield 75% of the return, but with much less volatility. So, in our case of Mr. 10% ROI and $1000 roll, he should play $50+2.50 matches to be conservative.

That STILL amazes me.

Another example for the low-rollers: You have a $500 roll and a 5% ROI in HU SNGs (you play while sleeping, in other words). Kelly says you should be playing $25 SNGs, but to be ultra-conservative, you play in $10 ones, with virtually no chance of busting your roll.

Running my numbers (only counting my "virtual" bankroll - what I have online), Kelly says I should be playing $2k SNGs for optimal growth. The more conservative approach would be to play $1k ones.

Can that be right?

One thing not factored in here is that my actual ROI when playing at $1k or $2k limits would likely be MUCH less than the number I am using in these calculations - in fact, it could very well be a negative number, which throws everything out the window. If your ROI is negative (losing players), the optimal bet for you is of course $0.

Still though, everything about this tells me I should move up.

If I'm misinterpreted anything in the math or what it means, some please point out where.

[Windbreaker]

I think your logic is correct.

Although I wouldn't necessarily interrupt everything the same way.

- You have no idea what your ROI is at the $500 level, because you haven't had a significant sample size at that level. So you won't know what your "ideal" bankroll should be.

- Technically, since your bankroll changes as you play (either + or -), you should be changing levels as you go. So if you're on a downswing, you technically should be going to a lower level.

- Also this method is volatile. If you keep the same bet size: your bankroll will halve before doubling 1/3 of the time. That may not be a very good thing if you tilt.

Also your statement -

"By doing so, there is a 1/3 chance that you will halve your roll to $500 before doubling it to $2000 (implying that there is twice as good a chance of you doubling your roll before cutting it in half)."

Isn't quite true. According to KC, you should never bust your roll....because your Bankroll changes, thus your bet size changes. (Not really practical in poker because your ROI isn't constant, and players may not be willing to grind microlimits if it came down to that). That statement says, 1/3 of the time you're going to halve your bankroll before you eventually double it. It doesn't mean you will double 2/3 of the time before halving your bankroll.

I think it means that your bankroll will always eventually double - assuming the following to be true:

- ROI is constant
- Your bet size is = to the KC all the time
- And that your bet size can be small enough where you can continue to place the bet.

***I don't know if everything I wrote is necessarily correct.

[Talking Poker]

Good stuff.

[Talking Poker]

So, I decided to set up a little Kelly Criterion calculation in Excel. I went the conservative route with all of my numbers:

For my bankroll, I didn't use all of it, but have it based on my 2008 HU SNG winnings plus a bit (less than that total I have online).

For my ROI, I used my 2008 number, and included that ridiculous run of turbos I played that knock down my non-turbo ROI a few percent.

Both my bankroll and ROI update automatically, so everything is recalculated after every match I play.

Then, rather than going with the straight KC number, I rounded it down (this coincidently will match ROI for HU play), and set high and low tolerances for where I think I'd be comfortable playing. I'm pretty sure going straight KC (losing half my roll 1/3 of the time) is would be too much variance for me to stomach, so I picked 20% KC and 50% KC for my low and high limits, intending to play within that Buy In range.

Now here's the funny thing, and I couldn't make this up if I tried. The numbers it spit out for me:

Low - $199.81
High - $499.53

Well, isn't that ironic?

Going by the letter of the law, my next match should be a $200 one and if I win that, I should immediately move to $500 (the numbers will adjust up slightly). Of course, that doesn't count the juice, which needs to be counted.

Funny thought how it came out basically saying I should be at the crossroads I feel like I'm at.

[Invigilator]

*Invigilator gets out the popcorn and beer*