Sit'n'go multitabler, its just unreal

mrflash

I'm just wondering if any of the multi tablers find these stats a bit ott. i am trying to accept it, but i find it hard. the average sng on stars lasts about an hour or a little over it, and he plays ordinary 9 seaters. its from sharkscope. i've been following this guy for a while because he outdrew me 27 times in the 28 sng's i have played against him. I checked him out in July and he had played 25000 sngs and was up 34k. now hes at this level.

games plyd. av. prof av. stake roi total profit site
The_Venetian 31,497 $2 $21 9% $54,946 Pokerstars


Thats something like 110 sngs for every day of the year so far.

Mellor

An extra 6k games since july, about 100 games a day. Doesn't seem impossible really if he's multi tabling and playing full time.
Your estimate of an hour a STT is way off imo. As thats the time it takes for the full STT to finish. Unless your 1st or 2nd each time then your average won't be the full time. I'd guess its about half hour average. Maybe a bit more. 8 tables at a time 8 hours a day should make it.

RoundTower

how many hands do you play on average in a Stars sng, about 40? 4k hands a day is a huge amount.

grey_abbey

Turbo's only take about 35-40 mins. You could play a ton of them. Very formulaic.

Mellor

They take that long to finish, not to play on average.
The average time is about half that as all players dont last till the end.

Hitman Actual

Playing 32,000 STTs for a $54K profit seems like a horrible, horrible way to live.

luckylucky

lenny_leonard wrote:

Playing 32,000 STTs for a $54K profit seems like a horrible, horrible way to live.

Unless he's in the room next door with some hot bit of stuff while his bot is making him loads of dough multi-tabling in low stakes sngs

Dr_Colossus

I've begun to play Sit n Gos over the past week to try and avoid the negative variance I'm experiencing in the cash games.
I've been playing the 9 seater Sit n Gos on pokerstars and I've found it takes a long time to get through any significant number of games. Playing 4 tables at a time it's easily taking me an hour to get through the 4 games. For instance in one game where I was heads up it took an additional 13 minutes to declare the winner.
I don't think it's feasible to play more than 8 tables at a time therefore I can't see him playing more than 12 games an hour. His average 110 Sit n Gos every day indicates a solid 9 hours of poker a day not counting the time it takes to register for games and for them to fill up. This seems quite incredible but there are some strange fish out there.
One thing I don't understand is if he's a winning player with a good bankroll from his profits, why is his average stake only 21$, surely he would be better paid to play higher stakes?
Thanks for the heads up on Sharkscope, never knew the site existed and is quite useful. As I'm not an experienced Sit n Go player can you please advise what a good ROI is in Sit n Gos and what sort of data sample would you need in order to determine if you're a winning player?
Thanks

mrflash

Dr_Colossus wrote:

I've begun to play Sit n Gos over the past week to try and avoid the negative variance I'm experiencing in the cash games.
I've been playing the 9 seater Sit n Gos on pokerstars and I've found it takes a long time to get through any significant number of games. Playing 4 tables at a time it's easily taking me an hour to get through the 4 games. For instance in one game where I was heads up it took an additional 13 minutes to declare the winner.
I don't think it's feasible to play more than 8 tables at a time therefore I can't see him playing more than 12 games an hour. His average 110 Sit n Gos every day indicates a solid 9 hours of poker a day not counting the time it takes to register for games and for them to fill up. This seems quite incredible but there are some strange fish out there.
One thing I don't understand is if he's a winning player with a good bankroll from his profits, why is his average stake only 21$, surely he would be better paid to play higher stakes?
Thanks for the heads up on Sharkscope, never knew the site existed and is quite useful. As I'm not an experienced Sit n Go player can you please advise what a good ROI is in Sit n Gos and what sort of data sample would you need in order to determine if you're a winning player?
Thanks

you might be better to put up a new thread on that one asking for advice to sng's. I would imagine than 9% is quite a good target which is funny enough what the_venetian is on.
But there are some really good players that come on here and will tell you what you need to know.

Requiem4adream

lenny_leonard wrote:

Playing 32,000 STTs for a $54K profit seems like a horrible, horrible way to live.

Absolutely agree.

I've gone days of 15-tabling really small buy-in sng, 10 hours a day. After 1 day of it you really dont want to do it ever again. To do it successfully for a living, all year round, is a superb display of discipline, patience and aptitude. Job satisfaction probably = 0. The worst part of it is registering for the sng's - not sure if there are sng-opener-software for stars, if that were possible then it wouldnt be so bad. When you're in 9 games and want to get the other 6 reg'd for it gets a bit messy, amplify that over a day, a month , a year and it's a lot of frustration.

At the end of the day, if you know you can beat a level over the long run for say 10% whilst 15-tabling, all you really need is the mental strength and discipline to keep doing it. Personally i'd rather work in McDonalds.

Mellor

Dr_Colossus wrote:

One thing I don't understand is if he's a winning player with a good bankroll from his profits, why is his average stake only 21$, surely he would be better paid to play higher stakes?

His total profit is over 50k. But his BR may not be this figure.
If he averaging over $200 a day profit. He is probably taking a decent amount out to live on and keeping the rest in so he can maintain the number of games he plays that his current level.

This also happens due to a player building from a low roll, grinding from $1 to $50 games, the average could easily be around the middle range, but for the original player I know this isn't the case.

jayteecork

Do those poker trackers like sharkscope only track Tournament money winners, or cash games as well?

luckylucky

Mellor wrote:

His total profit is over 50k. But his BR may not be this figure.
If he averaging over $200 a day profit. He is probably taking a decent amount out to live on and keeping the rest in so he can maintain the number of games he plays that his current level.

This also happens due to a player building from a low roll, grinding from $1 to $50 games, the average could easily be around the middle range, but for the original player I know this isn't the case.

Yeah but $21 games when he's made $50K :eek: That does seem extremely weird unless he's really splashing out on his winnings. Even on a very strict bankroll where you would need a 100 buy-ins he surely has $100 games covered and still the same again in the bank.
Given all the info about the amount of games this guy goes through a day it reeks of a bot, either that or a very strange individual indeed.

mrflash

Un Gms Plyd Av.Prof Av. Stk Av. ROI Total Profit Form k
The_Venetian 32,264 $2 $21 9% $ 55,378 - PokerStars

Just got that before i posted.
Does anyone know if the reg. is included in avg. stake and deducted from profit?

Requiem4adream

luckylucky wrote:

Yeah but $21 games when he's made $50K :eek: That does seem extremely weird unless he's really splashing out on his winnings. Even on a very strict bankroll where you would need a 100 buy-ins he surely has $100 games covered and still the same again in the bank.
Given all the info about the amount of games this guy goes through a day it reeks of a bot, either that or a very strange individual indeed.

I dont get this logic.

If you can beat a game whilst 15-tabling for 10% consistently over a massive sample, does it automatically mean that you should move up levels? What if the guy knows he cant beat the higher levels for the same ROI, which to be fair is almost certainly gonna be a fact. If he can only beat that level for 9% or so, there is no hope in hell he can beat higher levels for more than 0-5%, furthermore it's very possible to 15-table small buy-ins because they reg quickly, if you want to 15-table $100 sngs you're gonna get maybe 40% less games done per day. If his game is based on high attrition, pounding out games, it's a lot easier to achieve in the lower levels.

It begs the question though - suppose you're a very good $6 sng player making 30% ROI 15-tabling, then you win €100,000 on the lotto, what would you do? Most people im sure will try the higher levels out, and probably fail. Smart people (not me obv!) then stick to what works for them.

luckylucky

Requiem4adream wrote:

I dont get this logic.

If you can beat a game whilst 15-tabling for 10% consistently over a massive sample, does it automatically mean that you should move up levels? What if the guy knows he cant beat the higher levels for the same ROI, which to be fair is almost certainly gonna be a fact. If he can only beat that level for 9% or so, there is no hope in hell he can beat higher levels for more than 0-5%, furthermore it's very possible to 15-table small buy-ins because they reg quickly, if you want to 15-table $100 sngs you're gonna get maybe 40% less games done per day. If his game is based on high attrition, pounding out games, it's a lot easier to achieve in the lower levels.

It begs the question though - suppose you're a very good $6 sng player making 30% ROI 15-tabling, then you win €100,000 on the lotto, what would you do? Most people im sure will try the higher levels out, and probably fail. Smart people (not me obv!) then stick to what works for them.

Ok good points, but as you say the vast majority of players would move up whether they have the justification for it or not. So it seems strange that he hasn't even if cold blooded logic might say stay where you are. It's not as if you don't get donks playing $100 sngs and higher too though either btw, but maybe he has discovered he can't beat these games nonetheless or simply doesn't want to take a shot.

Well if he's doing it for real and not as a bot it seems like a horrible way to make a living from poker as other posters have said. But heh it takes all sorts.