Related, sure, but not the same thing. It’s a fine line though, so not worth arguing about.
Let’s say you are getting 10-1 pot odds on a 2-1 nut flush draw. Long term, there is no risk in making that call, though luck will be a factor in any one specific instance.
I don’t dislike your fold here, since one of the opponents was eliminated and that put you deeper into the money.
It looks like the biggest stack limped with the suited ace. I do not like his play here. I would have raised to try to take the pot preflop.
The all-in raiser looked like he was now trying to steal the pot preflop with a decent, but not outstanding hand. This might have worked except that he did not count on …
… The third caller who decided not to fold his TT. I think I would have folded the TT here since all-in raiser would be left up against the big stack who might be sandbagging, and might be eliminated. TT is a good hand for making a preflop raise to drive others out of the pot, but on a flop there is a 50/50 chance of at least one overcard, and there may be two opponents.
As it happened the two Aces blocked each other, reducing the number of outs in the deck, and both had kickers lower than T.
JJ would have won, but I would have folded it too.
Yeah, I don’t think it was a bad fold either, that’s just how the cards go sometimes. It’s only a bad call in hindsight, and even then there’s plenty of reasons to stay out of it. I can’t regret the decision – only the outcome.
I kinda go back and forth on it, but overall I think I made the right call at the time with the information I had. Knowing the outcome doesn’t change the likelihood that in that situation someone had better starting cards than JJ. If I’d been last to act, and no one else had called, and I had the all-in player covered comfortably enough, I might have been more inclined to call, here.
I pulled my last 100 tournament results.
| All | Low-mid stakes | High stakes | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tournaments | 100 | 69 | 31 |
| Cashed | 34 | 23 | 11 |
| Won | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Total entry fees | 3,865,415 | 640,415 | 3,225,000 |
| Total winnings | 6,861,889 | 1,697,497 | 5,164,392 |
| Net winnings | 2,996,474 | 1,057,082 | 1,939,392 |
| Time played (hours) | 106 | 68 | 38 |
| Hourly chip rate | 28,309 | 15,526 | 51,352 |
I play primarily ring so this is about 3 months worth of tournaments for me. When I feel like playing a tournament I usually just play whichever one is next to start, so this includes everything from freerolls up to 250k entries.
Whether this is a better hourly rate than ring depends on the limit played.
| Low stakes | High stakes | |
|---|---|---|
| Hands | 4,879 | 3,871 |
| Chips won | 227,599 | 74,336,019 |
| Time played (hours) | 70 | 55 |
| Hourly chips | 3,265 | 1,344,232 |
Low stakes here includes games from 2/4 up to 50/100. High stakes is 5k/10k to 20k/40k with the majority at 20k/40k.
I would estimate that for me personally the breakeven point where ring becomes more profitable per hour is somewhere around 200/400 ring. If there were more frequent higher stakes tournaments available (say 1M+ entry fees) then the calculation might change. It’s hard to enter enough 250k tournaments to catch up with playing 5k/10k ring where you’re buying in for 1M and can play any time.
Preferred game type is going to make a difference too - I am a better ring player than tournament player. Better and more frequent tournament players than me will have better tournament results, plus will get the additional bonuses from placing on the leaderboards.
Thanks for pulling the numbers. How did you do that? If it doesn’t take a lot of time to do it, I’d like to do the same thing and see if I can analyze the data and figure out where I should be playing if I want to maximize my chips/hr.
Ha, it was a pain to do it! I went through the MTT activity page and manually entered the time played, entry fee and winnings into a spreadsheet. Same thing for the ring games - for ring I already had a lot of the data because of the low stakes challenge that I did.
Very cool, thanks. I would love it if this place would allow for exportation of data so we could really crunch numbers. It would be great to be able to see trends in BB/100 or ROI and filter by game/stakes. I’m a big fan of analyzing data.
@love2eattacos ,
the activity page is my friend, I use it alot…
& correct , dump into spreadsheet, and go from there.
Amazing how the numbers don’t lie, for analyzing strategies/ROI/ect. When you can pull the last 100 or 200 of something, and prove your results… you can then fine-tune each strategy. Some things either aren’t available to us players, or the system just doesn’t track a specific stat. I think Ring games are capp’d to last 10 or last 20, but the Tournament list seems endless…
@puggywug , - SnGs
9 players - pays top 3 ( 33% or 1 in 3 )
6 players - pays top 2 ( 33% or 1 in 3 )
4 players - pays 1st place ( 25% or 1 in 4 )
2 players - pays 1st place ( 50% or 1 in 2 )
Puggy, no MTT will ever offer you that, your risk will always be more, your reward will always be more too… but I offer you this :
The real money @ Replay is the Leaderboards… assuming either way you go, you keep a positive ROI … MTTs offer more Leaderboards for the very same MTT. ( not to mention promotions - special leaderboards )
Ring is always the fastest/riskyest way to chip-up… SnG is the safest/slowest…
So, as for me, I think I’m finding the 3-Max SNG format to be the most lucrative. For 50K, I can win 138K, and the games only last a few minutes most times, so I can play a lot of them. And I seem to do much better in this format, even though chips only go to first place, I seem to win these more reliably than I do 9-seat SNG. I don’t know why, but I feel like I’m in the drivers seat in this format, most of the time.