Online SNG Experiments

[Chipless Wonder]

Online SNG Experiment #1

We all know that patience is important in poker, and I’ve often wondered if there was a way to quantify this. So I decided to try a little experiment and test how long the infinitely patient person would last in an online SNG tournament. This theoretical person is so patient that he folds every single hand, even pocket kings and aces. They do get cracked sometimes you know!

So I signed up for four $1.25 9-person turbo SNG tournaments and clicked the ‘Sit out next hand’ button. Then I watched as the blinds ate up my chip stack. I understand that four games isn’t enough data to be conclusive, but the results were amazingly consistent and really surprised me.

In all four games, I ended up on the money bubble with fourth place finishes. I lasted 27 to 34 minutes in the games. I lost a total of $5.00, and my ROI was -100%. So what conclusions can we draw from this?

1. The ROI of this ‘folding every single hand’ approach was terrible at -100%. This proves that folding every hand is not the best approach to SNG tournament poker. We already knew that, but more experimentation will be necessary to determine how many hands we should be playing.

2. The variance of this approach was non-existent, with identical finishes in each game. This seems to indicate that playing very few hands corresponds with very low variance. But we’ll need to conduct more experiments to see if this is really the case.

[Chipless Wonder]

Four of the best starting hands in Hold’em are A-A, K-K, Q-Q and A-K. And everyone knows that good starting hands should be played aggressively. So for this experiment I decided to play ONLY those four hands and fold everything else. And whenever I did have one of these hands, I would go all in every time, regardless of the blinds, my chip stack, my position, action before me, etc.

So I signed up for four more $1.25 9-person turbo SNG tournaments. This time around, my finishes were 5th, 5th, 4th and 3rd place. And with this approach I lasted 21 to 37 minutes. I spent a total of $5.00, won back $1.80 and had an ROI of –64%. Now that we have two sets of experiments under our belt, I think we can draw some additional conclusions.

1. The ROI of ‘only playing the ultra-premium hands’, and ‘playing them for all our chips every time’ was poor at -64%. But it was only half as bad as folding every hand. This tells us that we’re moving in the right direction.

2. The variance of this approach was higher than folding every hand, since our finishes ranged from 5th through 3rd. Playing some hands and putting all our chips at risk causes variance.

[Chipless Wonder]

Next I decided to expand my starting hand range somewhat and see what would happen. For this round of games I would go all-in pre-flop with A-A, K-K, Q-Q and A-K. With any other pocket pair I will call a bet or raise pre-flop, as long as it won’t cost more than 10% of my chip stack. Then if I like the flop I will go all in.

Once I’m down to only 20 big blinds, I will move all in pre-flop with any pair or any ace, as long as there is no raise in front of me. Again, if I like the flop I will go all in. Once I’m down to 10 big blinds, I will move all in pre-flop with any pair, any ace or any two big cards. And again, if I like the flop I will go all in. Once I’m down to only five big blinds, I will go all in into any unopened pot, or with any ace. If I make it to heads up I will push all in with any ace any king or any pair. If I connect with any flop in any way, I will also push all in.

I realize this is all a very primitive approach to poker, but keep in mind that this is all in the name of science. So I signed up for four more $1.25 9-person turbo SNG tournaments. This time around, my finishes were 9th, 4th , 2nd and 1st place. And with this approach I survived 12 to 47 minutes. I spent a total of $5.00, won $7.20 and had an ROI of +44%. Now that we have three sets of experiments under our belt, we are able to draw some additional conclusions.

1. The ROI of this primitive approach was actually positive at +44%. This illustrates that ‘playing all good hands very aggressively’ can definitely be profitable.

2. The variance of this approach was much higher than when we only played the ultra premium hands, since our finishes ranged from 9th through 1st. Playing more hands and putting all our chips at risk nearly every time causes very high variance.

So what have we learned from all of this?

1. Patience is important, and can get you to the bubble.

2. Playing only premium hands can put you into the money.

3. Playing only premium hands, and playing them aggressively can make you profitable.

Hope some of you are able to benefit from my $15 worth of poker/science project.

[CW Buckeye]

Very interesting experiment!

I am incredibly curious to know if your results would be the same playing at a $5 or $10 buy in.

Do you think that your numbers would change with the higher buyin? In other words, would you be less likely to get paid off on your good hands against better competition?

[Chipless Wonder]

I'm pretty sure the results would be almost identical in $5 or $10 SNG's, and I also believe the results would be similar in non-turbo SNG's. I'll have to go back to my lab to verify these hypotheses though.

p.s. - now you know what I'm doing at home while you're winning all the local tournaments.

[CW Buckeye]

My thinking is that players are better as the price goes up. Therefore, they are more observant and should be able to get a quicker read on what type of player you are being. I'll be really interested in the results if you move up a level.

[niner1984]

i find this to be really interesting. i also think you have tooooooo much time on your hands When i play sit n go tournaments i try and only play the 13 best hands in holdem and i do good most of the time. I think you should do a 4th experiment and play every hand no matter what preflop for some kind of bet.

[Chipless Wonder]

SOME MICHIGAN FANS ARE LIKE SLINKIES.....NOT REALLY GOOD FOR ANYTHING, BUT THEY BRING A SMILE TO YOUR FACE WHEN PUSHED DOWN THE STAIRS.

George - did you happen to see Chad's signature?

[ohpokergal]

Scott- You always amaze me!

What a great idea... but I'm not sure I agree with Chad. I don't think that $5 or $10 will make a big difference. The chip stacks are consistent in all cases as is the blind structure. Change either of those scenarios and you may find different results.

Once most tournaments start, the buy in has become completely irrelevant. That's one of the main reasons I hate playing in the lower buy in tourneys. My desire to win remains the same, but at the end of the day... I've invested too much time for too little return.

Hey... that's a thought... how would you measure the ROI on your playing time?

[SemiEsq]

I wonder what would happen if you did the initial experiment (4 - 4th place finishes) but did not use the sit out feature - avoiding the easy steals, etc.