March SNG recap

Crunched the numbers this afternoon in Notepad:

69 regular $2.25 9 man SNGs = $155.25 invested
14 wins X $9 = $126
7 seconds X $5.40 = $37.8
9 thirds X $3.60 = $32.40

$196.20 total returned
Profit = $40.95


15 turbo $2.25 9 man SNGs = $33.75 invested
2 wins X $9 = $18
3 seconds X $5.40 = $16.2
1 thirds X 3.60 = $3.60

$37.80 total returned
Profit = $4.05

13 turbo $2.25 6 man SNGs = $29.25 invested
1 win = $9
3 seconds X $5.40 = $16.2
4 thirds X $3.60 = $14.4

$39.60 total returned
Profit = $10.35


$218.25 total invested
$273.60 total returned

$55.35 total profit or 24.6 buyins
ROI = 25%

97 SNGs, 44 cashes, 45% cash rate.

I crapped out again on my goal to stick to SNG's all month. I instead decided to take repeated shots at bigger money with my profits. I played 6 double stacked 90 man knockouts and made two final tables, a 6th and 7th. $12, and $6 profit respectively. Close, but no cigar in my book.

Also played some token games, some multi table tourneys and I also put in quite a few turbo heads up SNGs compared to my normal rate. I mainly wanted to get a little more practice in the quick format in the hopes to improve my performance in the SNGs.

I can't say definitively it had anything to do with it but compared to last months results I had twice as many firsts as seconds. February was the other way around. It's funny when you look back at the stats too, the cash rate is still the same but the profit difference is almost doubled, including the ROI.

Overall I ended up like $15 from the balance I started at the beginning of March. I think it would be tempting to think "Man why didn't I just stick to SNG's and I'd have $40 more added to the balance?" But then I thought that if I played more SNG's there's no guarantee that the profits would still be the same. I could have played maybe 50 more and then ran a little worse and maybe the profits wouldn't have been as high. Who knows?

It reminds me of an interview with Alan Cunningham on Pokerroad radio. He was talking about how it's really hard to know how good of a player you really are in poker. Like any good scientific study it takes a lot of data to get a realistic picture of trends, you know?

I saw a 2+2 post in the SNG forum where a guy had 800 games in and was asking about his play and a lot of people told him that he couldn't draw any real conclusions based on EIGHT HUNDRED GAMES! At the rate I'm playing averaging 100 games a month it's going to take me 6 more months to get to that guys sample size and yet I still can't draw conclusions?

It has to do with variance and how good/bad you run. One guy said you could look at an 800 game sample of his and say he's one of the best there is. And you could take a different 800 games sample and call him a huge donk. That's why players who win big televised tournaments can have a phenomenal year or two and then do nothing for the next 3, 4 or 5.

All I can say is that I KNOW with certainty I ran DAMN good this month and that made a huge difference in the stats. Still, it would be nice to even have enough bankroll to play $5 tournaments to where I could be content with the monthly profits from just grinding SNGs.