Who wants to look at my SNG stats?

[WuDu]

Hi guys,

I just set up a sample size of my poker stats and I'm curious whether you're seeing something I'm not seeing! So maybe some math/Excel freaks like @Purps find this topic interesting:

introduction:

All the games were played at the SNG4 level. I play these games in a set of 4, meaning I'll fire up 4 SNGs at once and don't start another one once one of these 4 games ended. If I win, I'll write down "A", second place is a "B" anything else is an "X". So after one of these sets, I'll get something like "X, A, B, X".

Attention: This is not the order in which I started the games, that's the order in which these games ended. So if I fire up 4 SNGs, they fill up pretty fast and I'll lose an all-in in my first hand during my last SNG, that would be the first "X". The first SNG that ended.

Alright, now on to the stats:

 

Here you can see explicitly how my performance went during the sample size. "4 left" is the result for the SNG that ended first and subsequently, "last" means that I was only playing 1 SNG (the last of my set) at the time. The performance during this sample is a little down, the ROI for "3 left" should usually be around 8 %, the ROI for "2 left" should be around 35 % and the ROI for "Last" something like 60 %.

My question now is, do these stats suggest that I would be better off if I reduced the tables played to 3? Obviously, the way I collected the data, "4 left" is always going to be negative, but an ROI of -60 % is a little bit too much for my taste. And a HU Winrate of just 30 % also doesn't seem healthy.

[Groggy]

This data tells you absolutely nothing. Of course you're going to have bad results in the SnG you bust first out of 4 and good results in the one you're in longest, which is deeper/hu by the time you're out the others. Also the sample you are worried about is so tiny its irrelevant. Don't divide your games up like this, just look at your overall ROI.

[Groggy]

There is no science to finding the perfect amount of tables, just do what feels right for you/ what you enjoy.

[WuDu]

---

@Groggy wrote:

There is no science to finding the perfect amount of tables, just do what feels right for you/ what you enjoy.

---

 

I disagree with you here, my overall data goes back to August of 2017 and I can clearly see a drop off in ROI based on the number of tables I played. Mainly from 4 tabling to 6 tabling. I was actually comfortable playing 6 tables as well. So is 4 the perfect number here? Maybe, but I'd like to find out.

Regarding the data, the sample is big enough, no one needs 10.000 games to make a determination. A lot of people make the mistake of not switching things up fast enough once they see something. Again, this is a sample, I already had a "hunch" before, looking at my overall stats.

However I also agree with your statement that these stats really don't tell the whole story, thus I decided to collect them in a slightly different way: Basically, I'm now collecting the results based on the order I started either of the 4 SNGs. Once my sample is large enough, I'll report back with the findings.

[WuDu]

---

@WuDu wrote:

Basically, I'm now collecting the results based on the order I started either of the 4 SNGs. Once my sample is large enough, I'll report back with the findings.

---

 

Well guys, the Bundesliga is taking a break, so I thought I'll update this blog with some advanced stats. As I've written here, my goal is to find out how the number of tables played affects my ROI. In order to do so, I collected my data over the last 4 months at the SNG 4 level. To start, let me introduce my basic settings:

I play my SNGs in sets of 4, meaning I register the First SNG or Table 1 (top left corner on my screen), once this game gets going, I'll start the Second SNG or Table 2 (top right corner), then the Third SNG or Table 3 (bottom left corner) and finally the Fourth SNG or Table 4 (bottom right corner). Once an SNG is finished, I'm not immediately starting another one, I'll wait until all 4 SNGs are finished. There are some minor exceptions to my rules, but these don't matter here.

Now on to the stats:

Here you can see the respective stats computed seperately for every table position. The first thing that catches your eye is the fact that Table 1 generated twice as much ROI as Table 4. Now does that matter at the SNG4 level? No, since Table 4 still generated almost 15 % ROI in this sample, however once I move up in stakes, this could be an extremely profitable information. 

Another aspect I found interesting is the declining ITM % from Table 1 to Table 4. A difference of 5,5 %-points is huge and even the HU WIN % is 4 %-points higher on Table 1 than on my 2nd best table.

A few days ago, I decided to move up to the 7 Euro level. 7 Euro? Yes, two games at the SNG10 and two games at the SNG4 for every set of 4 I'm playing. I decided to place the SNG10s at Tables 1 and 2 and the SNG4s at the Tables 3 and 4. In this sample I presented here, Tables 1 and 2 generated a combined ROI of 24,66 %, with a little bit of room for improvement on Table 2. Tables 3 and 4 generated a combined ROI of 16,78%.

Based on my previous stats, I hope that the move up in stakes only costs me 5 %-points of profit. If so, and that's a big if, it would be interesting to find out during my next update whether the SNG10 ROI might be even higher than my SNG 4 ROI. That would be a clear indicator that the table position and thus the amount of SNGs played at the same time really matters.

[Livertool]

Clearly 25/1/1/1 is next experiment with those numbers....and broke :laugh:

But welldone. Can i stake you 😛

[WuDu]

---

@Livertool wrote:

Clearly 25/1/1/1 is next experiment with those numbers....and broke :laugh:

But welldone. Can i stake you 😛

---

 

Longest streak without a tournament win within my sample: A Schalke-esque 29 SNGs in a row! I don't think the community needs more "I'm so unlucky"/"I'm getting depressed"-blogs. :laugh:

Staking is such a weird concept, why don't you transfer some of your Sleepy Joe-money to me and we call it reparations? :atisfied: Then both of us won't feel bad if I put it all on the Smurfs not escaping the 2. Bundesliga in 21/22 instead of playing SNGs like we agreed on. :laugh:

[Livertool]

Yeah, i don't get staking either, don't matter if look at it from staker or player perspective. High risk,/ low reward for staker and why would winning player settle for 50% of profit instead of 100% with playing own money:wonder:

Having said that, if Dortmund wins CL, i can throw that free 100 at you if you are up to challenge which is quite simple: 25€ sngs with max 2 tables. Bust or 1k aka 500 for each. And you can even do brocky on me without fear of getting sued :laugh: Not what i would expect or hope you to do but in worst case scenario i ain't basically losing anything.

So are up to it like Trump would or wuss like Biden? 🤣

[psrquack]

---

@Livertool wrote:

 

Having said that, if Dortmund wins CL, i can throw that free 100 at you if you are up to challenge which is quite simple: 25€ sngs with max 2 tables.

---

I suggest you to put up Finland to win in Ukraine and you will get the 500 faster.🤣

@WuDu: I would offer you changing the timezonefrom prime time to morning/late night, and see how the stats are changing, but currently I looked the €4 field and it was dry.

I don't know why your ROI is so different at table 1 and table 2, my guess is 1 or 2 players are already out when you are in the HU phase at table 2 and you have to pay more attention to the remaining tables. The game at table1 already finished when this situation happens so you can take full control at table1.

[WuDu]

---

@Livertool wrote:

Yeah, i don't get staking either, don't matter if look at it from staker or player perspective. High risk,/ low reward for staker and why would winning player settle for 50% of profit instead of 100% with playing own money:wonder:

Having said that, if Dortmund wins CL, i can throw that free 100 at you if you are up to challenge which is quite simple: 25€ sngs with max 2 tables. Bust or 1k aka 500 for each. And you can even do brocky on me without fear of getting sued :laugh: Not what i would expect or hope you to do but in worst case scenario i ain't basically losing anything.

 

---

 

I'll write something about staking, twitch, youtube, coaching and the like a little later. Spoiler alert: I don't like it!

Having said that, nice loanshark offer netting you 500 % ROI @Livertool ! 👍:laugh: I'm sure once the BVB takes care of City (2,37 PPG) and Bayern (2,35 PPG)/PSG (2,1 PPG), winning the title against Pool/Real/Chelsea will be a walk in the park! 👍

@psrquack 

The games usually dry up around 1 AM CET, however I actually like playing against the 12-tabling regs. I mean the SNG4s are a total regfest anyway. Since I'm playing on lesser tables than my opponents and have 8 word pages of charts next to me, I'm not really concerned in that regard.

Could you rephrase your theory regarding tables 1 and 2? Maybe you're onto something, then I can pull up additional stats. My personal theory is that every table you open up creates a distraction towards your other tables. This distraction grows the less players are still alive and the higher the blinds are. Table 1 has the advantage of being less distracted than the other ones. But yeah, an 8,5 %-point drop off in HU WIN from table 1 to table 2 is a lot.

Here is another stat that might make you scratch your head:

 

This chart describes the results of tables 2, 3 and 4 within the sample if Table 1 is the first to finish. Mind you, this might be an early or a late finish, ITM or out of the money. The stats are even weirder: The ROI for table 2 in this situation goes to 40,73% with ITM of 63%. In this situation, I made 176 Euro profit on this table alone, which is 89 % of the total profit created within the sample on that table. However, HU WIN is even 2 %-points lower than in the overall sample. 

[psrquack]

---

@WuDu wrote:

---

 My personal theory is that every table you open up creates a distraction towards your other tables. This distraction grows the less players are still alive and the higher the blinds are. Table 1 has the advantage of being less distracted than the other ones.

 

---

Thanks for the new stats. Tbh I'm a little bit confused how can you risk 432 in cash when you are playing at €10 level at sng2, but maybe you have accumulated the 4 and 10 level results.

But yes, I meant table1 has less distraction but as a see table 4 has less focus too. I don't know your playing style but those stats telling to me that you "drop" table 4 and focus to table 2 especially when you are in HU. That may cost many possible winning pots at table 4 and maybe this is the reason, that in 3 handed or HU situation you can't dominate at table 4 and your ROI is much lower then in table 2 or 3. I also wonder if there is a tough situation at table 2 and table 4 could you focus on both tables or table has a priority because the buyin and possible win is higher?

[WuDu]

---

@psrquack wrote:

---

---

Thanks for the new stats. Tbh I'm a little bit confused how can you risk 432 in cash when you are playing at €10 level at sng2, but maybe you have accumulated the 4 and 10 level results.

---

 

All the stats I posted so far are from the same SNG4-only sample. Currently, I'm playing the 10s and the 4s, however these games belong to a new sample. Once the sample size is big enough again, I'll present the new stats here as well. So 432 in cash risked means that there were 108 games at the SNG4 level. 😃

 

[WuDu]

Guys, as you might already know, the German government is about to add new poker regulations in July, leading to the abolition of SNGs for German players. Nice. Of course, I'm playing these games until the end of June, giving you guys a final update on my performance then, however what's next? Here are my 3 options:

1. Leaving the jurisdiction of the German law.
2. Stay here and focus on MTTs.
3. Stay here and focus on Hexabingos.

Re (1): I think we all know what that means and I don't have to spell it out, correct? 🙂Obviously, this option will always be on the table, however I really like playing at Unibet and they're eating the tax. So for now, this is off the table...

Re (2): Playing MTTs was basically my first idea: The games are much softer than SNGs, that's a positive. However the tournament schedule is pretty bad for me, you have to play at fixed times and the swings can get pretty nasty. It would be interesting to try them, but the whole setup here at Unibet is far from ideal.

Re (3): Now things are getting interesting with Unibet's announcement that Hexabingos are staying open and tax free for me. Of course, there are some negatives about them: Higher rake, stupid prize money distribution, higher amount of luck involved due to its shortened format and keeping proper stats is a pain in the ass. 🙄 On the flip side however, these factors can potentially be mitigated:

Unibet is telling us, that the rake is 6,8 %, however I'm calculating with 7,5 % as I'm not counting these pie in the sky multipliers. 7,5 % sucks in contrast to 5 % for SNGs but given my stats here, I should still be able to beat the games for a nice amount. "SHOULD". 😬 There's also the chance that the level of competition is a little weaker here. Let's be real, the SNGs are a total regfest with 3-4 regulars playing them per table. 

The prize money distribution sucks as well, but that can be mitigated with a bigger bankroll, which I have. My plan is to play the 5 Euro Hexabingos with a bankroll of 800-1000 Euro, giving me 160-200 buy-ins at first. In contrast to my SNG stats, I would expect my ROI to go down due to the shortened format, however it's tough to say by how much since the bigger multipliers take a little longer. Having said that, shorter games also mean more turnover...

Since this is a stats blog, statskeeping is of special interest to me. As I said before, calculating numbers and drawing conclusions isn't easy playing the Hexabingos, however it's doable with some Excel skills. My plan is basically to calculate 2 sets of data: My "REAL" stats and my "VIRTUAL" stats. Virtual stats would be ignoring the multipliers and statistically awarding me (5*0,925)*3= 13,87 Euro for every win at the 5 Euro level.

After looking at the Hexabingos in general, how many % of the games do I need to win in order to break even or make a certain profit? That's interesting to know in order to assess your own performance: 13,87/5= 2,775---> ROI=  (% of GAMES WON * 2,775) -100.

In order to just break even we calculate: 100/2,775= % of GAMES WON = 36 % of all games.

In order to reach 10 % ROI: 110/2,775= 39,6 % of all games.

In order to reach 15 % ROI: 115/2,775= 41,4 % of all games.

So basically winning 40+ % of all the games would be my goal for the Hexabingos. That's pretty ambitious against 2 opponents but given my stats and strategy over the past six months, that's doable. It basically depends on how often I reach the heads-up and how often I can win it. We're talking about stats like 75 % reaching the HU and winning 54 % of them or 80 % reaching the HU and winning 50 %. Ambitious but doable.

So, thanks for checking in and reading and let me know if there's something I missed or miscalculated.        

       

Edited May 21, 2021 by WuDu

[Andy-Relax]

33 minutes ago, WuDu said:

Unibet is telling us, that the rake is 6,8 %, however I'm calculating with 7,5 %

       

You make it sound like we're lying 🙂

A random player I plucked with 68k games rake % worked out at 6.2%.

[psrquack]

Ask for a half year remote, move to Finland, meet Livertool SNG Guru and others and come back when this regulation will change.

[WuDu]

6 hours ago, Andy-Unibet said:

You make it sound like we're lying 🙂

A random player I plucked with 68k games rake % worked out at 6.2%.

 

If I were thinking you lied to me, I would tell you directly, don't you agree? However is my estimation too conservative? 

If you look at the Hexapro 1 Euros, you collect 3*100.000= 300.000 Euros. I consider the 1.000 and 100 Euro payouts to be "pie in the sky", however you're distributing 0,5 % of all your Hexapro payouts through these 6 games (out of 100.000). Thus I decided to adjust the virtual rake a little to get more accurate stats. Of course, you'll have some players that pay a little less in rake if they were fortunate with hitting the bigger multipliers. 

[Andy-Relax]

The player with the 68k games has hit a 1000x twice and 100x 24 times so they're not as infrequent as you'd expect. You have to remember the promos that run that guarantee 100x every 1k games and things like that. I'm happy to find some players with smaller samples if you want a better picture but it'll end up being around 6.8% on average anyway.

For reference, when I checked your rake% over the sample you had played it was around 17%.

 

[WuDu]

7 hours ago, Andy-Unibet said:

The player with the 68k games has hit a 1000x twice and 100x 24 times so they're not as infrequent as you'd expect. You have to remember the promos that run that guarantee 100x every 1k games and things like that. I'm happy to find some players with smaller samples if you want a better picture but it'll end up being around 6.8% on average anyway.

For reference, when I checked your rake% over the sample you had played it was around 17%.

 

 

But doesn't that exactly prove my point? The player in question was really lucky with the big payouts, thus decreasing the rake he paid. He hit the x1000 multiplier twice in just 68 K games, so where's the poor soul that played 200 K Hexas and hasn't hit these even once? He also hit x100 24 times over just 68 K games? That's over 20 more hits over his sample than to be expected. 😲

Of course, if you run certain promos with more frequent higher payouts, things will tilt towards a lower rake if players get lucky there as well. 

   

[Andy-Relax]

Ok, so I've gone for some smaller samples, all of these are just from games in 2021..

Player 1, 5k games, 6.9% rake, 5x 25x games, nothing higher

Player 2, 4k games, 7.55% rake, 1x 100x, 3x 25x and nothing higher

Player 3, 3k games, 5.95% rake, 2x 100x, 3x 25x and nothing higher

These were just the first players over the x thousand game thresholds and the average is 6.8%. I think your 7.5% estimate is too high. 

[WuDu]

22 minutes ago, Andy-Unibet said:

Ok, so I've gone for some smaller samples, all of these are just from games in 2021..

Player 1, 5k games, 6.9% rake, 5x 25x games, nothing higher

Player 2, 4k games, 7.55% rake, 1x 100x, 3x 25x and nothing higher

Player 3, 3k games, 5.95% rake, 2x 100x, 3x 25x and nothing higher

These were just the first players over the x thousand game thresholds and the average is 6.8%. I think your 7.5% estimate is too high. 

OK, thanks for looking up some numbers here. However I believe you misunderstood my statement. The 7.5 % estimate I'm making is just for my personal record keeping. I'm not saying that you guys somehow are trying to cover up a higher rake at the Hexas. If you play an infinite amount of Hexas, I'm sure you'd automatically approach the 6,8 % you mentioned, however the problem is that I'm not going to play an infinite amount of games. 

In order to compare future Hexa results with my past SNG and MTT results and thus being able to determine whether playing these makes sense to me or whether or not I have to make adjustments, I have to calculate a virtual ROI. Personally, I'd prefer to be on the safe side a little. Just look at the examples you gave:

Player3 hit the x100 twice already over his first 3 K games, usually that should take him 40 K games. Thus his % falls below 6 %.

Player2 got lucky with the x100, however his rake would be even higher if he didn't hit that because he was not getting so lucky with the x5 and x10 mulitpliers, I assume. 

Player1 is basically what I would expect for myself. I'm just giving myself a little cushion when it comes to calculating my Virtual ROI.

[Andy-Relax]

I'm not saying you're suggesting we are covering anything (it was a joke in the beginning) I just think that 7.5% is probably too conservative and might make you deem a format you'd be profitable in seem unprofitable. The example are just t show that although the swings exist, they're not as bad as you expect.

[psrquack]

Thanks for remembering me why I don't play those Hexas regularly. Wagering 100K just to play one 1000 multiplier isn't seem the best deal to me (if I will be lucky enough receiving the % as expected).

[Stubbe-Unibet]

1 hour ago, psrquack said:

Thanks for remembering me why I don't play those Hexas regularly. Wagering 100K just to play one 1000 multiplier isn't seem the best deal to me (if I will be lucky enough receiving the % as expected).

So you'd prefer much higher volatility? Meaning significantly higher occurrence of 1.5x and slightly higher occurrence of 1000x.

@WuDu ran a quick report on all HexaPro's played since 1st of February. It's well over one million tournaments and the multiplier distribution looks like this:

Mutliplier	Percentage of total
1.5	56.310%
3	24.977%
5	13.967%
10	4.617%
25	0.103%
100	0.025%
1000	0.001%

Meaning the rake is 6.255% instead of the advertised 6.853%. This is due to the Jackpot Mania promotion. When playing during this promo - while counter is active - the EV fee is only about 2%!

[psrquack]

@Stubbe-Unibet: I don't think the majority realizes that big wagering requirement and tbh the €1 field prefers the higher chance of 3-5 euros and the feeling they "robbed" Unibet than grinding the 1,5s for a possible big win, so you shouldn't change the payback system.

What I can project is a fixed chance to play the biggest multiplier via bonus points or just activity, like play 5 hexas at least 25 days in a month a get a fixed 100x multiplier in the end or so.

[WuDu]

Well @Stubbe-Unibet and @Andy-Unibet, I cannot believe I'm saying that, however I changed the Virtual Rake from 7,5 % to 7 % in my spreadsheet. That seems to be a little closer to reality. However this doesn't really change much: Virtual breakeven is now at 35,8%, 10 % ROI is at 39,4% and 15 % ROI is at 41,2%. 

Could you post a link or more info for the Jackpot Mania promos?

@psrquack

Personally, I could live without the x1000 and would prefer to have 10 additional x100 multipliers. Having said that, I think from a marketing perspective this is the way to go...