ITM%'s in 9man STT's is a subject often queried by noobs, and there's been a need for a clear post on the subject in the FAQs for a while now. TFG asked for a post to be written on the subject, so here's my attempt at one!:

Introduction

In a game where skill played no part and luck was the sole factor, we should all expect to place ITM exactly 3/9ths of the time (i.e. 33%) and on average lose exactly our rake percentage (assuming 1st=2nd=3rd=11%) over the long term.

Of course this is hypothetical since it is very clear that skill edges have a huge factor on our ITM placements.

I haven't researched this to the nth degree, but I've trawled the statistics of all types of players on sharkscope over the last 3-4 years, and feel I have a decent knowledge of the %s you are likely to encounter.

In summary, for winning players, the % of ITM's lies in the region of 36%-42%. There are a number of reasons for what appears to be quite a large span. I will attempt to explain these reasons below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why the range from 36%-42% ITM?

In the low stakes games, the play is far more passive than the high stakes games. Players can almost sit back and watch other players bust before their eyes and then drift into the money a high % of the time. By not making aggressive moves around the bubble, a player puts himself at less risk of busting, and if those around are busting for you, it is possible to attain a high ITM%.

I have personally seen strong winning players at the $16s and below, with ITM%s of around 42%, and have had the opportunity to review their HHs. Their play is indeed not aggressive as one would normally expect around the bubble of a 9 man stt, they play a small ball style of poker more often, exploiting weak players in cheap situations. They are also able to convert a reasonable % of money finishes into 1st and 2nd place finishes, even though they may reach the money with a 3rd place stack. Their finish distributions tend to be 3>2>1, but not a huge difference between the percentages.

I know of a specific player who attained 16% ROI at the 16s over a very large sample, with an ITM% of ~42%, (all be it a few years ago). They ran very approximately at
1. 13.2%
2. 14%
3. 14.8%

ROI = 16%
ITM = 42%

Clearly this is a very desirable ROI and consequently a low variance. This was achieved when the games were softer and players would bust for you, whether it is achievable in today's games is doubtful.

As the stakes rise, the aggression rises, since there are less passive bad players. Players must push more around the bubble if they wish to succeed, and must put their stack at risk far more often when 4-6 handed. This has 2 effects:

1. The ITM% drops, since we are putting ourselves at risk of busting more often.

2. The finish distribution skews towards 1>3>2. This is intuitive, since the times we put our stack at risk and don't bust, we accumulate a larger stack of chips which can only improve our chances of a higher finishing place.

This allows a finish distribution of say 40%, to be just as profitable as the 42% example above.

As an example, spacegravy's results at the 16s over a significant sample (circa 16,000 games) were:

1. 14.9%
2. 12.2%
3. 12.9%

ROI = 15.5%
ITM = 40%

Clearly, this was a few years ago, when the games were softer, but it demonstrates that there is more than one way to skin a cat. Having watched a number of spacegravy vids, and reviewed a number of HH's of the player with 42% ITM above, I can say that the 2 styles of play are significantly different, yet both achieved a similar ROI at a similar era of the $16s.

As the stakes get really high, aggression goes through the roof, with the tiniest of edges being pushed and called, and the risk of busting is pushed to the maximum. ITM %s start to fall off dramatically, but typically the distribution of 1st>3rd>2nd is even more significant, and indeed needs to be in order for the player to be profitable. At the very high stakes, ITM %s drop to as low as 36%, and ROI's as low as 1-3%.

Summary:

There is more than one way to a high ROI in STTs, but by playing the accepted "standard" 2p2 way, the following ITM %s should be valid for a winning player, and their finish distributions are generally 1st>3rd>2nd due to the style of play they use.

$1-$16 = 39-41%
$27-$38 = 38-39%
$60 = 37-38%
$100+ = 36-37%

For further reading on Finish Distributions (which are a related, but separate discussion) I can recommend:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/36...theory-378981/

I hoped to be able to post more graphs and evidence from sharkscope to support the above data, but as we all know sharkscope is a rather barren land nowadays, and most players have their data blocked. If people could chip in with responses giving supporting data from their own databases it would be much appreciated.

good job sir

good post!

Good post, but this is just not true:

While the play is quite passive in these games, it's also nitty. The last couple of days I played several STTs and we were still on the bubble @ the 300/600 and 400/800 level. You can't just sit out and think you will end ITM.

I meant relative to the higher stakes games really, and I suppose it depends on what you define as low stakes. The passisivity below the $6.50s is pretty crazy. Even at the $6.50s it's pretty damn passive, and there's even a fair amount of passive/bad play going on at the 16s.

This effect was much more prevalent 3-4 years ago in the Party days when people just got it all in with A-x in the first round and then played ultra passive around the bubble, but it still holds true to a certain extent nowadays, and don't forget Stars is a very tough network, on other networks the play is still pretty damn passive/awful at the low stakes.

Great post, NJD.

Here are my stats. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong HU, usually I push Nash and call 2 blinds higher. Suggestions? I guess I'm like the first guy you mentioned.

It's hard to really say you're doing anything wrong if you are achieving a 16% ROI and a 42.6% ITM, you're just going about it different to perhaps the "standard" approach.

It looks that you need to be more aggressive 3 handed, and I suspect you are getting ITM as 2nd or 3rd chipstack more often than not, which is probably the root of the reason why you aren't getting as many 1st places as you would like.

It is notable to say however that as you move up to the 16s and 27s and above, it is highly likely the way you are playing now would see you take a big hit to your ROI, mainly because of what I said in my OP, there just aren't the same number of passive bad opponents at the 16s and above, and so you have to take the initiative more and amp up the aggression to find those edges.

Very nice!

ty

Great poast!!!

Great post!

As an addition to this.

The best chance to get more wins is to be more aggressive @ the bubble. That is the point where you can get a lot of chips, especially @ the low stakes!! Because most of the players (non regs obv.) want to get ITM real bad.

I think that if you have a high ITM% but a lot more 2nd and 3rd place finishes than wins that could be a leak because there is a big chance you are to tight @ the bubble.

But with a 16% ROI you gotta be doing something good. haha

Excellent Post!

Really a good read for Sit-N-Go Beginners!

Very good, thought out post.

However I would just say what are we interpreting as a good ROI for each level on the bottom.

Also I think you can have a good ROI from 37.5% upwards in the 16s. 39 sounds a little high do many people achieve this. Would be interested on other peoples info? According to some of the top shark info I see I don't see many 39+. I haven't checked this info on s.scope.

I'd say 39% is pretty normal at the 16s for a winning player. I'd say there aren't many good winning players with anything much less than 39% ITM and some have even higher around the 40-41% region. FWIW I am 39.4% ITM, ROI 11.9%, over 6000 games at the 16s (Straight from my HEM database). Sippin is 39.6% ITM for around 13% ROI, and gravy was 40% ITM for 15.5% ROI but that was 3 years ago.

Of course it's possible to have a good ROI with an ITM of 37.5% at the 16s, just means your 1st places have to be more prominent in your finish distribution. It's just much less likely to find an ITM <39% for winning players at the 16s in my experience.

I'd say something like this in today's games for sustainable ROIs for the very top players:

$1-$16 = 13-15% ROI
$27-$38 = 7-9% ROI
$60 = 4-5% ROI
$100+ = 2-3% ROI

Any idea how these numbers scale when you have dorks like me who play exclusively 6max? I usually just scan the sscope leaderboards but this isn't terribly scientific.

Bit of thread drift but I've always wondered if anyone ever thinks about how an accurate ROI really cannot be accessed by pure numbers alone. My thinking is a rec player who plays 40 games a week -- focuses on one game at a time, reads, posts, analyzes HH and thinks about the hands will do better with a smaller sample size than a beginner who is just grinding through multitabling games to reach > 1000 asap. Isn't getting to a steady 500 games better than a raw 1k or 2k sample size?

Anyawy, I generally fall into the first category -- life, job and bills get in the way of poker but I think about my trouble spots as they come day by day which I've always felt improved my play albeit at a glacial pace rather than crushing thru a lower limit where I'm not thinking at all.

7 months later:

$16 = 8-9% ROI ?
$27-$38 = 5-6% ROI ?

Sadly yes, I think your figures are pretty spot on above. I am around 8% ROI at the 16s for 2010 (9.8% adjusted), and was chatting to Sippin recently who said he was on around 9% for 2010. I was circa 11.5% and sippin 13% for 2009, so we've both taken around a 3-4% hit on ROI in just 12 months.

I think to 20-table and get over 10% now at the 16s you have to be an exceptionally good player (who should probably be playing higher stakes). It may not even be sustainable anymore...even for a very good player. ITM's have dropped aswell imo, now closer to 38% ITM at the 16s is realistic rather than 39-40%.

I'm very depressed in general with the rapid decline in profitability of low stakes 9 man games in the last 6-9 months. I don't see them being worth grinding by this time next year.

Ps. Would you mind sharing your figures? I know you are good and put a lot of volume in so would think you are a good benchmark for 2009.

Nah, still 13% for $16s.

Edit, distribution the following for 2010:
1st: 15.4%
2nd: 11.4%
3rd: 11.3%

Didn't see this thread first time around, but well done Neil! Nice one.

I am 6,1% (7,0% adjusted), 25-tabling on average and over 16,8k STT's for 2010. ITM is 38,3% and 3 > 2 > 1.
Personally i have started to prefer volume and want to sustain this ROI with 30 tables, maybe that's the only way.


Come to play sometimes, you know that 1722 STT's is not a serious sample size

Funny I was 6% in 2009 and am 12% in 2010 but I don't volume close to most top regs. Even so, my red line is 12% also and in 2009 was also about the same as my actual roi. Just shows red line aint even close to what actual good/bad luck means cos my game has hardly changed at all.

Nah, I moved where I'm twice as profitable, while mentally able to get in twice the hours. Have nothing to prove regarding sample size, my 2009 is significant, and with 13% roi over 1700 games with the previous volume is enough to still be confident about maintaining ROI >10%. Although I believe the 13% is above what I generally should get, which should be ~11%.

In b4 half of STTF PM Deurdy for cash game coaching...

Got no idea what I'm doing, only know that it's working..

lots of numbers itt