I'm a cash player looking to improve SnG/MTT game so I'm gonna start playing those. Wondering what a decent ROI is for micro SnG's and MTTs.

Im guessing it depends on format as well?

How about HU SnGs?
9-man STT?
Big 2000+ field MTT?

Just looking for ballpark numbers

MTTs as a vague outline, an average player cashes 10% of the time - so look to cash more than that. S and G an ROI of 25% or above is a decent score, but again, as a vague estimation....

25% ROI in SNGs is godlike and I don't know if that's even possible longterm.
10% ROI at low stakes means you are playing pretty well.

In heads up sngs, which is what I do for a living:

really bad = < -5% roi
bad = -4 to -5% roi
below avg = -1 to -3% roi
avg = 0-2% roi
above avg = 3-5% roi
good = 6-8% roi
really good = 9-10% roi
excellent = 11-14% roi
mastery = > 15% roi

wow maybe i run good in s and gs but i still think you can crush the low limit games at 25% unless you hit a terrible patch of variance - maybe 10% is good for higher up...

For SNG number 8 on this list thanks to CMAR
My own belief for MTT is that big ROI are attainable if you cherrypick at low stakes (running 100%+ over 200+ MTT but that's not a big sample size, most of it is also non-holdem against really bad players - which is what I mean by cherrypicking)
MTT FAQ seem to say 20% is a great MTT ROI but most of them can't access Ongame PLO8 MTT
So this is only an opinion but tournament selection can make a huge difference (like table selection for cash games) or maybe I'm running good (even though I have messed up quite a few very profitable situations with bad play) but finding completely clueless opponents in a format that punishes them maximally (split-pot big-bet) helps no end.

You may make more money higher with a smaller ROI of course.

Sustaining 25% at any level is not possible. I don't think you'll find many a sample size of 1000 sng's or more with over a 25% ROI for single table tournaments.

Beating 300 sng's at 25% is not what I mean by sustainable.
We're talking minimum 1k sng's.
Check out the FAQ in the STT forum .

yeah its all about the long term. I have like 45% roi over about 200 games but I know it wont last. My ROI on other sites is around 15-20ish percent.

This is my first of (hopefully many) posts on this forum, would have liked to have started with something a little more interesting than SnG roi but hey....what can you do.

I've been playing SnG's since the start of the year trying to build my bankroll up from about $40, until the last month or so i just stuck to the $1.20 9 man Stars ones, and was getting an ROI of about 25%. Would this be considered ok at these levels?

Depends on the sample size but 25% is very good.

Well, if 100k hands is a valid sample size and a 9 or 10 player SnG averages about 50 hands, then it is more like 2k SnGs required to show sustainability.

That being said, I don't know why you claim sustaining 25% is not possible at any level. The STT Forum FAQ shows expected ROI of good players at 4% for $335s, steadily increasing to 18% ROI for $3.40s. OP was asking about ROIs for micro SnGs. I don't see why we can't extrapolate a better than 25% ROI for a good player for buyins of less than $1.

I do agree that we shouldn't expect to actually find many examples of anyone sustaining an ROI of 25% over a statistically significant sample, but not because it is impossible. Rather because anyone who can maintain an ROI of 25% for even 300 SnGs is going to have made so much money relative to his stakes played, but so little money relative to the value of his time invested, that he is bound to move up and will eventually move up to a level where 25% is not sustainable.

A couple of years ago I gave a few moments of thought to the problem of how one could tell whether one was playing well without having a statistically valid sample size. I concluded that you just can't tell for sure, but you can get some indications. Generally you can play well but do less well than expected if any of the following measurable events is happening over a period of time:

• you are getting bad starting hands more often than normal
• the board hits your hand less than normal
• you get sucked out on more than normal

That is not a complete list of the factors that contribute to variance, but it is a substantial part of it, I think.

So I decided to measure these things for my own hand histories. Over less than 250 SnGs in my favorite site's second lowest SnGs I have an ROI of 49%. During that time my hit-my-hand and opponents' suck-out rates have been just slightly less than average, but my starting hands have been quite a bit worse than average. I therefore have to conclude that my high ROI is not entirely attributable to variance, and that I ought to be able to sustain a significant portion of it at this level.

I am maintaining this ROI without being anything close to a poker god. (I rate "average poker player" at Donkeytest.com.) I do think that what I do know, combined with my playing style makes me better-suited than many to crush the lower level SNGs.

To address OP, I would say expected ROI depends on two main factors: how good you are, and what level you are playing at. For lower level micro SnGs, I think 25% is quite sustainable. For SnGs of $3.40 and above, the STT forum FAQ seems like the best source of an answer.

Fair enough but I was giving a vague answer to a vague question...looks like he found out what he needed now....

3$ tourneys are micro sng's , 1$ or 3$ won't be much diff. The reason ROI's drop as you play higher is the skill of the opponents, opponents at the 1$ are not really that much worse than 3$ opponents so your ROI won't be 7 points better than what the faq mentions for 3$ tourneys. I do think 25% is a bit high as a sustainable number.

That said , obsessing over these numbers is counter productive. Play well , and if you have 15% + at any level you're doing well.

Perhaps we are talking about different games.

I agree that skill level difference of players between $1 and $3 will not result in 7% difference in ROI. However, $1 is not the lowest level of SnG. Down to $0.25 and certainly $0.10 I think a 7% difference might be expected. This is not much out of line with a linear extrapolation of the data trend in the STTF FAQ - a trend line which, BTW, shows no sign of tapering off at lower levels.

Also, my personal experience is on sites looser than Stars, in 10 handed non-turbo tournaments. That's probably worth a few more points of ROI. (In reviewing my own data, my lowest ROI over any 50 game sequence was 18%. My sample size is not statistically significant.)

The statistically significant data that has been published in various threads on 2p2 shows that 25% ROI is quite sustainable in lower level microstakes regular speed SnGs on loose sites. On Stars $3 9 handed turbos, I agree that 15% sustained ROI is not bad. For Stars non-turbo $1, 20% should be quite attainable. I haven't got an opinion to offer on which combination of sizes, speeds and sites yields the best hourly rate.

I seem to remember threads out there that claim data showing significantly higher sustained ROIs.

It's time for all those 10c SNG gods to chime in and post some pt numbers with at least a 2k sample size. We need to update the sng FAQ

Further to my big ROI guesses OPR 'jimmy boy1' on Ongame for a 90%+ ROI over 1600 MTT with no massive cashes skewing anything

Considering that you're dealing with a 20% rake, you're doing very well.

as a starting player i dont think that you should initially be that concerned by the ROI%. At that point any positive is roi is a good one. Concentrate to play good poker. after 500 to 1000 games you can start looking into roi, before that really no point, since there isnt enough reliable data to base your result on.

edit: according to sharkscope im showing at the moment 171% roi. BUT thats over 160 games (so not enough sample size/data) and i would truly be surprised if I could retain even 50% of that...

According to officalpokerrankings.com my ROI is 40% over almost 600 tournaments. I have not made any big scores (best under $400) and my average buyin per tournament is $8.

Have I been extremely lucky in the past and should expect a downswing?
I think/hope not

Look at this uberlowlimitgrindermachine http://www.officialpokerrankings.com...696FB.html?t=2
ROI 65% over 8500 tournaments

Do any of you have a large enough sample size in $6.50 2-table, and 5-Table MTT's to give me an idea of what to expect?

Just checked in to say that yes, Art Monk does f***ing rule. I would run through the MTT and STT forums. Those guys post their sharkscope/pokertracker graphs a fair amount. Go Skins.

Not especially on-topic but the Truly Awesome Sharkscope Graphs thread has some sick sharkscopes if you haven't already seen it.