I think you could up the $10+1 number to 40%.

Also, I don't know about most people, but I actually have a *higher* ROI in my history at the 50s than at the 30s. Remember that the number of chips starting increases. I would put the 50s number at 25%

My 3-tabling 100s numbers are at least as high as schuster reported, although I don't have them in front of me. I think they were about 35% over many hundreds of SNGs. However, if you're gonna make the 30s and 50s at 25%, I think that 20% is appropriate for the 100s (people should be improving in skill as they move up the charts).

At the 200s, 19% is very impressive. I had a drop from 35% or whatever to about 10%. Still working on that.

Thanks, Nash, that's good to hear. I was hoping my numbers are conservative. I know I could bump up the lower stakes ROIs based on past experience, but wanted to keep it conservative since I have only played 2 at a time, not 4 at a time before. Also, if I'm conservative, then I have better shot at getting there faster rather than slower than projections, which is fine by me of course.

These numbers are actually staggering when you think about it if they can be maintained. It wouldn't be hard to play 100 SNGs per week if playing 3-4 at once. 100 SNGs at $100+9 level (which only requires a $5k roll) with a 25% ROI yields $2725/week plus another $135 if you get 15% rakeback. That's a cool $143,000/year plus 2 weeks vacation. $143,000/year playing on a $5k roll -- that is absolutely ridiculous.

JustinZee is on a 1000 $200+15 binge. Halfway there he's made $19,330 in 50 hours of play.

It just doesn't seem possible that SNGs can be this profitable or why aren't more good players playing them?

It takes a long time to learn exactly how SNGs should be strategically played differently than ring games. I would imagine that most people don't want to put that many hours of adjustment in, especially when there are virtually no juicy games above the $100 level. There is alot higher "ceiling" playing NL ring, or 30/60 limit.