Nil below 40 hands

Looking over the summary of last night's session, one thing stood out - I lasted at least 40 hands in each tournament I entered. I was curious to see if I'd achieved this before, so I checked the archives. To ensure a smaller result set, I ignored sessions where I only played a single tournament. As it turns out, last night was the 76th time I've achieved a nil below 40 hands session. Not exactly a rarity :-)

style flavor buy_in entry players hands entries paid place winnings

MTT   8-Game   4500   500       6   110     100   24    13     5620
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    43       6    2     3        0
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    48       6    2     1   171600

delta: $72,220
Sit and go no limit hold'em balance: $4,140,600
balance: $12,148,504

Two stories in one

My favorite Dickens novel is "Our Mutual Friend". I've read it three times in my life so far, and plan to read it several more. To me, the most amazing thing about it is its richness of detail. There are enough characters in it, each one very sharply delineated, to people two or three distinct novels. Each time I read it, it surprises me that story lines I think must certainly come from two separate books are actually co-residents of the same one. I guess you could say that my two favorite Dickens novels are "Our Mutual Friend" :-)

What does this have to do with poker? The connection is that one of the sit and gos I played last night contained two very distinct story lines. So distinct were they, my memory told me they were from two different sit and gos. I was sure that I'd suffered the most painful bubble ever, coming in third after being way ahead. It was true that I'd been way ahead, lost tons of chips, and nearly hit the rail. The fact that I actually won the damn thing in no way interfered with my subsequent certainty that I'd lost it :-)

style flavor buy_in entry players hands entries paid place winnings

MTT   8-Game   4500   500       6    23      88   18    47        0
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    21       6    2     6        0
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    29       6    2     5        0
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    47       6    2     1   171600
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    50       6    2     3        0
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    14       6    2     5        0
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    38       6    2     4        0

delta: $-133,400
Sit and go no limit hold'em balance: $4,069,000
balance: $12,076,284

Nil below third

Last night, I had another nil below third session, if you take just sit and gos into account. I've settled into the pattern of starting off each session with an MTT 8-game, to get my fun factor in early :-) This nil below third time, I made a profit. This will be a short post, since I only have about 5 more minutes to join my scheduled MTT 8-game :-)

style flavor buy_in entry players hands entries paid place winnings

MTT   8-Game   4500   500       6    18      94   18    55        0
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    37       6    2     3        0
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    49       6    2     1   171600
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    21       6    2     3        0
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    52       6    2     2    92400

delta: $59,000
Sit and go no limit hold'em balance: $4,197,400
balance: $12,209,684

Ever more or better session

I've talked about evermore sessions before. I've talked about ever better sessions. I've even talked about evermore and ever better sessions. However, I've never talked about ever more or better sessions. That's when every sit and go played either lasted longer than the one before it, or ended in a better result, or both. You know I'm really reaching for some kind of positive to come away with when I have to resort to dubious achievements of this kind :-)

style flavor buy_in entry players hands entries paid place winnings

MTT   8-Game   4500   500       6    21     116   24    40        0
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    23       6    2     4        0
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    24       6    2     4        0
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    50       6    2     3        0
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    84       6    2     3        0
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    53       6    2     2    92400

delta: $-162,600
Sit and go no limit hold'em balance: $4,133,400
balance: $12,150,684

Señor Dos

This is the third time I've used this blog post title. Last night, I was Señor Dos since I came in second in every sit and go I entered. I was generally happy with the results, but had to accept the fact that I was kept out of the winner's circle in one of the tournaments by a bad beat. I've now wagered more money this year playing sit and go no limit hold'em than I currently have in my balance. That's actually a good thing :-)

style flavor buy_in entry players hands entries paid place winnings

MTT   8-Game   4500   500       6    14      89   18    49        0
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    80       6    2     2    92400
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    61       6    2     2    92400
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6   115       6    2     2    92400

delta: $122,200
Sit and go no limit hold'em balance: $4,291,000
balance: $12,313,284

Outhouse

Sometimes, the poker gods really lay a stinker on you. One of the most painful ways to exit a tournament is when you have a premium hand which you have every reasonable expectation will win the pot, but it loses. That's what happened to me in the third sit and go I played last night. I was dealt Ts Td. The flop came Qs Qs Jd. The turn was Tc, giving me a full house of tens full of queens. I went all in, and got one caller. The river was 4s. My opponent turned over Qh Jc, and I hit the rail. My house was out. I'm calling it an outhouse :-)

Let me examine my sit and go data to see how many times I've had an outhouse in my career. Drumroll, please ...  The answer is 20. Ouch!

buy_in entry players hands place winnings

 44000  6000       6    41     3        0
 44000  6000       6    31     3        0
 44000  6000       6    15     6        0
 44000  6000       6    35     3        0
 44000  6000       6    43     4        0
 44000  6000       6     7     5        0

delta: $-300,000
Sit and go no limit hold'em balance: $4,163,800
balance: $12,191,084

.38 special

This is the second time I've used this blog post title; the first was on September 15, 2010. What I'm referring to this time around is the rate at which I make the money when I play MTT 8-game tournaments. Right now, I'm at 43 for 113, or .380531. Even though I've only made a trifling amount of play money playing MTT 8-games ($276,270), I'm actually quite proud of my making the money rate. The only way to do that well in MTTs is to have the discipline to fold, fold, and fold again :-)

style flavor buy_in entry players hands entries paid place winnings

MTT   8-Game   4500   500       6    67     113   24    15     6350
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    43       6    2     1   171600

delta: $122,950
Sit and go no limit hold'em balance: $4,463,800
balance: $12,491,084

Another magic number?

Data can tell you all kinds of stories. The trouble is, sometimes the stories it tells you are at best warped versions of the truth which have been shaped by what you want to believe. Here's a case in point. Since I made a profit of over $100,000 last night, I became curious to know if $100,000 were some sort of magic number for me. Accordingly, I examined my data, and it appeared there was some magic to that number. To wit, in 1,688 sessions where I've failed to make at least $100,000 in profit, I've had an aggregate loss of $13,277,587. In 134 sessions where I've made at least $100,000 in profit, I've had an aggregate gain of $25,556,979. Seems pretty cut and dried, no?

Actually, the answer is no. My sit and go numbers are skewing the data. There's a lot more volatility when you play sit and gos. Looking at my non sit and go aggregates, I've made money regardless of whether or not I made at least $100,000 in profit. I guess the answer might be that $100,000 is a magic number for sit and gos :-)

style flavor buy_in entry players hands entries paid place winnings

MTT   8-Game   4500   500       6    40      96   18    50        0
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    99       6    2     1   171600
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    60       6    2     2    92400
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    67       6    2     3        0

delta: $109,000
Sit and go no limit hold'em balance: $4,342,200
balance: $12,368,134

Century deuce

Whenever you have a sit and go century, which is a sit and go which lasts one hundred or more hands, you know you're doing something right. Of course, lasting that long doesn't guarantee that you'll win; in fact, it doesn't even guarantee that you'll make the money. Last night, in my final sit and go, I had what I'm calling a century deuce - a century where I came in second. It was the 19th such century of my career. I've also had 13 century aces and 2 century treys.

style flavor buy_in entry players hands entries paid place winnings

MTT   8-Game   4500   500       6    70     111   24    33        0
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6     9       6    2     5        0
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    11       6    2     6        0
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6   109       6    2     2    92400

delta: $-62,600
Sit and go no limit hold'em balance: $4,228,200
balance: $12,259,134

The runt of the litter

One of the most satisfying ways to win a poker tournament is to come from behind. When you're the smallest stack at some point during three-handed play, and come back to win, it feels great. The runt of the litter becomes the top dog :-) That's what happened to me in the only sit and go I entered last night. There were 35 three-handed hands; I was the runt of the litter at the start of 11 of them. This inspired me to check the archives to see how often I've had this kind of a comeback. Drumroll, please...

In 224 first place finishes, I've started at least one hand during three-handed play as the runt of the litter 31 times.

style flavor buy_in entry players hands entries paid place winnings

MTT   8-Game   4500   500       6    95     106   24    12     8340
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    85       6    2     1   171600

delta: $124,940
Sit and go no limit hold'em balance: $4,285,800
balance: $12,321,734

The best of a bad thing

Coming in second place twice in a row is never a bad thing. Doing so at the end of a losing session is making the best of a bad thing. I'm now settling into the habit of starting every session by playing one MTT 8-game, then switching to sit and go no limit hold'em for the remainder of the night. The 8-game is the fun, virtually profit-free portion of my evening, and the no limit hold'em is the bread and butter portion. Sometimes I go hungry, but that's to be expected.

style flavor buy_in entry players hands entries paid place winnings

MTT   8-Game   4500   500       6    39      98   18    31        0
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    25       6    2     5        0
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    34       6    2     4        0
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    21       6    2     4        0
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    39       6    2     5        0
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    35       6    2     2    92400
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    57       6    2     2    92400

delta: $-120,200
Sit and go no limit hold'em balance: $4,164,200
balance: $12,196,794

All four nought

The best hand in deuce is 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and is referred to as a #1. Last night, I hit the rail in the MTT 8-game tournament I entered when playing deuce; my 8 6 ran into a #1. What made this ending even more memorable was the way I obtained my 8 6. I was dealt 9h 5s Kd Jc Jh, discarded everything but the five, and drew 8s 4s 6d 2s. I'm pretty sure that's the best four draw I've ever had in deuce. Too bad it was all for naught :-) My consolation prize was doing well in the sit and go portion of the evening, and making a nice profit.

style flavor buy_in entry players hands entries paid place winnings

MTT   8-Game   4500   500       6    17      90   18    57        0
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    12       6    2     5        0
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    50       6    2     1   171600
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    56       6    2     2    92400

delta: $109,000
Sit and go no limit hold'em balance: $4,279,400
balance: $12,316,994

The funnest flavor

I have a complicated relationship with poker. Since I'm playing for play money, it should be all fun and games. It's not, however. I'm very serious about doing well in the long term, even though it's only play money. That seriousness makes poker sometimes feel like a job. It means I can't just play the poker flavor I find the funnest, all the time. That wouldn't advance me toward my long term goal, which is to keep growing my balance.

The funnest poker flavor for me is 8-game. Last night, I played an MTT 8-game to start the session, and made the money. I was short stacked the whole time, but managed to pick myself up by my bootstraps several times. I had so much fun I'm going to start tonight's session the same way.

style flavor buy_in entry players hands entries paid place winnings

MTT   8-Game   4500   500       6    85     103   24    14     5790
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    82       6    2     2    92400
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    32       6    2     4        0
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    12       6    2     4        0
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    19       6    2     5        0

delta: $-106,810
Sit and go no limit hold'em balance: $4,165,400
balance: $12,207,994

Shot from guns

This is the fourth time I've used this blog post title, but the first I've used it in the context of sit and gos. In the first three posts, the context was cash games. Boy, it's been a long time since I've played a cash game, and boy, I don't miss cash games a bit :-) In a sit and go session, you're shot from guns when you come in first in the first sit and go of the night. That sets you up nicely for a guaranteed profit, provided you're willing to quit playing as soon as your profit drops to a min win. I was willing to do that last night.

buy_in entry players hands place winnings

 44000  6000       6    55     1   171600
 44000  6000       6    15     5        0
 44000  6000       6    88     3        0

delta: $21,600
Sit and go no limit hold'em balance: $4,273,000
balance: $12,314,804

Baby Did a Bad Bad Thing

I stole the title of this post from a song by Chris Isaak that I like a lot. There are certain things in poker you should never do. Of course, you won't be able to avoid doing them at times. More likely than not, you'll only realize you did something wrong after the fact. In such cases, all you can do is tell yourself, "Baby, I did a bad bad thing" :-)

The bad bad thing I did in the final sit and go I played last night was to go to war with the chip leader when we were down to three handed play and I had a very decent-sized stack. Here are the details: at the start of hand 50, I had 2,360 of the chips in play, the chip leader had 2,990, and the short stack had 650. I was dealt 6s Ah, and the flop came Ad 7h 5h. The chip leader bet 450, I called, and the short stack folded. The turn was 6c. The chip leader bet 1,350, I raised 410 to go all in, and the chip leader called. The river was 9s. The chip leader turned over Ac 7c, and I hit the rail.

I ran the numbers, and that's my most disappointing third place finish ever, based on my percentage of the chips in play at the start of the final hand (a sizeable 39.33). All I needed to do was concentrate on beating the short stack; if I'd done that, I would've had an excellent chance of making at least second place money.

buy_in entry players hands place winnings

 44000  6000       6    34     4        0
 44000  6000       6    79     2    92400
 44000  6000       6    38     5        0
 44000  6000       6    50     3        0

delta: $-107,600
Sit and go no limit hold'em balance: $4,251,400
balance: $12,293,204

The first place gap

One of the great lines in the 1964 movie "Dr. Strangelove" is spoken by the character played by George C. Scott:

General "Buck" Turgidson: Mr. President, we must not allow a mineshaft gap! 

His fear is that if there is an all-out nuclear war, and Russia has more mine shafts for people to escape to than America, Russia will have won. The notion is absurd on its face, but is delivered with seriousness and conviction. It's a superb satirical commentary on the illogicality of the Cold War arms race.

Right now, I'm keeping an eye on a gap of another sort - that between my first place and second place finishes. It's widening. Last night, with two more second places finishes, the gap tied its all-time previous high of 40. It's time for some more firsts :-)

buy_in entry players hands place winnings

 44000  6000       6    41     3        0
 44000  6000       6    92     2    92400
 44000  6000       6    82     2    92400

delta: $34,800
Sit and go no limit hold'em balance: $4,359,000
balance: $12,400,804

The high chaparral

This is the third time I've used this blog post title. Here's an excerpt from the post where I used it for the first time, on February 7th, 2014:

I never watched the western T.V. show "The High Chaparral", but I've always liked the name; it resonates with me. Playing sit and gos with the intention of making a long-term profit is an extremely ambitious undertaking; one might more appropriately call it a fool's errand :-) I hereby dub this quest my high chaparral!

When all is right in your sit and go universe, it's easy to forget how hard a task it is to make a long-term profit. Every now and then, I run up against a factoid which drives the difficulty home. Consider this: if you come in second every other sit and go you enter, you're doomed not to make a long-term profit. That's harsh, man! My results from Friday night's session set me to thinking along these lines. Had I played one more sit and to and failed to make the money, I would have had a net loss of $22,800 on the night.

buy_in entry players hands place winnings

 44000  6000       6    56     2    92400
 44000  6000       6     4     6        0
 44000  6000       6    80     2    92400
 44000  6000       6     8     5        0
 44000  6000       6    42     2    92400

delta: $27,200
Sit and go no limit hold'em balance: $4,324,200
balance: $12,366,004

Top 15 heads up comeback

I like coming in first. I like coming in first even better when I start heads up play way behind :-) Last night, that's what happened in the final sit and go I played. Heads up play began at the start of hand 43; I had just 22.6% of the chips, with 1,355 to my opponent's 4,645. 16 hands later, it was all over. This was my 15th best heads up comeback ever, in terms of chip percentage at the start of heads up play. I eked out a tiny profit on the night, the min win for a 5 bullet session at the $44,000 buy in structure.

buy_in entry players hands place winnings

 44000  6000       6    30     5        0
 44000  6000       6    83     2    92400
 44000  6000       6    44     3        0
 44000  6000       6    22     4        0
 44000  6000       6    58     1   171600

delta: $14,000
Sit and go no limit hold'em balance: $4,297,000
balance: $12,338,804

yaps: igp

Poker players often talk about getting their money in good. Of course, you can only know if you got your money in good after the fact; the hand must go to showdown. If if doesn't go to showdown, you'll never know what holding(s) your opponent(s) had, so you'll never know if you got your money in good or not. It's been a while since I cooked up a poker statistic, so it's high time for a new one. Without further ado, let me introduce to you - for the first time on any stage - what I'm calling igp. It stands for in good percentage. Here's how it's calculated:

step 1: start with the hands where you went to showdown
step 2: cull out the hands which had a negligible delta; the remaining hands are the examination set
step 3: for each hand in the examination set, determine whether you got your money in good; my current definition of getting your money in good is when your probability of winning the hand at the time when you wagered the most money was greater than 50%
step 4: the igp is the ratio of the number of "in good" hands to the number of hands in the examination set, multiplied by 100

My guess is that though I came out with a net loss last night, my igp was well over 50. I'll have to write some tools soon to do these calculations, and find out whether I'm right or just blowing smoke :-)

buy_in entry players hands place winnings

 44000  6000       6    44     4        0
 44000  6000       6    26     5        0
 44000  6000       6    18     3        0
 44000  6000       6    58     4        0
 44000  6000       6    63     2    92400
 44000  6000       6    67     2    92400

delta: $-115,200
Sit and go no limit hold'em balance: $4,283,000
balance: $12,324,804

Rarefied air

Making a profit of more than a quarter of a million play dollars in a single session is something I've only achieved once playing a cash game. I've done it 23 times playing sit and gos, including last night. My haul of $264,800 clocked in as my 21st best session ever. That means it was better than 98.8% of the sessions I've ever played. Rarefied air :-)

buy_in entry players hands place winnings

 44000  6000       6    74     1   171600
 44000  6000       6    56     3        0
 44000  6000       6    36     1   171600
 44000  6000       6    51     1   171600
 44000  6000       6    19     4        0

delta: $264,800
Sit and go no limit hold'em balance: $4,398,200
balance: $12,440,004

Señor Cuatro doppelsession

Last night, I had a doppelsession of a Señor Cuatro session I had on January 22nd. Here are the similarities:

                       Jan 22      Mar 7

sit and gos played:         6          6
first places:               1          1
third places:               1          1
fourth places:              4          4
total hands:              313        290
play money lost:    $-124,500  $-128,400

The play money lost would have been identical had PokerStars not changed their entry fee structure in the interim. Any time you can average roughly 50 hands a sit and go, you know you're doing something right.

buy_in entry players hands place winnings

 44000  6000       6    54     4        0
 44000  6000       6    31     4        0
 44000  6000       6    23     4        0
 44000  6000       6    82     1   171600
 44000  6000       6    64     3        0
 44000  6000       6    36     4        0

delta: $-128,400
Sit and go no limit hold'em balance: $4,133,400
balance: $12,175,204

Ofour

I've talked about ofers before. Let me define a specific subspecies of them - ofours. As you may have guessed, an ofour is an ofer consisting of four sit and gos. An "ofer four", in other words :-) In my most recent session, played last Thursday night, I had an ofour. Despite my failure to make the money, I actually played pretty well. In fact, looking at my ofours as a group, they're remarkably similar:

sum(delta)  sum(num_hands)  sum(place)  poker_session_date

   -203200             192          15          2012-09-17
   -200000             186          16          2015-10-27
   -200000             165          15          2016-03-03
   -200000             116          16          2014-09-22
   -364050             111          17          2012-08-14
   -200000              78          17          2014-04-05

I have a premonition I'll make the money at least once tonight.

buy_in entry players hands place winnings

 44000  6000       6    25     5        0
 44000  6000       6    45     3        0
 44000  6000       6    43     3        0
 44000  6000       6    52     4        0

delta: $-200,000
Sit and go no limit hold'em balance: $4,261,800
balance: $12,303,604

PokerStars is getting greedy

I love PokerStars. Their software has allowed me to enjoy playing poker for free for over seven years, honing my poker skills at no cost other than an investment of my time. However, I must say that PokerStars is getting greedy. I can think of no other reason why they'd increase their entry fees for sit and gos, which they've recently done. This is not the first time they've increased their entry fees, and it probably won't be the last. The problem they're likely to run into by doing this is a drop in sit and go revenue. Players will react by gravitating to other poker styles, and even other poker sites. Basically, what PokerStars has done is to disrespect their players, who are their bread and butter; they're essentially shooting themselves in the foot. Since software has a fixed cost, but can be deployed on essentially an infinite number of servers, PokerStars was already in the racket of printing money. Now they want to print more by cutting into what they used to distribute to the players. It's shameful. When I consider how ticked off this behavior makes me, a play money player, I can only imagine how outraged real money players must be. PokerStars is essentially stealing from its own customers!

Let me illustrate what a devastating effect entry fee increases can have. My sit and go sweet spot is the $50,000 wagered level. What you wager on a sit and go is the buy in plus the entry fee. I've played three different structures at this level:

 buy in  entry fee   entry fee pct   when

$50,000       $800       1.57        2012
$45,000     $5,000      10.00        2014
$44,000     $6,000      12.00        2016

Technically, the 2012 structure has a slightly higher total wagered amount ($50,800) than the other two, but it's in the same ballpark. Let's apply these three different structures to my sit and go results, and compare. Here are my current sit and go place counts:

place  count
1        216
2        253
3        251
4        207
5        163
6         93

        1183

Here are the profits I would have made had I played all of those sit and gos at a particular structure:

structure       profit

2012        $8,588,600
2014        $2,666,500
2016        $1,292,800

As you can see, this latest entry fee increase means I'll make less than half the profit I would have made had PokerStars not pulled the rug out from under me. That's highway robbery! I'm pissed off.

buy_in entry players hands place winnings

 44000  6000       6    35     3        0
 44000  6000       6    57     1   171600
 44000  6000       6    13     6        0
 44000  6000       6    39     2    92400

delta: $64,000
Sit and go no limit hold'em balance: $4,461,800
balance: $12,503,604

The big goodbye

There are several ways to exit a sit and go tournament. You can go out with a bang, a whimper, or something in between. Personally, I like to go out with a bang :-) I call that the big goodbye. My definition of a big goodbye is when the absolute value of your final hand delta is the largest absolute value of any of your hand deltas in the tournament. Of the 1,179 sit and go no limit hold'em tournaments I've played, a remarkable 566 ended with a big goodbye, including the first two tournaments I played last night.

buy_in entry players hands place winnings

 45000  5000       6    55     3        0
 45000  5000       6    58     2    94500
 45000  5000       6    57     2    94500

delta: $39,000
Sit and go no limit hold'em balance: $4,397,800
balance: $12,439,604

Failure to stomp

"Failure To Launch" was a movie about a man who had trouble committing to a romantic relationship. "Failure to stomp" is what I call it when three handed play is reached in a sit and go and two of the players have huge stacks, leaving the third with only a tiny one, and yet the two huge stacks don't silently collude with each other to stomp the tiny stack out of existence. Last night, in the final sit and go I played, I was the beneficiary of a failure to stomp. Three handed play was reached after 24 hands. At the start of hand 25, the chip leader had 2,790 in chips, the next biggest stack had 2,495 in chips, and I had just 715 in chips. All the two big stacks needed to do to ensure they both made the money was not to get in any big battles with each other, while betting big enough for me not to be able to call without a premium hand. All they needed was silently to agree to do this, and I would have been blinded off in short order. Instead, they let me hang around, then decided to have a battle royal with each other on hand 33. One of them hit the felt, gifting me with at least a second place finish. It was my only money finish of the night.

Perhaps I need to explain what I mean about silent collusion, and why I don't think it's unethical. When both players know it's in both of their best interests to act a certain way, they should be allowed to act in that way as long as their agreement is tacit. In other words, neither of them can make an open proposal that they play in this manner. This is entirely ethical, since there's no actual agreement, and either party can break the tacit agreement at any time.

style flavor buy_in entry players hands entries paid place winnings

MTT   8-Game   4500   500       6    83      90   18    37        0
SNG   NLHE    45000  5000       6    18       6    2     4        0
SNG   NLHE    45000  5000       6    26       6    2     4        0
SNG   NLHE    45000  5000       6    40       6    2     3        0
SNG   NLHE    45000  5000       6    61       6    2     2    94500

delta: $-110,500
Sit and go no limit hold'em balance: $4,358,800
balance: $12,400,604