Turbos vs. normal SNGs

[willie24]

from reading the forum, it appears that the general consensus is that it is easier to beat normal speed SNGs for a higher ROI. Some posts suggest that this is because the faster the blinds escalate, the more "luck" comes into play, reducing the edge that good players possess.

This seems odd to me. in fact i would suggest the exact opposite.

I think it's fair to say that the most important SNG skill is endgame ability. endgame is where most players play worst, therefore giving good players most of their edge.

essentially, turbos create more endgame situations, and reduce low-blind waiting time. (in low-blind situations, the best players have a smaller advantage than in the endgame).

granted, i just started playing on a site that has Turbos, but so far, my expectations have been surpassed even. they seem to be extremely easy games to me.

i'd like to hear some arguments from the other side here.

[wegs the wegs]

I fail to see how a turbo would produce more endgame situations than a normal SnG. Would they not produce the same amount?

Turbo's are a game of bingo. If your monster hand doesn't come up in the first 20 hands you are done. If a good player has an advantage on the table the advantage will be visible in a 100 hand tournament compared to a 25 hand tournament.

Even in the end game situation, how many hands can be played heads up before blinds are 50% of each players stack? Skill in poker is shown over the long run, playing just a few hands eliminates any and all skill, and it does just come down to who hits their hands.

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]

in low-blind situations, the best players have a smaller advantage than in the endgame


[/ QUOTE ]

Imagine that you are in an SnG with 9 other players, and you are the worst player. Would you rather that the blinds:

A. Stay at 10/15 throughout the whole match
B. Double every 5 minutes

If you are the worst player, you would want [B]. They shorten the game considerably, giving you a chance to catch a couple of lucky hands and walking away a winner. With [A], the best players will avoid losing their stack no matter what cards they are dealt and will eventually beat you.

[brad the fish]

[ QUOTE ]

Imagine that you are in an SnG with 9 other players, and you are the worst player. Would you rather that the blinds:

A. Stay at 10/15 throughout the whole match
B. Double every 5 minutes

If you are the worst player, you would want [B]. They shorten the game considerably, giving you a chance to catch a couple of lucky hands and walking away a winner. With [A], the best players will avoid losing their stack no matter what cards they are dealt and will eventually beat you.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are the best player would you prefer playing with the players who know enough to want the slower blinds or those that want the bingo effect?

[AleoMagus]

[ QUOTE ]
and will eventually beat you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eventually being the key word here.

So yes, I agree with you, and if I had to play a SNG for my whole bankroll today I'd choose the small blind option (provided, of course I had an edge on the other players).

If we had to play SNGs at the 10+1 level over and over again though, the turbo is a much better option, profit-wise.

How turbo is too turbo? When does the structure get so out of hand that it no longer becomes profitable? That's a good question. My latest forays into Prima's extreme turbo events are proving that that structure may be too turbo to make a profit. We will see.

Regards
Brad S

[willie24]

i should clarify "more endgame" situations. what i meant was- a greater proportion of endgame situations relative to total hands.

[ QUOTE ]
playing just a few hands eliminates any and all skill, and it does just come down to who hits their hands.


[/ QUOTE ]

this of course is true if you assume that opponents will play correctly when the blinds are very big- that is, very loose-aggressive. the fact is that most of them won't... therefore giving a good player a huge advantage.

also there is no turbo i have seen that is only 25 hands. i don't know the exact figures in terms of hands, but i would assume that a typical turbo is somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 hands? while a normal sng is maybe 165? not sure if thats close, but i think it must be a lot closer than 25 vs 100.

it doesn't matter all that much though. a good player could certainly be expected to show a good profit (against average opponents) in a series of super-turbos that were, on average, only 25 hands.

every hand gives every player a chance to make good decisions or bad ones. when the blinds are very big in a tournament, those decisions are much, much, more important, and usually more difficult, than any decision could possibly be at level 1 of a normal SNG.

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]

when the blinds are very big in a tournament, those decisions are much, much, more important, and usually more difficult, than any decision could possibly be at level 1 of a normal SNG.


[/ QUOTE ]

When the blinds are very big, the decision is:
A. all-in, or
B. not all-in.

The decision is very important, and difficult to do well. I just don't see how it's more difficult than beginning or middle-game situations (where you have a universe of options, compared to the endgame).

[jcm4ccc]

I'm exaggerating, of course. But there are much fewer options, compared to the beginning and middle game.

[UMTerp]

[ QUOTE ]
but i would assume that a typical turbo is somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 hands?

[/ QUOTE ]

At least in the Stars Turbos, yes, that's in the ballpark. They generally last to about the 300-600 level, which is in the 45-50 minute range.

[willie24]

this is true. but 10/15 throughout a whole tournament would not be a tournament. it would a really long ring game played until someone had all the chips.

the blinds will, without question, go up. this drastically affects strategy.

knowing that the blinds will go up, and knowing that i am the worst SNG player here, i certainly want the blinds to go up faster. but, the fact that i know that i want the blinds to go up faster means that even though i am the worst, i will not be that bad off in this tournament. I will simply wait for them to go up, and even the best players in the world will not be able to do enough to have a high tournament EV advantage over me.

the basic reason why an SNG, like any other poker game, is beatable, is that opponents play poorly.

in SNGs many opponents play poorly by playing too loose-aggressive early and/or too tight-passive late. the later is much more common, and is where i suspect that much of many good players' profit comes from.

in turbos, LAGs tend to fire away at those (relatively) high blinds early and go broke at a high clip (or make it to the bubble with a good stack but relatively LOW blinds), while the tight passive players make it to the endgame with a low stack and then promptly get blinded out. so when you get to the bubble/middle blinds, you are facing big stacked LAGs, which is very advantageous to you no matter your stack size. usually the LAGs will drop chips by the very end and youll be going up against a passive player with huge blinds (also very advantageous)

in normal SNGs the LAGs are less common, and most players resort to tight-passive strategy. when you get to the bubble (medium blinds), there are usually a couple very big tight passive stacks and a few tight medium/low stacks. this, to me, is a much more difficult situation than the typical turbo bubble, although if you can make it to huge blinds, you've got it made.

[willie24]

[ QUOTE ]
The decision is very important, and difficult to do well. I just don't see how it's more difficult than beginning or middle-game situations (where you have a universe of options, compared to the endgame).


[/ QUOTE ]

the decision in the early game is easy: fold.

unless you have the nuts

[hurlyburly]

I like the reduced rake on the stars turbos, but I'm not as big on the NLHE as the Stud and Omaha games. They are gravy and the blinds aren't as big of a factor.

I'd rather hit Party for 20+2 NLHE since those are easier pickings than the Stars 15+1 turbos.

[bucci]

[ QUOTE ]

Turbo's are a game of bingo. If your monster hand doesn't come up in the first 20 hands you are done. If a good player has an advantage on the table the advantage will be visible in a 100 hand tournament compared to a 25 hand tournament.

Even in the end game situation, how many hands can be played heads up before blinds are 50% of each players stack? Skill in poker is shown over the long run, playing just a few hands eliminates any and all skill, and it does just come down to who hits their hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

You obviously don't play turbos. I play only turbos.
Turbos last a lot longer than 25 hands.

It depends on how you define a "good" player. By most definitions, yes, the "good" player has more of an advantage in the longer format. There is still plenty of room to exploit your advantage in the turbo format...

The endgame argument from the original post is invalid. I find that only about 1/3 of the time i get head's up are the blinds low enough to actually play. I like this because you'd be suprised how weak most people play head's up in the turbos. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Turbos are a totally different game. More a headgame than a regular SnG. You can play more in less time, and the rake is slightly lower. Both compensate a bit the fact that your ROI is going to be lower...

ROI high or low, if you're a winning player and your bankroll is big enough, then your winnings over time are a function of how many SnGs you can play.

[UMTerp]

How much lower is one's expected ROI for Turbo SNG's? I decided to start playing Turbos about a week ago, have about 200 $15+$1's under my belt, and although it's not a huge sample, have a 0.21 right now. I was a little disppointed with that number (this is the first time I've actually kept stats), given the numbers I read on here all the time that are often around 0.4. So 0.2 isn't that bad for Turbos if I can maintain it?? Or should my ultimate goal be higher??

I can live with 0.21, since I'm doing it 4-tabling, and I can generally knock out 6 or 7 Tubro SNGs in an hour (~$25ish/hour), just wondering if that was about normal among those keeping stats for Turbos here.

[bucci]

I think 21% is great. I would move up if i were you...

I'm doing 10% at the 105 level, which i'm pretty happy with..

[UMTerp]

Bankroll's not quite there yet. Right now, I'm 4-tabling two $25's and two $15's, and after another $300-$400, I'll be at four $25's.

[e_fermat]

I play the Turbo's almost exclusively now and find that they are probably 80-90% as beatable as the normal games. Factor in the time savings and my winrate/hr has gone up quite a bit. Even including the $55+5's, it is a rare day where I play a single SNG where there are more than 5 or 6 players left at the $100/$200 level (I play ~10/day). The crazies still go all-in early and frequently and few players can make the proper adjustment to the higher blind levels. Occasionally with a tight table and some decent players, they do become slightly more of a crapshoot but I'd say those are less than 20% of the games played. I'd estimate games that end in crapshoots: $6+0.5=0%; $15+1=10%; $25+2=15%; $55+5=20%. Sure, the odd time it's a problem but I'm sure the average player here has better push decision making than your average joe.

My ROI was in the mid-10s for my first 300 or so. My last 300 have been closer to 30% which I think may be sustainable based on better play (since I've joined here) but obviously I'll need to keep playing a few hundred more to find out.

If you want to know my player name, feel free to PM me as I inhabit some of the $25+2 and $15+1 space as well. I'm sure you're somewhere in my pokertracker.

Fermat