Why SitnGo's?

[cowboyzfan]

Hi,

I was wondering why so many of the guys playing for a living (or serious cash) are playing Sit n go's. I know they are fun, and quick etc. But i was wondering if it was determined whether they are more profitable (or have other advantages)than other Hold'em options

Is there an financial argument for playing sit n go's over other options such as limit or no limit ring? Other than just the enjoyment factor.

thanks /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Ezcheeze]

I think they are more profitable for a good player than limit and no limit ring games of similar variance. There are a huge amount of oppurtunities for bad players to make gigantic mistakes, especially with the changing blinds.

This is for party sng's only. On most other sites the tournies take longer so your hourly rate might not be as high as the corresoponding limit/no limit ring games. I don't play sng's on those sites so I'm really not sure.

-Ezcheeze

[TheAmp]

Hi,
Well, I have thought about it too....although I dont have any orgenized data, I am pretty sure Sng's are more profitable (compared to other gane options). I believe the main reason for this is the fact that in Sng's the players are betting "chips" not "money". this makes it easyer for them to have fun (lets go all in !!)and give it away. also Sng's have higher volatilaty (luck swings) and many tight pros cant take that: in their ring game they win every day. that leaves a big "gap" for good players who are willing to trade equity (EV) for variance.

[SlowStroke]

For some reason that I do not understand, sng's seem to attract more weak players than ring games. Even at the $50 and $100 limits. And the sharks must follow the fish wherever they go.

[Mr_J]

More profitable?

If someone 4 tabled 15-30 at 1.5BB an hr (per table) is $180 an hour. Their BR would be at least 9k.

That's probally a similiar BR for a $215 player. If they 4 table then they play maybe 5-5.5 an hour, hitting 15% that's $177 per hour.

I think the skill level to hit 15%ROI at $215 is higher than making 1.5BB/hr at 15-30 (I don't know, just a guess). The variance is probally quite a bit higher for the 15-30 (I don't know the numbers).

This isn't taking higher level sngs into account since I don't know how common they are.

I guess high level ring would have greater earning potential (unless there are quite a few high limit sngs around and you can hit a decent ROI).

[raptor517]

good luck keeping either of those numbers. 15% at 215 is VERY hard to do. so is 1.2 bb per 100 hands(about 1.5 bb per hour) at 15-30. to be honest, its probably best to learn to play both, then just switch off to stay fresh. if you get bored playing poker, you never do as well as you could. playing 15-30 is a grind, its swingy, and in general, i get bored playing it. personally i prefer sngs, and i think that there are too many people that just throw away their money. in 15-30 there are maniacs, but thats not necessarily a good thing.

[yenforyen]

A lot of it is personal, but I have found SNGs to be very profitable when compared to ring games. I love the opportunity to punish weaker players, take their chips and best of all make them disappear when they make bonehead plays. The 109 level is well nigh perfect for this. The really good players have moved up leaving the wanna-bes for opportunity lovers like me. There are plenty of suck outs in SNGs but nothing like I experienced in cash games. SNGs are wonderful. Long live SNGs.

[binions]

Assume a $3000 bankroll, which is what you need to play 10-20 limit, or $100 SNGs.

Good SNG players average 40% ROI. Average SNG lasts an hour, sometimes more, sometimes less.

So, $40 an hour, which would be 2BB an hour at 10-20 limit.

Good limit players average 2BB per 100 hands, which takes longer than hour even online, meaning the return is greater for good players in SNGs.

Throw in the fact that you play far fewer hands, far fewer flops, far fewer turns, far fewer rivers = far fewer decisions to make in SNGs v limit.

Meaning, the variance is greater in limit.

Also, meaning you can multitable more easily in SNGs.

[Mr_J]

From what I've read around here, 40%ROI at $100s is not sustainable.

[cowboyzfan]

Thanks guys for all the responses. This is some great info! My favorite reason was about making the bad players "disappear". That is fun /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Seadood228]

Here's a post I wrote a few months ago on another site. The ROI and BB/hr. numbers are a little inflated , but in these examples I took data from some of the best players. Most players, myself included, will be right around 75% of these numbers.

At lower levels, it's hard to argue that SNGs aren't more profitable. Personally I find them to be less swingy, but I suspect that will change as the buyins increase coupled with a decrease in ROI.

I think you can argue either way which is more profitable, but in the end it all comes down to bankroll. We have to factor out the players skill level , because if we didn't there would be no reason for having this discussion. So assuming the player is in the top 10% skill wise in each game, the only factor that comes into play when determining how much you can earn is the amount of money you are willing to risk.

I'll use a 2 table at a time example and expected ROIs from an excellent player on the 2+2 SNG forum. I've added a bigger bankroll with the increase in buyins..

$10 STTs - 50% ROI - 2 tables = 3.2 SNGs/hr =

$17.6/hr - Bankroll needed around $300

$20 STTs - 42% ROI - 2 tables = 3 SNGs/hr =

$27.72/hr - Bankroll needed $700

$30 STTs - 44% ROI - 2 tables = 3 SNGs/hr =

$43.56/hr - Bankroll needed $1100

$50 STTs - 35% ROI - 2 tables = 2.6 SNGs/hr =

$50.5/hr - Bankroll needed $2000

$100 STTs - 26% ROI - 2 tables = 2.5 SNGs/hr =

$71.25/hr - Bankroll needed $5000

$200 STTs - 20% ROI* - 2 tables = 2.2 SNGs/hr =

$94.6/hr - Bankroll needed $10000+

<font color="green">* not many players post their ROI at this level, this was taken from a ZeeJustin post, so I'm pretty positive you are looking at the absolute maximum ROI here. </font>

In comparison to playing limit ring games:

I'll assume 1.5BB/hr, a 400BB bankroll, and 2 tables

.5/1 - $400 BR - $3/hr

1/2 - $800 BR - $6/hr

2/4 - $1600 BR - $12/hr

3/6 - $2400 BR - $18/hr

5/10 - $4000 BR - $30/hr

10/20 - $8000 BR - $60/hr

15/30 - $12000 BR - $90/hr

30/60 - $24000 BR - $180/hr

Assuming 1.5 BB/hr 2 tabling at all levels, the Bankroll Risk/Earn rate will start to even out at around the 15/30 - $215SNG level.

At the lower levels however, a good SNG player can theoretically earn much more in relation to the relative risk. Of course we are assuming that the player in question is in the upper echelon of players at that level.

Another point you could add is the difference in learning curves. I think the SNG learning curve starts out much lower but progresses more rapidly than someone playing limit. Limit rings take longer to master IMO, but the degree of short term luck allows for a poor limit player to lose less in the short run, whereas a new SNG player might lose much more in that period of time. After some experience, a SNG player can learn to breakeven and then become a winning player at quicker rate. These are just opinions though...

I still think it's imperative to become at least a competent limit ring player before you venture into any other form of holdem. I know I didn't start winning SNGs until I became a ok ring game player...

Hope that helps..

[Mons]

Nice post. They should put this in the FAQ (assuming they ever find it).

[skaboomizzy]

Also, I think regularly playing SNGs gives you a better idea of MTT strategy should you decide to play a $10 or $20 MTT. Given the payouts at the top few places of those, it's well worth it to be able to make tournament-style adjustments.

[FishBurger]

[ QUOTE ]
I still think it's imperative to become at least a competent limit ring player before you venture into any other form of holdem. I know I didn't start winning SNGs until I became a ok ring game player...

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never been able to beat a limit ring game but I have made several thousand playing the $16 Turbos on Stars and the $11 and $22 NL SnGs on Party.

In my opinion, the skills needed to beat a limit ring game and the skills needed to beat a NL SNG are totally different. In limit ring games, you have to play the same boring style all day to be successful. In NL SNGs, you get to open it up at the end of the tournament and that's when the fun begins. Furthermore, mathematical skills play a big part in limit ring games. Understanding folding equity is more important in SNGs than being a mathematical genius.

I lost $500 when I first opened up my Party account playing 0.5/1 and 1/2 limit ring games. It wasn't until I switched to SNGs (limit at first, then NL) that I became a winning player. Lack of success in limit ring games did not correlate to a lack of success in SNS in my experience -- quite the contrary.

[1C5]

Were you a winning player right at first at Party $11? Did you follow the FAQ guide on this forum to get your feet wet or just do trial and error until you figured it out?

[harthag12]

I have to agree with the statement on Ring &amp; Sit &amp; go not corresponding exactly. I have wanted to be good at Ring games, and have read and played smart, and have a friend who plays only ring games and has made alot, and I just can not win. I'm only playing at .25/.50 and I am down. However at $5/.50 on Party I'm a winning player, up money. A small loss in the sit &amp; go doesn't hurt as much as in a Ring game. At the end of the game you can wait for people to bust out, and stealing blinds becomes important. In the .25/.50 game that is never possible, and I just find that luck wins out way to much of the time. Umm, I'm not sure if this is relevant to the original topic, but I'm at work &amp; distracted, so I'm posting it. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[UMTerp]

[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion, the skills needed to beat a limit ring game and the skills needed to beat a NL SNG are totally different. In limit ring games, you have to play the same boring style all day to be successful. In NL SNGs, you get to open it up at the end of the tournament and that's when the fun begins. Furthermore, mathematical skills play a big part in limit ring games. Understanding folding equity is more important in SNGs than being a mathematical genius.

[/ QUOTE ]

The endgame of SNGs is almost all math.

[stillnotking]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion, the skills needed to beat a limit ring game and the skills needed to beat a NL SNG are totally different. In limit ring games, you have to play the same boring style all day to be successful. In NL SNGs, you get to open it up at the end of the tournament and that's when the fun begins. Furthermore, mathematical skills play a big part in limit ring games. Understanding folding equity is more important in SNGs than being a mathematical genius.

[/ QUOTE ]

The endgame of SNGs is almost all math.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the math says, "Raise".

[stillnotking]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi,

I was wondering why so many of the guys playing for a living (or serious cash) are playing Sit n go's. I know they are fun, and quick etc. But i was wondering if it was determined whether they are more profitable (or have other advantages)than other Hold'em options

Is there an financial argument for playing sit n go's over other options such as limit or no limit ring? Other than just the enjoyment factor.

thanks /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't play for a living or for what most people would consider "serious cash", but I greatly prefer low-buyin SNGs over low-limit ring games or low-stakes NL ring games. There are two reasons:

- Much lower variance. It is extremely rare for me to play 10 $10 SNGs and finish a loser (I have 50% ROI at the $10 level). It is extremely common for me to play the equivalent amount of ring games and finish a loser (I make about 2 bb/hr at $2-$4).

- Players make more mistakes. Most people are not good at tournament strategy and not good at NLHE. SNGs give them opportunities to screw up both ways.