Now I remember

[Phil Van Sexton]

I recently returned to the SnGs after a long absence and starting doing pretty well again, but then I lost about 10 or 12 in a row (I'm too annoyed to look at PT). I've been making it to the bubble and then losing.

I'm sure many of you just fight through a bad stretch, but I find it really frustrating and it's why I stopped playing SnGs the last time.

I'm sure I could go back and analyze my play and find holes, but I'm just not motivated. I don't have a lot of time to play, so it would take me forever to a get reasonable sample size that "proves" that I'm not an idiot at the 50/5s.

I'm basically a ring game player. Every time 40 minutes of hard work in a SnG is wasted by 1 hand, I ask myself why I'm not sitting in the 5/10 6max or 50NL games where people are seeing 50% of the flops? Actually, I'm usually playing a ring game at the same time, so it's hard to avoid the comparison.

It gets frustrating that I can't "outplay" my opponents in the traditional sense at the bubble. It doesn't matter if I'm the best or worst player....when it gets the bubble, I basically push and pray.

Obviously, in the long run, the best players will win, but I just don't have the energy for the long run (and there's always the possibility that I just suck). I have great admiration for all of you that can handle these swings better than me.

[FishBurger]

I believe some people are better suited to play ring games and some are better suited for SnGs. If SnGs aren't your thing, then don't force yourself to play them. There's no reason to make yourself miserable playing one type of game when you're better suited for another type.

I, personally am a terrible ring game player. I might be able to play solid in a ring game for about 20 minutes, but then I get bored and start making dumb plays. Ring games just do not suit my personality. About the only time I play ring games is when I'm trying to clear a bonus -- and even then it's hardly worth it for me because I usually lose more than the amount of the bonus.

SnGs for me are both profitable and fun (currently at the $22s on Party). You only have to play tight for the first 20 minutes or so, then you can start to open up and play a little more recklessly. That suits me to a tee. The bubble beats can wear on you after a while, but bubble play is also what makes SnGs fun.

If you decide to give the SnGs a shot again, you might want to try the Turbos on PokerStars. On Stars, you start with 1500 chips, which means that there is more of an opportunity to play poker and less preflop pushes.

I switched over to the $16 Turbos on Stars in October after it seemed like I could no longer beat the $22s on Party.
After about 3 months on Stars, I grew tired of that structure and now I'm back to playing the $22s on Party. If you can no longer stomach the Party structure but still want to play SnGs, you may want to give the SnGs on Stars a shot.

[Scuba Chuck]

Phil, I've enjoyed our brief chats in the past month, and your comments in the Aleo guide help me so much to understand SnGs, so I'll give my two cents.

I sense that you have developed your NL game in the ring game so that you feel that you have a significantly better understanding of NL. Those skills most likely can be transferred to MTT tournaments in the same format.

Unfortunately, I don't think you can afford to use those same skills in an SNG. The more I play, the more straightforward I see this game. In the first few levels, you'll need to play ultratight. That might mean you play between 0-2 hands during this period. And you only play hands where you have a significant Preflop edge. Your objective here is not to "play" with your chips, but to conserve them.

Then, come levels 4 and 5, your objective is to increase your stacksize, so that you have as great a folding equity edge when you get to the bubble.

Simply stated, SnGs can be defined by a very tight PF strategy early, followed by an understanding of folding equity in the middle stages through the bubble, and then your ITM play.

Your mastery of these 3 concepts, over many SnGs will lead to a rising bankroll.

Finally, to many poker players, SnGs provide a significantly more fascinating style of poker versus a limit game.

[Phil Van Sexton]

Thanks for the reply. I had been killing the 30/3 and then moved to 50/5 full time and had problems soon afterwards. I don't want to draw too many conclusions due to the tiny sample size, but I'd never had losing streak this bad before and it has affected my play. This really shouldn't happen after only 12 tournaments.

You may be correct about how to play the early levels, but my current streak is due mostly to losing coin flips on the bubble and assorted tilt-induced, boneheaded plays. I also seem to have perfected a new technique for "How to go from chip lead to out in 5th place in 2 hands". I can write it up and add it to the FAQ if others are interested.

If I were playing 4+ SnGs at once, I definately agree the ultra-tight early strategy is correct. You aren't giving up that much, and its worth it to focus on the your other tables rather than trying to value bet with 2nd pair at the 10/15 level.

For me, I see no reason to wait until level 4 to build my stack. Rather then playing "0-2 hands", I'll play 2-4 hands in the early levels. It's really not that big of a difference.

My bankroll is fine, so I'll still be out there, but I think I need break.

[skipperbob]

Funny that this post should appear just now.....Just this A.M. I "quit" SnG's (again) because of the "chip leader to out in 2 hands" phenom....Unfortunately, I'll be back, soon, because I too enjoy the format and get bored easily in ring games.....Would like to hear from some of the 1000 SnG's crowd about how their OTM distribution goes....Lotsa 4th's & 5th's, or evenly spread among 7 non-pay positions?

[Scuba Chuck]

skipperbob,

it's funny you write this post. I recently had considered posting a thread titled "a new trend - 4th place." I intended to report that through my first 500 SnGs, 4th place was my lowest statistical place out of 1-6, but over my last 50, it has become my highest at 21% (unbelievable) and very disheartenening.

And to exacerbate matters, I played 4 two table SnGs just to change things up a bit. These pay out to 4th place. In all four, I placed 5th!

So, I question, is it just part of the streakiness of poker, or am I doing something wrong? Results to be determined...