Thoughts on Turbo's VS normal SnG's?

[vindikation]

I knowTurbo's allow for a less patient game because of the quickly increasing limits (every 5 minutes on Stars)...but there also seems to me more action earlier in the game and less "rocks" by just the nature of the name "Turbo".

Any thoughts on the psychological makeup of most Turbo players and the best stategy to play against them?

[mosch]

On stars, I play the turbos almost exclusively. I do well, though I don't make any significant adjustments from my 'regular' strategy. My regular strategy is to attempt to consider the following:

What am I likely to win simply by showing up in the pot? How likely are they to just turn it over to me at this moment in time?
What am I likely to win if I'm played with, and my hand is best? How likely is this?
What am I likely to lose if I'm played with and my hand is worst? How likely is this?
How much will my stack be worth in expected cash payouts after the results of each action?
What is the likely result if I pass on this opportunity? Am I statistically likely to have a better opportunity later, or will the interceding chip bleed negate the advantages?

I guess this isn't as useful as saying 'I play more conservatively in turbos during the early stages, and then somewhat aggressively pick up blinds during the mid to late stages' but that's just now how I think of it.

[vindikation]

Well said.

[maldini]

clearly some players are more suited to turbos. fundamentally though, i feel that playing turbos gives significant advantages to less skilled players. the blind structure makes it smarter to play more marginal holding PF. this is what bad players do anyway. higher blinds later gives you less flexibility post flop. this is also better for less sofisticated players. the HU and 3 handed play is often a contest of who gets the best cards/flops late. this is also advantageous to the less skilled.

i maintain that even though the turbos are faster to complete, one can play less of them well at the same time which negates at least some (and im my mind, all) of the benefit of being completed more quickly.

anyone disagree?

question: why is/was the WSOP the best tourny for deciding who the best player is?

answer: blind structure

[mosch]

[ QUOTE ]
i maintain that even though the turbos are faster to complete, one can play less of them well at the same time which negates at least some (and im my mind, all) of the benefit of being completed more quickly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm having trouble parsing this sentence. Are you saying that they're harder to multi-table?

If your turbo ROI is significantly lower than your regular ROI, then you're probably not adapting to the game.

[ QUOTE ]
why is/was the WSOP the best tourny for deciding who the best player is?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've played in a big buy-in event (Foxwoods WPT, last year) and it was fantastic having 90 minute levels, 10,000 chip stacks, and starting blinds of 25/50. But just because that's fantastic doesn't mean that other structures aren't worth playing.

Maybe I'm wrong, but whenever somebody goes on an anti-turbo rant, I think I know exactly which player they are at my Turbo tables... they're the "good" "solid" player who is either unable or unwilling to adapt to the structure of the game, and thus constantly ends up bubbling out, or finishing second or third, while some "moron" gets first.

[UncleDuke]

[ QUOTE ]
i maintain that even though the turbos are faster to complete, one can play less of them well at the same time which negates at least some (and im my mind, all) of the benefit of being completed more quickly.

anyone disagree?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree that the turbo structure probably does remove some (but far from all) of the advantage the better players have. Given that Stars regular sngs are relatively slow though, I think the time savings for turbos probably does make for a better hourly rate from turbos rather than the others for most good players.

[AA suited]

a party SnG takes ~50min to win.

how long does it take to win a Star's turbo?

Also, whats the payout of a Turbo? (9 players, right?)

just trying to figure out which will give me a better hourly rate since Party's rakeback fiasco.

[Wu36]

I usually play the 30s on party and played the 25+2 turbos on stars clearing the reload bonus. The payout is still 50/30/20 (112/67.5/45 9 handed). I've had one finish in 25 minutes and doubt that any ran much longer than an hour. I didnt play a meaningful amount, but they seemed like decent games.

[maldini]

im not at all saying they arent worth playing or that i cannot adapt, but of course these are different games that require different play. what i'm saying is that i tried them once. started 2 at a time and had much more trouble making solid decisions when we were down 2 3-4 players at the same time. on the other hand, i play 3 regular SNGs regularly and i can play pretty well shorthanded at all 3.

can anyone make a case that because you are forced to play more marginal holdings that the structure actually favors the better players more than a regular SNG? its the first time i've considered that aspect.

does seems to me that the more flexibility a good player has, the more benefit he gets from his skill advantage. why would you wanna narrow the gap by playing a turbo? can you really get through that many more games?

also, seems like it would really tax my brain and wear me out to constantly multi-table the turbos.

[pooh74]

average finish time I believe is 45 mins...HU play usually ends arounds level 10 (t800 BB) so that's about 50 minutes...ive seen them end at level 8 on low end, and level 12 on high end.

as for turbo doubters, yeah...there's more variance, but Stars regular SNGs are long and not worth it timewise for me unless I am multitabling (which i dont like to do bc I dont depend on poker for income and multitabling feels like "work").

Anyway, if you're a conservative player, maybe theyre not for you...but its a matter of swtiching gears and when and against whom...cards are about 50% of the "trick".