MTT final tables and SNG's are very different

[Che]

Adanthar, MLG, et al seem to believe that SNG's and MTT final tables are very similar. I disagree for several reasons.

A. Payout structure

MTT payout: .25/.14/.09/.065/.054/.044/.034/.024/.0155
(final table payout at Stars with field of 801-1000)

We can double the percentages without altering the relative payouts (and relative is all that matters, anyway) as follows (some payouts rounded for ease of reading):

MTT payout: .5/.28/.18/.13/.11/.09/.07/.05/.03

SNG payout: .5/.3/.2/0/0/0/0/0/0

The payouts for the top 3 are basically equivalent, but the payouts for the bottom 2/3 are considerably different. /images/graemlins/diamond.gif understatement alert /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

Play at a final table is considerably different than SNG play both early and late because of the different payout structures.

For example, someone in an SNG gets knocked down to 1/6th of the starting stack a few hands in. This is equivalent to entering a final table as the short stack. However, the motivations for the two players are very different. The SNG player knows he cannot make the $ by sitting on his hands, so he is willing to take small edges. The MTT player on the other hand, is more than happy to fold anthing less than a premium hand for a couple of orbits in hopes of moving up to 6th place, which would be an excellent result in the given scenario.

Difference 1: Short stack play early. If the short stacks play differently, everyone must play differently in response.

Another example: 4 left, 2 big stacks, 2 small stacks. You're one of the small stacks. Do you gamble in an SNG? No. You want to make third. Do you gamble in a MTT? Yes, since winning this gamble and one more will put you in position to make a run at first prize, which is much better than trying to fold into third.

Alternatively, you're a big stack with 4 left. You've got a tough decision in a hand against the other big stack. What do you do in the SNG? You fold. What do you do in the MTT? You probably fold, but you will at least consider playing since winning basically guarantees you first while losing doesn't cost you as much (in terms of opportunity cost) since 4th place money is not much less than 3rd place money.

Difference 2: Late play is different for both big and small stacks.

B. Blind structure

Early in an SNG, blind/stack ratios are small. You can limp with 76s if you choose. You can't do that at a final table. Even if you are deep enough to play a drawing hand profitably, it is very likely that at least one of your opponents in the hand will not be deep enough.

Conclusion: SNG's and MTT final tables are similar, but the differences outweigh the similarities IMHO.

If you disagree with my arguments, please explain why.

If you believe I am underestimating (or ignoring) an aspect of SNG play that is valuable in developing MTT final table skill, please point out my error.

Thanks,
Che

PS - Yes, I have played hundreds of SNG's. I am not an MTT-only type like some lucky stiffs around here.

[Jurollo]

Thank you for posting this. I was going to last night but was too tired, we are in 110% agreement. The do have some valid benefits as practice in poker and small tournies, but are extremely different than final tables in larger MTTs, most importantly in starting stacks and blind structure/bb's left in stacks as Che mentioned.
~Justin

[AtticusFinch]

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you for posting this. I was going to last night but was too tired, we are in 110% agreement. The do have some valid benefits as practice in poker and small tournies, but are extremely different than final tables in larger MTTs, most importantly in starting stacks and blind structure/bb's left in stacks as Che mentioned.
~Justin

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm one of the SNG proponents. I don't think we've ever claimed that there aren't major differences. The value of SNGS is not for the whole tourney, it's on the bubble. Bubble situations in SNGS are very similar to final table and bubble play in MTTs in terms of stack sizes relative to blinds, basic strategy, etc.

The payout structure issues are still there, of course. It's not a perfect simulation, but it's a good way to get lots of practice learning how and when to steal blinds, etc.

[MLG]

agreed, there are very important differences between SnGs and final tables, but that doesnt mean that the SnG isnt still the best way to practice.

disclaimer: I dont play SnGs except for Sats.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thank you for posting this. I was going to last night but was too tired, we are in 110% agreement. The do have some valid benefits as practice in poker and small tournies, but are extremely different than final tables in larger MTTs, most importantly in starting stacks and blind structure/bb's left in stacks as Che mentioned.
~Justin

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm one of the SNG proponents. I don't think we've ever claimed that there aren't major differences. The value of SNGS is not for the whole tourney, it's on the bubble. Bubble situations in SNGS are very similar to final table and bubble play in MTTs in terms of stack sizes relative to blinds, basic strategy, etc.

The payout structure issues are still there, of course. It's not a perfect simulation, but it's a good way to get lots of practice learning how and when to steal blinds, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

and shorthanded / HU play.

[Che]

[ QUOTE ]
Bubble situations in SNGS are very similar to final table and bubble play in MTTs in terms of ... basic strategy

[/ QUOTE ]

My claim in this thread is the exact opposite of what you are saying regarding MTT final tables. I would be interested in hearing an explanation of why people think the basic strategies are similar, rather than just statement of the belief that they are similar.

I know you're capable of making a good argument, Atticus. Maybe you just don't have time right now. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

I also happen to disagree relative to MTT bubble play, but that's not what I'm arguing here. Let's save that discussion for another thread.

Later,
Che

[woodguy]

I agree with Soss in that the best translation from SnG to MTT FT is SH and HU play.

If you play full ring and MTT's only, you simply do not get enough practice playing shorthanded or HU.

That being said, Mr. IdontplaySnGsGoodman seems to beat the crap out his opponents when its shorthanded, but he's a laggy exception.

Regards,
Woodguy

[MLG]

To be fair, there are final table spots I have trouble with. I am very good with either a big stack, or a small stack. I still feel uncomfortable at points in the middle, searching for the right amount to reign in my aggresion in order to take advantage of pay bumps.

[Che]

[ QUOTE ]
I still feel uncomfortable at points in the middle, searching for the right amount to reign in my aggresion in order to take advantage of pay bumps.

[/ QUOTE ]

SNG's won't help you with that. Another score for me! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[GtrHtr]

I agree with your post and the arguments you make in it. As an SnG player I will differ (or add) in one subject you did not mention which is experience in playing a shorthanded table and HU and the variance of hands you play in those situations vs. at a full table. Players tend to play a lot more suited low cards and unsuited connectors, etc. once ITM, particularly HU and gain experience developing hands. That is not to say that straight MTT players do not, but the experience gained through SnGs in this case is significant.

[AtticusFinch]

[ QUOTE ]
I would be interested in hearing an explanation of why people think the basic strategies are similar, rather than just statement of the belief that they are similar.

I know you're capable of making a good argument, Atticus. Maybe you just don't have time right now. /images/graemlins/cool.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok now that I have a little more time /images/graemlins/wink.gif

I'm no MTT expert, but I've had a fair bit of success in MTTs right from the start, and I attribute it to my long SNG experience. Here's why I think they are valuable.

I believe good late-game strategy in MTTs requires a certain set of skills, including the following:

1) Knowing how to manage your stack based on the size of the blinds
2) Knowing when you're in push/fold mode
3) identifying and attacking the players who are just trying to limp into the money and are playing too weakly because of it.
4) know against whom to steal with marginal cards and against whom you need a good hand
5) identifying steals from other players and restealing
6) adjusting your play based on the payout structure
7) adjusting your play based on the relative size of your stack vs others in the hand

Etc. This is not meant to be exhaustive, and some of them overlap, but you get the idea. My point is that SNGs develop all of these skills. Will the answers always be the same? Of course not. But the factors you consider when making these decisions are the same. Blind size, stack size, reads, payout structure, etc. SNGs give you a lot of practice in thinking about these issues and acting upon them, even though the actual values of the various parameters are different.

What this all boils down to is, the strategy is not the same, of course, but it is analogous.

[Che]

[ QUOTE ]
SNGs give you a lot of practice in thinking about these issues and acting upon them, even though the actual values of the various parameters are different.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I understand correctly, SNG's get us to think about things we need to think about in MTT's, but MTT-only players might not think about them often unless they frequently reach the final table.

OK, I'll buy that. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Che]

[ QUOTE ]
the experience gained through SnGs in this case is significant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another good argument. Even though the payout structure is different, SNGer's gain lots of short-handed experience while MTTer's gain very little.

[AtticusFinch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
SNGs give you a lot of practice in thinking about these issues and acting upon them, even though the actual values of the various parameters are different.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I understand correctly, SNG's get us to think about things we need to think about in MTT's, but MTT-only players might not think about them often unless they frequently reach the final table.

OK, I'll buy that. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Yay, I win! /images/graemlins/wink.gif

But seriously, folks, thats all I was getting at.

[AtticusFinch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the experience gained through SnGs in this case is significant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another good argument. Even though the payout structure is different, SNGer's gain lots of short-handed experience while MTTer's gain very little.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this should have been on my list, too. In particular, short-handed play with huge blinds.

[billyjex]

I still think SNG's are invaluable to MTT tournaments when the final table becomes shorthanded. Dealing with large blinds and short stacks when there are 5 or less players is something you won't do well if you only have played MTT's (unless you have played alot of them.)

The assumption that you play a MTT final table like a SNG is wrong and I think people that have said they are similar know that. To say that someone shouldn't play SNG's to gain shorthanded NL tournament experience is flat wrong.

[Che]

[ QUOTE ]
To say that someone shouldn't play SNG's to gain shorthanded NL tournament experience is flat wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but I haven't heard anyone say that. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[billyjex]

True.

Maybe you thought it in your head?

[Che]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you thought it in your head?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I didn't think at all about the fact that MTTer's rarely play shorthanded. I started as an MTT-only player, but I added SNG's fairly quickly and I had forgotten about the transition I had to make when those SNG's got down to fewer than 7 players.

When I was reading adanthar and MLG's comments in that other thread, payout structures were all I could think of so I posted this to see what I was overlooking...but I still think the differences are significant and that an SNG-only player who moves to MTT's is likely to struggle at his first few final tables regardless of how many SNG's he has played.

No proof, of course, just my opinion...

[AtticusFinch]

[ QUOTE ]
but I still think the differences are significant and that an SNG-only player who moves to MTT's is likely to struggle at his first few final tables regardless of how many SNG's he has played.


[/ QUOTE ]

No argument there. From personal experience, I can tell you this is accurate. My only claim is that we SNGers will probably struggle somewhat less on our first few final tables than exclusive MTT/Ring players.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
When I was reading adanthar and MLG's comments in that other thread, payout structures were all I could think of so I posted this to see what I was overlooking...but I still think the differences are significant and that an SNG-only player who moves to MTT's is likely to struggle at his first few final tables regardless of how many SNG's he has played.

[/ QUOTE ]

My record at the six FT's in smaller tourneys I've made it to this month disagrees with you /images/graemlins/cool.gif

The payout structure is a big difference but the whole point behind being a good SNG player is that I know when to ramp up aggression and when to tone it down. Good MTT players will know to ramp up on the bubble but many of them have no idea how playing with 29 left differs from 9. All I have to do is glance at the stack sizes and payout and I can make the adjustments the next hand.

Shorthanded play is the big one, though. A typical MTT player just doesn't see K6o as a huge 3 way hand.

[Che]

[ QUOTE ]
My record at the six FT's in smaller tourneys I've made it to this month disagrees with you /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but you totally rule the STT forum. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I'm talking about the mere mortals that account for 12% of the SNG pool (the other 87.9% are mere morons).

Later,
Che