So why STTs instead of limit or NL ring games?

[mithong]

For those of you that exclusively play SnGs, why do you play them instead of the other forms of poker? Is it because you believe they are the most profitable? Is it because you enjoy them more? I'd like to read some of your responses.

[dfscott]

1) Low time commitment
2) Low variance
3) High profit/hour
4) Significant barriers to entry

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
For those of you that exclusively play SnGs, why do you play them instead of the other forms of poker? Is it because you believe they are the most profitable? Is it because you enjoy them more? I'd like to read some of your responses.

[/ QUOTE ]

V-A-R-I-A-N-C-E

Oh, and I like them way better than ring games or MTTs.

A strong argument could be made they are most profitable, but frankly, if your killing any form of poker at fairly high levels you'll be extremely profitable so you ought to play the form you like the most or have the most capacity to play.

Yugoslav

[citanul]

barriers to entry?

citanul

[citanul]

finite time expenditure

excitement of the changing shorthandedness

lower variance

ability to learn more about your opponents than is often possible in ring games because people get up so often

the payout structure

semi-finite field of study

i'm good at them

lots of stupid people play them, and keep playing them.

there's probably more, but that's what comes to the top of my head.

citanul

[dfscott]

[ QUOTE ]
barriers to entry?

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I've been meeting with marketing people today and they infected me with their "biz speak."

I mean it's harder to learn (i.e., you can't go out and buy a book), so I feel like there are more fish and less good players.

[davehwm]

[ QUOTE ]
4) Significant barriers to entry

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean it's more difficult for new players to learn SNGs (and maybe the Party structure) well resulting in more poor players?

Or do you mean something completely different..?

[dfscott]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
4) Significant barriers to entry

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean it's more difficult for new players to learn SNGs (and maybe the Party structure) well resulting in more poor players?

Or do you mean something completely different..?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes

[wuwei]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
barriers to entry?

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I've been meeting with marketing people today and they infected me with their "biz speak."

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey now, that's an insult to good economists everywhere!

[citanul]

that's cool by me. i'm familiar with the term, i just don't know if the barriers of entry can be used as an explaination of chosing sngs over ring games. after all, ring games have a signficant barrier to entry to the land of winning as well.

what's nice, and why we make money, is that there is no barrier to entry to the tables beyond the entrance fee.

citanul

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
(i.e., you can't go out and buy a book)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah...when are one of you pros out there gonna get Sklansky to publish your book???

[citanul]

i've been considering approaching them. as have, i'm sure, others.

citanul, who has the advantage over other authors of being young, responsibility free, and having lots of time on his hands. hopefully that would make up for lack of expertise.

[Freudian]

The play is a lot more varied than ring games. Ring games is very much about grinding.

[citanul]

this is only semi incorrect.

citanul

[lehighguy]

As a former limit and NL cash player I've taken to STT lately for a few reasons:

1) You can make a lot of money by bluffing and being aggressive and blind stealing. In a cash game you basically have to have it most of the time. In a tournament, if Mr. conservative is next to me and I steal his 200 chips with 32o then I've won 1/5 a buy-in or about $20 at the 100's.

The decisions are bigger. If you know correct tourney strategy your EV is huge as the blinds get bigger.

2) Tourney Strategy is stimulating to learn. It is also highly mathematical. It lends itself well to analysis. Less "read" based to some extent*

3) People who can change thier style as the tournament progresses stand to benefit the most. Loose people bust out early when they shouldn't play loose, and tight people bust out late when they shouldn't be playing tight. It's a perfect storm of idiocy.

In short, it offers the most opportunities for a smart person to make money because it has the most strategy.

[dfscott]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(i.e., you can't go out and buy a book)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah...when are one of you pros out there gonna get Sklansky to publish your book???

[/ QUOTE ]

Not anytime soon, I hope!

[zaphod]

[ QUOTE ]
this is only semi incorrect.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice!

[sabre170]

There is no question about when an SnG is over, or whether I have won.

[dfscott]

[ QUOTE ]
that's cool by me. i'm familiar with the term, i just don't know if the barriers of entry can be used as an explaination of chosing sngs over ring games. after all, ring games have a signficant barrier to entry to the land of winning as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I agree. Anyone can pick up a copy of WLLH and be a winning player in the micros by playing weak-tight.

Without 2+2, I think you'd have a hard time figuring out how to win SnGs, even at the 11s.

[ QUOTE ]

what's nice, and why we make money, is that there is no barrier to entry to the tables beyond the entrance fee.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

Now here, I agree completely.

[d1sterbd]

I go back and forth between SNGs, NL hold'em Cash Games, and occasionally Limit Hold'em. I get too bored with any one of them to play them all the time. I want to add some some other games in as soon as I can figure out to play them profitably.

When I go through a bad run at cash games, I always come back to SNGs to build the bank roll back a little. It is just something that I feel I can count on.

[d1sterbd]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think I agree. Anyone can pick up a copy of WLLH and be a winning player in the micros by playing weak-tight.

Without 2+2, I think you'd have a hard time figuring out how to win SnGs, even at the 11s.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are giving the 11s a little too much credit here.

[dfscott]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are giving the 11s a little too much credit here.

[/ QUOTE ]I resemble that remark.

[beeyjay]

sngs are the only place I can make $65+ an hour with a $3000 roll.

[sofere]

SNGs are the only type of poker where you hardly ever really have to play poker.

[yanicehand]

Seriously. I think one of the most overlooked factors in STTs is the learning curve. I think one could play for months on end at low buyin STTs, and learn far less than they would with a week on this forum. There are no other educational AND profitable resources out there besides this message board for this type of poker. It's like an "in crowd" that is working together to crack the game, and I'm all for keeping that a secret. Thanks for letting me tag along guys.

[Pokerscott]

[ QUOTE ]
Loose people bust out early when they shouldn't play loose, and tight people bust out late when they shouldn't be playing tight. It's a perfect storm of idiocy.


[/ QUOTE ]

perfect storm of idiocy...QUOTE OF THE DAY!

Pokerscott

[JP Rocks]

The main reason I like it is that once you sit down, your money is committed and you have to play to get it back. If you have a good strategy and can apply it well, the poor bastards dont stand a chance.

[wuwei]

I think using the term barrier to entry is wrong. The only barrier to entry is that you have to pay a fee. Anyone can pay a fee who has $.

How about a tougher learning curve due to lack of readily available resources?

Or even barriers to competency /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[curtains]

Honesty for me, I just find tournaments more enjoyable than cash game play.

[Benoit]

My playing style seems to work better with STTs, plus as others have said I have time to observe people, unlike online ring games. I have a good ITM rate, and when I am ITM, over 75% is 1st place at the moment. So I see a ring game as risking a buy in to possibly double up at best (over many hours), while I see a STT as risking a buy in to possibly quadruple up.

[LaggyLou]

I like SNGs because of my massive number of ITM finishes and ROI. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=singletable&Number=2101186 &page=0&view=expanded&sb=5&o=14&vc=1&fpart=1)

[yoadrians]

Sorry if this sounds lame, but I'm a big fan of 'finality' and 'closure'. For instance, I'm a newspaper editor. Unlike many professions, when my night at work is done (i.e. the newspaper is out), I'm done. No taking work home for me. Come back the next day and start fresh on putting out a new newspaper. And no matter if the previous day's paper was awesome, average or crappy, we get a fresh start every day.

That's the same reason I like an SNG. There's a beginning and an end. And when it's over, regardless of the outcome, you have a chance to KNOW it's over, and you have a chance for a 'fresh' start by firing up another one.

That, and I just enjoy the tournament structure, too /images/graemlins/smile.gif