Strategy adjustments - playing for 1st

[minwoo]

What kind of strategy adjustments would you need to make in a SNG where only 1st pays out? Assume that the blinds go up in 15 minute intervals..so a typical SNG would take about 90 minutes.

[minwoo]

blahhhhh

[vindikation]

You need to gamble more and take more chances. Coin flips are probably a good thing.

[gumpzilla]

With winner take all, chip EV = $ EV. So although there are times where it is correct to pass on risky plays that are +chip EV with a conventional payout structure, this isn't really the case with winner take all.

[Myst]

Get a big stack early. Then when the blinds are substantial, youll be a force.

[curtains]

This is actually the opposite of the truth IMO, as because there is only first place, the smaller stacks have no reason to fear your big stack as they do in a normal payout structure.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

This is actually the opposite of the truth IMO, as because there is only first place, the smaller stacks have no reason to fear your big stack as they do in a normal payout structure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming rational opponents, of course.

[curtains]

Yeah Im just saying it's almost always worth more to have a huge stack in a normal sit and go. Ok, your chips are worth more in the winner take all, but you know what I mean.

[microbet]

Does this mean that you play a cash game the same way you'd play a SNG that only paid out first?

I know it's warped, but I presently have a better feeling for how I'd play a winner take all SNG than a straight cash no-limit game.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
Does this mean that you play a cash game the same way you'd play a SNG that only paid out first?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps, but I don't think so. Not being able to bring more money to the table and the eventual hugeness of the blinds still suggest that raw aggression has somewhat more power in a tournament than in a cash game. You still don't have a lot of time to wait for good opportunities.

[Myst]

[ QUOTE ]

This is actually the opposite of the truth IMO, as because there is only first place, the smaller stacks have no reason to fear your big stack as they do in a normal payout structure.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a winner take all format, you need to accumulate chips early and often, taking chances along the way. Your point is true, that in a 50/30/20 format, a bubble situation makes the large stack to be feared, but larger stacks still have the adv of putting another players tournament life in jeopardy.

[curtains]

Yeah of course, I was just saying that the reason to get a lot of chips isn't because the opponents will fear you, but simply because you need to win all the chips, instead of sneaking into the money. Thus a lot of folds that are correct early in sit and gos are wrong in winner take all type formats.

[Myst]

Im glad we agree to agree /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif .

[minwoo]

Anything significantly wrong with using a normal SNG strategy?
Avoid marginal situations...get to short-handed / heads-up play with or without the chiplead. Then use superior decision-making / playing to take down 1st.

I want to start playing in big buy-in MTTs. The satellites for them consist of SNGs that give only 1st a seat. I've placed 2nd or 3rd far too many times in these /images/graemlins/frown.gif
I've tried the risk-taking(coinflips) strategy and the normal SNG strategy. Neither seemed better than the other. Of course, I haven't played in enough of these satellites to know for sure.