True or false: Party SNGs are not real poker.

[Karak567]

A friend said this to me the other day.

He said "You are not good at poker, you are just good at Party SNGs."

I then pointed out the big MTT cashes on Stars I've had, haha, but still, is that statement true?

[gumpzilla]

I think it's more true than not in the following sense. I think a good, thoughtful NL player (particularly a tourney player, but even a ring player if they're a tad clued in) could pretty quickly figure out how to crush SNGs. I don't think it's true the other way around, though obviously many people can make the jump. While it's obviously an exaggeration to say that the Party SNG structure isn't poker, it's not a very rich type of poker compared to what else is out there, in my opinion.

[wulfheir]

That's like Jerry Springer saying that Courtney Love has no class. Well, not quite, but you get my drift.

[johnnybeef]

as taken from Michael Wiesenberg's The Official Dictionary of Poker :


"Poker: 1. (n) A card game based on the language of deception, a language expressed in words by bets; a card game among two or (usually) more players, in which each player makes one or more wagers that his five card (sometimes fewer) hand ranks higher than those of all the others, or that he convince the others to retire from contention because they believe his hand is the highest."


I dunno, I've only played 3000 or so of these in the last four months, but that sounds nothing like what I've played.

[Blarg]

"'Best of" Jerry'? 'Best of Jerry'? That's like me trying to bottle the steam off my poop!

[Seth Money]

Courtney Love is still alive? I thought I killed that bitch.

SnG's are the shizzzznit. Your friend must be broke.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
as taken from Michael Wiesenberg's The Official Dictionary of Poker :


"Poker: 1. (n) A card game based on the language of deception, a language expressed in words by bets; a card game among two or (usually) more players, in which each player makes one or more wagers that his five card (sometimes fewer) hand ranks higher than those of all the others, or that he convince the others to retire from contention because they believe his hand is the highest."


I dunno, I've only played 3000 or so of these in the last four months, but that sounds nothing like what I've played.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

Its the same retarded argument that cash game players have vs. MTT players.

What the [censored] is "real" poker? Should be all sitting on stools in a saloon wagering with cash instead of chips and be carrying guns on us?

btw, I felt this way when I was playing cash games and I didn't just start thinking this when I made the switch to SNGs

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

What the [censored] is "real" poker? Should be all sitting on stools in a saloon wagering with cash instead of chips and be carrying guns on us?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's this so much as that you have taken NL poker, but turned it into a game where 90% of the decisions you'll face in hands you play are trivial push/fold decisions.

[lorinda]

trivial push/fold decisions.

Most of these decisions are only made trivial because of months of playing similar situations.

If they were actually trivial, then people wouldn't come to this forum and ask questions about them so often.

Lori

[Myst]

[ QUOTE ]
trivial push/fold decisions.

Most of these decisions are only made trivial because of months of playing similar situations.

If they were actually trivial, then people wouldn't come to this forum and ask questions about them so often.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

To add to that.... if you aren't thinking about the particular games you are playing at 100% effort at any particular time, you arent maximizing your person $EV. Sure, theres a standard ABC play to be made, but sometimes, a better move can be found.

I believe Sngs are their own artform that few truly master. It may not be poker in the same sense of turn/river decisions being less important, but thats offset by the ferocity of increasing blinds and not enough premium hands to compensate.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Most of these decisions are only made trivial because of months of playing similar situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is exaggeration, but I get your general point.

[ QUOTE ]
If they were actually trivial, then people wouldn't come to this forum and ask questions about them so often.

[/ QUOTE ]

The people who post push/fold decisions are usually either a) new SNG players, or b) people posting the relatively rare, borderline difficult decision. To say that the decisions aren't obvious to new players doesn't suggest to me that the brand of decision that needs to be made isn't generally much easier and more automatic than those involved with deeper stacked NL play. I'd be surprised if you felt it was otherwise.

[45suited]

I compare this argument to one that came up back in my chess days: "Is speed chess 'real' chess?" The answer in both cases is yes, IMO. Just like speed chess, the game is more tactical, with less subtle play. Long term positional considerations are far less important than the immediate, brutal tactical consideration. Both games (speed chess and Party SNGs) put an emphasis on quick recognition of patterns (especially when multi-tabling). And just as speed chess helps your chess game (especially in my case since my natural tendency was to be a more quiet, positional player), I do think that playing thousands of Party SNGs has helped my game even for MTTs. The games are different, for sure, but both are poker and both have value in their own way.

[The once and future king]

Hmm whislt I concur with the general yes vote, I cant help thinking that ones post flop skills might tend to rust and atrophy if only fed a diet of 800 chips sngs.

This is why I play 1500 chips SNG's on stars. -EV you say. Naah, I am giving up EV now for the EV I gain when facing Gus Hansen on the penultimate table of 2008 WSOP.

[Big Limpin']

[ QUOTE ]
Party SNGs are not real poker

[/ QUOTE ] (in relation to deepstack ring play)

Perhaps.

But you could also make arguments that:

-NASCAR/Indy is not "real" racing (cause you drive in stupid circles)

-AL baseball with the DH is not "real" baseball

-The punter/kicker is not a "real" football player

-An arts degree is not a "real" education

etcetera.

But for all of these examples, there is still a level of skill required to excel, albeit from a modified skillset.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
I compare this argument to one that came up back in my chess days: "Is speed chess 'real' chess?" The answer in both cases is yes, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a great analogy, and it captures a lot of what I'm talking about. There's no question that speed chess still has most of the elements of regular chess. However, I also think there's not much argument that speed chess games are generally somewhat less deep and interesting from a chess perspective than longer games. Playing fast is its own skill set, just like making good short-stack push/fold decisions on a consistent basis is its own skill set.


[ QUOTE ]
And just as speed chess helps your chess game . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

In some ways it does, but in other ways it doesn't. If I've played nothing but 3 minute games for a month, I'm generally pretty useless in terms of using my time effectively in a 90 minute game, and frequently don't think nearly enough about what I'm doing. Similarly, if I play nothing but Party SNGs, I'm going to be at somewhat of a loss in postflop situations (comparatively, anyway) because I see them relatively rarely.

Anyway, it's obvious that SNG's are still poker. If I hated them, I wouldn't play them. However, I did find in my beginning at Paradise (their SNG structure is very similar to Party's) that I got bored with that SNG structure fairly quickly. Part of the problem was that because of Paradise's limitations you couldn't multitable SNGs. But part of the problem was that I got sick of thinking about barely anything but push/fold decisions. Since moving to Stars, I've had a lot more fun with SNGs.

[45suited]

[ QUOTE ]
However, I did find in my beginning at Paradise (their SNG structure is very similar to Party's) that I got bored with that SNG structure fairly quickly. Part of the problem was that because of Paradise's limitations you couldn't multitable SNGs. But part of the problem was that I got sick of thinking about barely anything but push/fold decisions. Since moving to Stars, I've had a lot more fun with SNGs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I recently had a fairly good run in a multi-table WSOP qualifier and I found that the game was really fun (although coming up just short and getting nothing is frustrating). I think that I'm going to add some MTTs for fun and to broaden my game. Sometimes playing SNGs starts to feel like working on an assembly line or something, but the money is very nice.

By the way, how long does an SNG take on Stars?

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

By the way, how long does an SNG take on Stars?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're playing a non-Turbo (Turbos, by the way, are fast. I accidentally signed up for one yesterday, and the blinds were 50/100 before two full orbits of the 9 handed table.), you should probably plan on spending between 1 hour and 1 hour and 20. The levels go 10/20, 15/30, 25/50, 50/100, 75/150, 100/200, 100/200/25, 200/400/50, etc. I've seen it get past 200/400 very rarely at the 10s; the game generally ends in the second 100/200 or the 200/400, so between an hour and an hour and twenty minutes. So it's substantially longer than Party, but there are always the turbos, if you prefer (plus, the $15+1 structure is the lowest rake I've seen on low buyin SNGs) So you're looking at SNGs that are probably on average 50-66% longer than your average Party SNG. (I've seen 45 minutes as the length of an average Party SNG, and since my impression at Paradise with the similar structure was that I spent about an hour on an SNG where I got to heads up, this seems about right.)

[benfranklin]

How about these:

1. True NL cash games aren't real poker, because a monster bankroll can bully the good players, negating correct play.

2. Baby NL cash games (e.g., $50 NLHE) aren't real poker because of the artificial cap on bankrolls.

3. Limit poker isn't real poker because the artificial limits don't let you defend your hand, and let the fish suck out.

4. Big MTTs aren't real poker, because all the dead money and clueless Internet players turn them into just a crapshoot. All the TV-babies know how to do is go all in. You can't drive anyone off a hand, so real poker plays lose to suckouts.

[stupidsucker]

SnGs are most certainly poker.
Just a relativly new form of poker is all.

I suppose that if your friend was a 5card stud limit expert he could beat any other game because stud is "real poker"

A key to being good at poker is recognizing the variations of the game, and playing each one accordingly.

In a sense your friend is right. Being good at SnGs by no means makes you good at any other form of poker. Its still poker though.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

1. True NL cash games aren't real poker, because a monster bankroll can bully the good players, negating correct play.

[/ QUOTE ]

A good player shouldn't be playing where they are not properly bankrolled, so I think this argument is a bit specious.

[ QUOTE ]

2. Baby NL cash games (e.g., $50 NLHE) aren't real poker because of the artificial cap on bankrolls.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really get this one. You could make the exact same claim about SNGs - you're only playing for a limited amount of money in any one game.

[ QUOTE ]

4. Big MTTs aren't real poker, because all the dead money and clueless Internet players turn them into just a crapshoot. All the TV-babies know how to do is go all in. You can't drive anyone off a hand, so real poker plays lose to suckouts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, if you were seriously wanting to advance this argument, the exact same argument could be made about SNGs.

[ QUOTE ]

3. Limit poker isn't real poker because the artificial limits don't let you defend your hand, and let the fish suck out.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the best of all of your arguments, in my opinion, because it's the same style of argumentation as complaining about SNGs; it talks about perceived flaws in the game itself that are pretty specific to that game. Still, I think postflop limit play is generally richer and harder to pin down than preflop NL SNG play. Maybe you disagree.

[tminus]

If the guys plays ring games he's probably referring to the lack of post flop action. Tournaments (especially PP) have that agro blind structure which forces hands to end earlier the farther along you go in levels. A guy like this is missing the other half of the game (bubble play, blind and stack relativity, etc...)

[luckyplayer]

Dan Harrington makes a point in HOH2 that inflection point play is THE MOST important skill a tournament player can have. SnG's are essentially nothing but knowing how to do this extremely well. If they are not poker, then poker tourneys in general are not poker.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
Dan Harrington makes a point in HOH2 that inflection point play is THE MOST important skill a tournament player can have. SnG's are essentially nothing but knowing how to do this extremely well. If they are not poker, then poker tourneys in general are not poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

The most important part of playing golf is having a good swing. Standing alone in your bedroom swinging a golf club is essentially nothing but practicing how to do this really well. If standing alone in your bedroom swinging a golf club isn't golf, then playing golf isn't golf.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]

This is the best of all of your arguments .... Maybe you disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

None of these are my arguments. This are all excuses used by players after losing. My point is that there is no "real poker" to the exclusion of all other forms.


[ QUOTE ]
Still, I think postflop limit play is generally richer and harder to pin down than preflop NL SNG play.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are playing against a highly skilled postflop player, particularly in a tournament, you can negate his skill with a lot of large bets or pushes preflop. This essentially eliminates postflop play. That's real poker too.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

My point is that there is no "real poker" to the exclusion of all other forms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, I agree. I do think, however that there are some forms of poker that I have played - 5-card draw, NL SNG's (EDIT: at least in the Paradise structure which was similar to Party's) - that tend to have fewer difficult decisions than other kinds, and some games will focus more on particular types of decisions than other games. It's fun to play all kinds of different games.

[ QUOTE ]
If you are playing against a highly skilled postflop player, particularly in a tournament, you can negate his skill with a lot of large bets or pushes preflop. This essentially eliminates postflop play. That's real poker too.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting point, but I think that's slightly different than what goes on in SNGs.

[skipperbob]

[ QUOTE ]
But you could also make arguments that:
-NASCAR/Indy is not "real" racing (cause you drive in stupid circles)
-AL baseball with the DH is not "real" baseball
-The punter/kicker is not a "real" football player
-An arts degree is not a "real" education

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot:
-ForumBot is not a "real" robot

[Blarg]

I think that's one of the attractions for SNG play among both good and bad players -- the lack of post-flop play because of the dominant part played by preflop pushing -- and complimented in a way by the lack of a need to do much playing of any sort in the early rounds.

Both of those make it easier to 8-table than a no-limit game normally would be, and emphasize play considerations that people who don't specialize in SNG's are generally not as well-versed in as their overall skill levels would lead one to guess they might be. This gives someone of moderate ability a chance to vault relatively quickly up the poker ladder once he acquires a grounding in SNG's, as well as a chance to do fairly well there even under the threat of competition from players who might run circles around him in ring games.

Not all players are interested in poker primarily to test their wits and perfect all aspects of a difficult game.

[lorinda]

Which of these would be more skillful.

1) A poker game which is played with level blinds for hours on end.

2) That same game where extra factors are added.

Now playing level 1 perfectly will not add much to your EV compared to the standard player who has read the AM guide but it is still possible to play it significantly better than that player does, you just don't get a great reward for playing that much better.

This does not make the game less skillful, it does make the reward for being more skillful less.

Lori

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

This does not make the game less skillful, it does make the reward for being more skillful less.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting distinction, but ordinarily I would say a game that is less rewarding to the skillful is a less skillful game, but now it's sort of a semantic quibble, I think. Somebody was talking in MTT about a tournament structure where whoever had the most chips at the end of 2 hours won the entire prize pool. You can skillfully position yourself well to be in the running for this, but the winner is going to be chosen from those who can get lucky and win the all-in fest as time runs out, most likely. I'd say that the terrible reward for skill here renders the entire structure unskillful. This is obviously nowhere near what the situation is for SNGs, but it sort of illustrates my meaning.

I'll make a statement, and you can tell me if you think it's true or false: A good NL ring player is more likely to be a good SNG player than a good SNG player is to be a good NL ring player.

[luckyplayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dan Harrington makes a point in HOH2 that inflection point play is THE MOST important skill a tournament player can have. SnG's are essentially nothing but knowing how to do this extremely well. If they are not poker, then poker tourneys in general are not poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

The most important part of playing golf is having a good swing. Standing alone in your bedroom swinging a golf club is essentially nothing but practicing how to do this really well. If standing alone in your bedroom swinging a golf club isn't golf, then playing golf isn't golf.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your golf analogy would be better compared to running ICM calculations or reading about changing gears. There is a difference between practicing and doing something in competition. If you change your golf analogy to a sponsored driving or putting competition, where prizes are awarded, then this has more merit.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
If you are playing against a highly skilled postflop player, particularly in a tournament, you can negate his skill with a lot of large bets or pushes preflop. This essentially eliminates postflop play. That's real poker too.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting point, but I think that's slightly different than what goes on in SNGs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant it as a general statement, but it has some application to SnGs. If you listen to the "exit interviews" of a lot of top pros knocked out of the WSOP, etc., by "Internet players", this is what they are whining about.

[lorinda]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll make a statement, and you can tell me if you think it's true or false: A good NL ring player is more likely to be a good SNG player than a good SNG player is to be a good NL ring player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure /images/graemlins/blush.gif

I could certainly teach a SNG player to play winning NL ring faster than I could teach a NL ring player to play winning SNGs.
(Play it like it's level 1. There you go, you're a winner)
However I think that your point is fair when using the word "good".

My counter point would be something that Mike Caro said many years ago.
We play chess.
At the end of the game we throw a die, if it is a six, then the loser wins.
Just because our EV has now gone down, the game didn't become any less difficult to beat.

Lori

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
A good NL ring player is more likely to be a good SNG player than a good SNG player is to be a good NL ring player.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are talking about level for level, I disagree. I think that baby NLHE games (say $25-$100 max buy-in games) can be beaten with ABC poker. In SnGs in the same range, ABC poker will usually get you to the final 4-5, but generally not beyond that. You need SnG-specific skills (e.g., bubble play) to win consistently.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

If you are talking about level for level, I disagree. I think that baby NLHE games (say $25-$100 max buy-in games) can be beaten with ABC poker. In SnGs in the same range, ABC poker will usually get you to the final 4-5, but generally not beyond that. You need SnG-specific skills (e.g., bubble play) to win consistently.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what lorinda was getting at as well, and I agree with all of this. However, I did say a good player, not just a winning player, and I think that makes it a more complicated issue, as I expect good NL players to have some conceptions of what changes when people are shortstacked and to be capable of more than ABC poker.

[EasilyFound]

The "problem" w/SNGs is that the high and quickly escalating blinds create so much dead money that often the only preflop decision is to push or not. When this happens, there is no post-flop play. If a person considers post-flop play essential to "poker," then I can understand why that person would not consider SNG play "poker." I tend to agree with people who have this view. There is a skill to SNG play, but when the blinds become so high that there is very little post-flop play, then I don't feel like I'm playing poker, at least as I understood the game before I started playing SNGs.

[ QUOTE ]
If the guys plays ring games he's probably referring to the lack of post flop action.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess this was pointed out already. Didn't read this until after my post.

[Nick M]

I believe that winning SNG strategy is a form of poker. It's a form that many people can't use unless they play an SNG. So I do believe it's poker, just not a form of winning poker that's seen or understood by the masses...and lets keep it that way!! /images/graemlins/grin.gif