Good SNG Books?

[lehighguy]

After 541 tournies I'm still struggling with a 9% ROI at the 50s. I feel like I understand the basic ABCs of SNGs. However, it's time I started plugging some leaks and get that number a bit more respectable.

Can anyone recommend a good book for single table SNGs? I know the good books for cash games, but unsure about single table SnGs.

[citanul]

this forum is pretty widely accepted at the best resource for learning sngs.

when you think you have a leak, post about it. with soem hands or something. read other people's posts and respond. that sort of thing.

and on a closing note: 9% ROI at the 50s is not "struggling" in any way.

citanul

[jadducci]

Harrington on Holdem 1 + 2 are excellent books. The focus is on no limit tournaments sng and mtt.

[lastchance]

HOH 1 is really nice for L1-L3 play.

L4-ITM, this forum has the best pushbots on the planet, and I don't think any book is as good as pushbotting as we are.

ITM-HU is pretty standard Short-stack or deep-stack Short-handed poker.

[gildwulf]

deja vu of this thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2776407&page=&view=&s b=5&o=)

[lehighguy]

I should be able to get 15-18% right?

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
I should be able to get 15-18% right?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, a very good player should be able to achieve those stats.

citanul

[lehighguy]

Which should I start with? HoH 1 or HoH 2?

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
After 541 tournies I'm still struggling with a 9% ROI at the 50s. I feel like I understand the basic ABCs of SNGs. However, it's time I started plugging some leaks and get that number a bit more respectable.

Can anyone recommend a good book for single table SNGs? I know the good books for cash games, but unsure about single table SnGs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh, I don't think you're 'struggling.' If you feel that way, move down to the $33s for a while, until you're sure of yourself.

As Citanul said, this forum is the best resource in the world for SNG play. As far as books go, the typically heavily recommended 2+2 scribes are the best. The God, David Sklansky.

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
yes, a very good player should be able to achieve those stats.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, thanks buddy!

:: kisses mod's a** ::

[curtains]

Get Harrington's books. I don't like some of the examples but overall they are pretty good, definitely when compared to the rest of books on tournament play.

[lehighguy]

I went straight to 55s. I like the 1000 chip stacks. I have enough poker background I felt comfotable. This forum helped alot.

I won't be satisfied till I'm destroying the game though. Once I destroy a level I move up.

That is how I did it with NL. Now I play NL$600 cash games very profitably.

[johnny005]

wasn't aleo going to write a book on playing sng's? I remember thsi from a few months back.... now he doesnt post here anymore? or not very often anyways.

[AleoMagus]

[ QUOTE ]
wasn't aleo going to write a book on playing sng's? I remember thsi from a few months back.... now he doesnt post here anymore? or not very often anyways.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes... my SNG book...

Well, that's still only about 110 pages of material that I'd rather the world not see just yet. Who knows if I will ever finish it. I haven't touched it in many months, though I did make a new years resulution that I'd have it finished by 2006 and I am generally pretty good about that sort of thing.

Despite all the crap we see on here lately, this forum is still the best resource for SNG info anywhere right now.

I hear in the newest edition of Lee Jones' 'Winning Low Limit Hold'em', he is going to have 3 chapters on NLHE SNGs. That should be interesting, and will probably change the game somewhat. I know many consider Lee Jones' advice a little weak-tight, but I still think that many losers will benefit from it. I also think it bodes badly for us that he is packaging this as a part of his overall Low-limit book, and not separately.

As for me not posting in this forum much... well, I've been busy, and I play a lot more ring games than SNGs these days (well that, and SMP is more interesting). I am obsessed with limit O8, and am pretty impressed with the low variance of that game. As I plan to return to University in Sept, I will require a greater return from my poker play, and that will probably mean a return to SNGs.

Regards
Brad S

[ebaudry]

Do I understand correctly that a 15% ROI on a STT would be for example $55 * 0.15 = $8.25?

Further then: 2 tabling $50 STT should yield $16.50/2 tournaments, which seem to take 40-45 minutes thus would yield roughly 35% more than $16.50/hour?

Thanks.

[Sponger15SB]

two tabling? yuck!

[lacky]

While I always think you cant go wrong learning more, you need to realize with that sample you dont really know your win rate. I've had 500 sng runs under 4%, and I've had 500 over 25%. You cant really pay too much attention to ROI, you have to just focus on your game.

Steve

[lacky]

well, most here play sets of 4 to 8, starting all at once, then waiting till all are done to start a new set. So figure one hour per set. Other than that, yeah, your figuring right.

Steve

[me1tdown]

[ QUOTE ]
two tabling? yuck!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing from the general tone of this forum that you don't think this is one too many, so what eliminates the yuck factor? 4 tables, 8, more?

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
well, most here play sets of 4 to 8, starting all at once, then waiting till all are done to start a new set. So figure one hour per set. Other than that, yeah, your figuring right.

Steve

[/ QUOTE ]

why would an hour per set be a reasonable estimate if individual tournaments take 40-45 minutes, and you start them all at the same time?

citanul

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
two tabling? yuck!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing from the general tone of this forum that you don't think this is one too many, so what eliminates the yuck factor? 4 tables, 8, more?

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, that's right.

we all have massively larger penises than you, because we play 23095203495 tables at once.

ps: there's nothing wrong with playing 2 tables

citanul

[gildwulf]

No offense guys, but this EXACT topic has been covered in the link I put up...

[AliasMrJones]

[ QUOTE ]
why would an hour per set be a reasonable estimate if individual tournaments take 40-45 minutes, and you start them all at the same time?

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the average tournament takes 45 minutes so some take a little longer and some a little shorter. If you wait until the last one (i.e. longest one) is finished and take a 5 min. break to get something to drink, go to the bathroom, etc. then you're at about an hour. Thus, a slightly conservative estimate for playing a set of tourneys this way is about an hour.

[lacky]

well, he is refering to 1000 chip games, which played to the end, with the new level, take about 55 to 60 min. Assuming you dont bust in all 8, an hour per set is about right.

Steve

[Degen]

9% is not too far off of optimal at 55's

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]


I hear in the newest edition of Lee Jones' 'Winning Low Limit Hold'em', he is going to have 3 chapters on NLHE SNGs. That should be interesting, and will probably change the game somewhat. I know many consider Lee Jones' advice a little weak-tight, but I still think that many losers will benefit from it. I also think it bodes badly for us that he is packaging this as a part of his overall Low-limit book, and not separately.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lee is getting tight-aggressive in his old age, especially in SnG strategy. (Also, the new edition was apparently gone over pretty well by Barry Tanenbaum.)

The good news is that he is publishing some results that are not sustainable (and not credible), and that could stir the fish into a feeding frenzy. In the new edition, he discusses people he has talked to who make a living playing SnGs. He states as fact that 33% ROI is sustainable for good players, at least up to the $100s. He assumes 45-50 minutes per SnG, and then extrapolates this into $40-45 per table per hour at that level. He does warn that if you multitable, your ROI may decline a little below 33%. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

I am reading it now, and will post more here later. The big thing is that the strategy is geared exclusively toward the deep stack (T1500) games. The strategy appears to be solid at the early levels, but to gradually diverge from STT doctrine (i.e., get weaker) as the game moves along through the bubble, the money, and HU play. And as he moves later into the game, his strategy gets less and less detailed and specific.

The net result could be good, if it brings more people into the game. Especially if those people think they know what they are doing, and are playing T1500 strategy in T800 games.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
9% is not too far off of optimal at 55's

[/ QUOTE ]

that's bullshit.

citanul