Which do you make more $ per hour at: SNG or ring games?

Just wondering what your experience is. Mine has been better with SNGs so far.

I dont like ring games becuse i have to play past the flop which is unfair /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I dont like ring games becuse i have to play past the flop which is unfair /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

funny

[Mr_J]

I make more at sngs since I've played maybe 2hrs of ring in my life.

[Isura]

[ QUOTE ]
I make more at sngs since I've played maybe 2hrs of ring in my life.

[/ QUOTE ]

that is sad man. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

I play almost no ring. If i did i would play NL becasue when people call your bets to make runner runner on some crazy draw, its very demoralizing.

[gildwulf]

[ QUOTE ]
I play almost no ring. If i did i would play NL becasue when people call your bets to make runner runner on some crazy draw, its very demoralizing.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not demoralizing in SNGs?

[NiR]

i have multitabled 100nl for many many thousands of hands. its less demoralizing in sngs BY ALOT!!! and i make more per hour in sngs then ring games.

[raptor517]

long term, learning ring is MUCH more profitable than learning sngs. holla

[Myst]

[ QUOTE ]
long term, learning ring is MUCH more profitable than learning sngs. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[john smith]

I've found SNGs to be much more profitable for me than ring games. I used to play a lot of 2/4 and 3/6 and I found them difficult because I wasn't able to pound those small edges to really make myself a solid winner. I think the 22s/33s are much easier, since you aren't faced with so many hard decisions so often and you don't have to be a great postflop player to book a decent winrate.

[gildwulf]

Six max is insanely profitable if you learn the ins and outs...I would say a solid 26/16/2 4-tabler at 3/6 six max makes more with rakeback than a solid 20% ROI 4-tabler 20+2 or 30+3 SNGs....maybe even 50+5...

I make more 4-tabling 3/6 than I do at SNGs but sample size is too small to really make anything of it (like 20K 3/6 hands and a couple thousand SNGs at 10s-50s).

[psyduck]

[ QUOTE ]
long term, learning ring is MUCH more profitable than learning sngs. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

I would love to hear your reasoning behind this (Gildwulf's too).

Personally, I used to play cash games almost exclusively till 3-4 months ago, trying to utilize SSHE to the max. But my bankroll fluctuated like crazy, it seemed like I was making 0 progress. Obviously, this is probably me just sucking ass at full ring game. But SNGs have been MUCH better for me than ring games.

[Mr_J]

it's an honest answer...

[gildwulf]

Shorthanded poker forces you to make the best of marginal decisions and it is highly dependent on reads and deductive reasoning. It also forces you to make a lot of marginally +EV decisions on a regular basis (K9o, Q8s, 98o, etc. are all playable in the right situations). The better poker player you are, the more easily you can correctly pick the most +EV out of a string of marginal decisions. Thus, it follows that the best poker players will make more money at a game like six-max where their skillset is more frequently used.

In addition, even the average winning full-ring player has absolutely no clue how to adjust to short-handed. 'Tight' in six-max (say 20-25% VPIP) is semi-loose full-ring, and most players play either weak-tight or way, way too loose.

All in all, I think the best poker player will make the most profit from a game like six-max just because it requires a high level of intuition and deductive reasoning that is often lacking from late-game SNGs (push/fold mentality).

[psyduck]

[ QUOTE ]
Shorthanded poker forces you to make the best of marginal decisions and it is highly dependent on reads and deductive reasoning. It also forces you to make a lot of marginally +EV decisions on a regular basis (K9o, Q8s, 98o, etc. are all playable in the right situations). The better poker player you are, the more easily you can correctly pick the most +EV out of a string of marginal decisions. Thus, it follows that the best poker players will make more money at a game like six-max where their skillset is more frequently used.

In addition, even the average winning full-ring player has absolutely no clue how to adjust to short-handed. 'Tight' in six-max (say 20-25% VPIP) is semi-loose full-ring, and most players play either weak-tight or way, way too loose.

All in all, I think the best poker player will make the most profit from a game like six-max just because it requires a high level of intuition and deductive reasoning that is often lacking from late-game SNGs (push/fold mentality).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I guess this is true. What I was wondering about is actual profitability. For example, how can you say that one game is *definitely* more profitable than another, assuming that a player equally studies both? Obviously, there are edges in STTs as well. Are you guys saying that the edges we push in STTs are smaller than ones that skilled 6-maxers push in ring games?

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
long term, learning ring is MUCH more profitable than learning sngs. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

I would love to hear your reasoning behind this (Gildwulf's too).

Personally, I used to play cash games almost exclusively till 3-4 months ago, trying to utilize SSHE to the max. But my bankroll fluctuated like crazy, it seemed like I was making 0 progress. Obviously, this is probably me just sucking ass at full ring game. But SNGs have been MUCH better for me than ring games.

[/ QUOTE ]

have you ever heard of diminishing returns? that holds much more true in sngs, where the blinds escalate at a continuous pace. in a cash game, you are not forced to make untimely moves based upon the blind structure. therefore, once you reach a certain point, the sngs wont be profitable anymore, no matter how good you are. this is not true in a ring game. holla

[lastchance]

You mean people can't beat the rake, right?

What level do you think SNG's become not beatable anymore, if any?

[psyduck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
long term, learning ring is MUCH more profitable than learning sngs. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

I would love to hear your reasoning behind this (Gildwulf's too).

Personally, I used to play cash games almost exclusively till 3-4 months ago, trying to utilize SSHE to the max. But my bankroll fluctuated like crazy, it seemed like I was making 0 progress. Obviously, this is probably me just sucking ass at full ring game. But SNGs have been MUCH better for me than ring games.

[/ QUOTE ]

have you ever heard of diminishing returns? that holds much more true in sngs, where the blinds escalate at a continuous pace. in a cash game, you are not forced to make untimely moves based upon the blind structure. therefore, once you reach a certain point, the sngs wont be profitable anymore, no matter how good you are. this is not true in a ring game. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

What the donk? I thought that blinds escalating was the only reason why our push/fold strategy is good. If the blinds never escalated, then we might as well be playing in a NL ring game (aw hell naw :zergrush:)

Sry if this is off topic, but which is harder to learn?

Right now im thinking sngs are harder because there are more factors to take in.

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]

Sry if this is off topic, but which is harder to learn?

Right now im thinking sngs are harder because there are more factors to take in.

[/ QUOTE ]

sngs are one of the easiest forms of poker to master. holla

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
You mean people can't beat the rake, right?

What level do you think SNG's become not beatable anymore, if any?

[/ QUOTE ]

well ok, not unbeatable, but not beatable by enough to make it worth it. the biggest limit games and nl games will always be beatable if you are the best player in the game. even if you are the best player in a sng, if the rake is still 6% or so, none of you will be able to beat it if everyone is a very good player. not enough spots to get a large edge. holla

[Isura]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
long term, learning ring is MUCH more profitable than learning sngs. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

I would love to hear your reasoning behind this (Gildwulf's too).

Personally, I used to play cash games almost exclusively till 3-4 months ago, trying to utilize SSHE to the max. But my bankroll fluctuated like crazy, it seemed like I was making 0 progress. Obviously, this is probably me just sucking ass at full ring game. But SNGs have been MUCH better for me than ring games.

[/ QUOTE ]

have you ever heard of diminishing returns? that holds much more true in sngs, where the blinds escalate at a continuous pace. in a cash game, you are not forced to make untimely moves based upon the blind structure. therefore, once you reach a certain point, the sngs wont be profitable anymore, no matter how good you are. this is not true in a ring game. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

And also beatable ring games are available at MUCH higher stakes than sngs.

[Phill S]

[ QUOTE ]
And also beatable ring games are available at MUCH higher stakes than sngs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your right on the money here.

Its something ive been thinking about, i dont particularly like ring games (im never going back to limit thats for sure) but the long term growth of myself as a poker player cannot simply be found in SnGs.

Either the games get bad as players get better (just wait till SnG theory has a book out on it), therefor making the rake the killer or eventually you cannot grow into higher limits because they simply dont exist.

2K NL (ie 10/20 blinds) is quite commonplace now online, and in the real world in vegas it gets higher and played on a regular basis - if you can master these levels you can make a killing.

Conversely, what is the biggest running SnG online? It must be party's higher step with a 5K buy in but as far as im aware these run few and far between, so its probably the mini step 5s at $400 a pop which is going to be the highest most regular games right?

As for live, i have little knowledge of this but im pretty sure you cant find regular games in vegas for a higher buy in that a grand (this probably increases around WPT, WSOP times, but that is hardly a way to make a living).

Basicly, as you can see, you will eventually reach a point where progress is hampered not by your own limitations to your ability but by the simple lack of finding a game.

And thats without touching on raptors point about low edges, ease of mastery (buy eastbays tool, work hard with it and your half way there) and the massive swings in variance (raptors car challenge results show just what i mean their and thats 'just' the $200 buy in games.

So:
- SnGs good for making good money now (whilst its still there)
- Eventually you will have to suck it up and learn post flop play if you want to keep improving

Phill

[axeshigh]

[ QUOTE ]

(just wait till SnG theory has a book out on it),

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup, just like 3/6 LHE got unbeatable when SSHE came out.

[Phill S]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

(just wait till SnG theory has a book out on it),

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup, just like 3/6 LHE got unbeatable when SSHE came out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Limit is a lot more difficult than SnGs.

Phill

[sobroke]

limit rings are very profitable....period...i play the 50s sngs...i do have a nicer return rate at this(sngs) than my 3/6 days....but limit is much more consistent....i have over 100k hands at limit......and i beat it...but only at 1.01bb/100......at sng i have over a 25% roi......and with rakeback its not too shabby....i would rather play limit if i could beat it better.......and i love the rackback with limit.....oh yeaaaa!!

[ChoicestHops]

For those of you saying limit, which I agree with, why are you grinding SnG's?

[gildwulf]

[ QUOTE ]
For those of you saying limit, which I agree with, why are you grinding SnG's?

[/ QUOTE ]

I pretty much completely switched over to six-max with a few tourneys here and there...that's why I'm not posting much strategy anymore.