Are SNG players good poker players ??

[tjh]

I play SNG's mostly the 20's at X-party skins and turbo's at UB.

I have a decent ROI and I make about as much per hour as a skilled employee would at a regular job.

Here is the deal.

I get bored with SNG's and try NL, NL 6max, MTT, Limit, Limit 6 max. At these other games I seem to NOT be winning.

Are SNG's easy? Are they the easiest form of online poker to beat ?

Perhaps variance is playing tricks with my perception so I was curious about what you guys thought.

Raptor, Citanul, Gigabet, Megabet, bluefeet, JohhnyBeef, all of you with tons of experience what do you think.

Maybe I just need to devote some time to figuring out the ways to beat those other games.

Any input ??

Do you guys play SNG's because the other stuff is too hard, too boring, has too much variance, or what ? Why do we play SNG's? I for one seem to come back to them when I bleed my bankroll to a pitiful stack at the other forms of poker. Then I build a little stack at the SNG until I get bored again.

--
tjh

[Hendricks433]

Other games require Post Flop play. That makes them hard and SNGS easier IMO.

[Bigwig]

Yes, SNG players are good poker players. There is a significant difference in cash vs. tournament play, of course, and that is tournament strategy/theory. I believe tournaments are the most beatable because of this extra layer that can be exploited.

You're probably losing because you haven't adjusted your strategy. I play tournaments because they are exciting. There is a winner. My realization that they're more beatable came afterward.

[bones]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I just need to devote some time to figuring out the ways to beat those other games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe? Why aren't you doing this already?

[tjh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I just need to devote some time to figuring out the ways to beat those other games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe? Why aren't you doing this already?

[/ QUOTE ]

Duh !!! good point.

Because I am not sure how much time it will take. So many variables in Ring games. Harder to get to the good information. Those other forums are a real mess !

I probably should challenge myself so that I focus. Pick something like, 6max no limit and play a few thousand hands and take serious notes and do some serious analysis.

Thanks though !!

I guess it took time to figure out the SNG's, the challenge is half of the fun.

--
tjh

[Xenod]

The way I see it, Tournament Poker, Limit cash games and No Limit cash games are 3 very different things.

[FieryJustice]

I am really bad at most forms of poker.

[tom441lbk]

[ QUOTE ]
The way I see it, Tournament Poker, Limit cash games and No Limit cash games are 3 very different things.

[/ QUOTE ]

don't forget that six max is also a world away from full ring

[eastbay]

Are goalies good hockey players?

Are funny car dragsters good drivers?

Are racquetball players good athletes?

eastbay

[Nick M]

personally i think it takes a certain type of player to beat online cash games. I'm an overall winner in LIVE cash. And it's what I did before I thought my car would take a crap on me, driving 3 times a week to AC from LI. But I can't win a lick in cash games online. It's really sad actually. SNGs require less ONLINE reading skills and more strategy, than cash games do. So it works better for me.

I think most good players would agree that cash games are much harder to beat and cope with mentally than SNGs or tournaments. So a winning cash game player can become a winning tourn player...but not always the other way around.

[Big Limpin']

i think SnG are the easiest form to go from "noob" to "pretty damn decent"...you only really need to grasp/semi-master a few simple concepts before you find yourself beating them for a decent return. To go from noob to quite good at NL cash, or whatever, is a longer road.

Erm, i may not be able to explain what im thinking, that paragraph wasnt quite it. I'll try again:

The financial divergence between a good player and the field is more quickly evident in SnG. Once you "get it" about the bubble, you are across the "treading water" point, and likely to stay there. To cross that bridge in SnG is not a massive revelation, and wont take years of experience. In the "othergames", it takes longer to cross that bridge.

And im the same way...the bills get paid with SnG, but rarely a week goes by without me wandering into the rings for some spice-up, and i reallt am not much past the treading water point at any significant stakes. Im sure i COULD be, but theres a lot of work /time involved.

BL'

Oh, are SnG players good poker players? What eastbay said.

[lacky]

[ QUOTE ]
I get bored with SNG's and try NL, NL 6max, MTT, Limit, Limit 6 max. At these other games I seem to NOT be winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

I play all of those, and I win at all of them, BUT, I learned to win at all of them through hard study and paying my dues. Your thinking you can just sit down and win is no different than a limit player "trying out" NL sng's and wondering why he's not doing well.

If you get bored and want to learn a new game, I'm all for it, and think it adds alot to a player. But learning a new game means finding out the best books, getting a couple and studying them, reading the archieves for the forum for that style of poker, and then starting low and working your way up.

Steve

[rbear]

i feel lost when i play ring games

[MegaBet]

[ QUOTE ]
Raptor, Citanul, Gigabet, Megabet, bluefeet, JohhnyBeef, all of you with tons of experience what do you think.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the shout out!

I play cash games rarely online, but quite a bit live. SNGs are easier to mutitable IMO, and therefore more profitable. There are less decisions involved because there is less postflop play.

[ChrisV]

I think SNGs are easier than other forms of poker, but then, I would, because I'm suited to SNGs.

Analytical people naturally gravitate to SNGs because they require a more technical skill set. 6 max limit holdem is a very profitable game as well, but it requires less technical skills and more understanding of psychology.

A lot of the time in SNGs, your opponents' hands and play styles are totally irrelevant. Say you're on the bubble, medium stacked, and there's a short stack. You're in the BB and it folds to the big stack SB who pushes. You have A9o. What does the big stack have? The correct answer is "who cares?". Similarly, a lot of the plays which differentiate good SNG players from bad (early caution, pot odds calls, big stack bullying tactics etc) are completely independent of opponents. It's like a complex form of solitaire.

When I do make a play based on my read of an opponent, often it's some overt hint they've given me that hand... like not betting enough, indicating weakness, or making a big overraise, indicating they don't want me to call. I rarely try to manipulate another player's state of mind... which in short handed LHE can be a key tactic.

Does all this make SNG players "worse poker players"? I don't know... how do you define a "good poker player"? To me the only definition that makes sense is how much money they make over the long term.

[mmbt0ne]

Usually, no. Most tournament players are crappy "poker" players.

[Nick M]

I love how all of us think that SNGs are the easiest to beat...yet there has to be a whole ton of people not on this forum losing piles of money playing us. I think i'd like to hear what a cash game player has to say about this subject. If they said that SNGs were the easiest, I would defintely think they're retarded for not playing them ahhaha.

[Ogre]

in general no

[SumZero]

Try moving to non-turbo UB SnG from the turbo ones first. You start to be able to use/need more post-flop play and as you get used to that in the SnG format that still has all the bubble and short stack decisions you know and love you can start to move to other forms. Also if you are playing on UB move to the 2 table and 3 table SnG as a kind of baby MTT.

[Nick M]

hmmm are you saying that you don't think they're the easiest? The reply was short, I'm just making sure.

[raptor517]

let me just break down NO limit. im not even gonna get into limit right now. in my mind, there are 3 different types of NL cash games. Heads up, 3-6 handed, and 7-10 handed. it takes a different skill set to beat each of these games. certain adjustments NEED to be made to adjust to the number of players and the rapidity of the blinds coming around. a HU expert may get destroyed playing in a full ring game, and a full ring expert may get annhilated playing heads up.

SNGS are another NL skill set. to beat the small games, you need to know how to play tight early and learn to pick up the blinds late shovebotting. thats fine and dandy for the 33s on down. the 55s can be beat shovebotting, but messing around a bit more is acceptable as you have 200 extra starting chips.

the 109s are where it starts to get interesting. you can shovebot there.. but prolly not for more than about 6% roi. if you work in some solid cash game skills and play a bit post flop early, you can greatly increase yer return. the people that beat the 109s+ are generally very solid poker players at all different types of games, be it heads up, short handed, or even full ring cash games. they can usually mix up their game and adjust to different situations very quickly.

to ask a question like is a sng player a good poker player is kinda funny. if hes a good sng player, hes a good poker player, because he is playing poker. if hes bad, he prolly isnt a very good poker player, because he is losing at a poker game. im rambling now. eastbay summed it up very well. just read what he said. its late i get chatty. holla

[Arnfinn Madsen]

SNG-players must be very good, since I find it much easier to win in limit cash games than SNGs /images/graemlins/smile.gif. I have tried to become good in both and I think neither is easier, both require talent and/or aquired skills which largely is exclusive to that specific game. I seem to have a natural talent for limit, which I have complemented with aquired skills, while I seem to have no talent for SNGs and have neither aquired any substantial skills. I guess personalities and interests are different.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]


to ask a question like is a sng player a good poker player is kinda funny. if hes a good sng player, hes a good poker player, because he is playing poker. if hes bad, he prolly isnt a very good poker player, because he is losing at a poker game. im rambling now. eastbay summed it up very well. just read what he said. its late i get chatty. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. The problem here is with the question. It's like asking if a good 5-card stud player is a good poker player. No doubt, but that doesn't do him any good if he can't find enough games to make a living at it.

The problem is that "good" is undefined here. We are all talking about a "good player" without saying what that means. My definition is easy. If you are making money, you are a good player.

Is a SnG player a great poker player? Not if he can't make money at other games. Should he care? That's up to him, and what he wants.

A good PLO player would probably sneer at SnGs as not being real poker, but might not be able to win at SnGs either. And a good SnG player would likely get killed at PLO. But both are good poker players.

There is general poker skill, and there are game-specific skills. Most discussions like this are along the lines of my skills are better than your skills, ha ha ha.

[PinkSteel]

[ QUOTE ]
I love how all of us think that SNGs are the easiest to beat...yet there has to be a whole ton of people not on this forum losing piles of money playing us. I think i'd like to hear what a cash game player has to say about this subject. If they said that SNGs were the easiest, I would defintely think they're retarded for not playing them ahhaha.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been a cash game player, mostly Party $25NL, since about January when I decided to focus on that. Before that I donked around for a few months in all types of games. I've returned to SNGs for a while to hopefully rebuild some bankroll.

I'm sure others have different experiences and there's no canned answer, but my observations have been:

For me at least, SNGs seem easiest to play. As has been noted, there are more variables at work with the blind structure and field thinning from 10 to 2, so that means more opportunities for mistakes, for people who don't at least appreciate all the dimensions and variables.

Furthermore, it feels like downside is substantially more limited in SNGs. They're like buying an option: your total loss is limited, but you have substantial upside. No-limit cash games are like a bottomless pit when you're tilting or running bad.

6-max is a game of reading opponents. I suck at it and I hate it. Hand ranges can be very wide, because the game is short-handed, and trickery can run rampant. Because it's not a tournament the blind structure is at least fixed, but the multi-dimensionality of 6-max is in your opponents, and personally I handle rule- and game-structure- variables much better than people variables. Good shorthanded cash game players rule the roost -- see the Mid-High NL forum.

Full ring cash is a game of patience, discipline, and stinginess. A lot of stinginess. You're waiting for the big kill in cash games, and in full ring you may wait a long, long time. It's the money that you save on 95% of your hands that accounts for profitability as much as the money you make on the 5%. So if you like to mix it up, if you get bored, if you like to take fliers -- you can bleed to death quickly at full ring.

I played full ring and learned the party line on the SSNL forum, it's excellent. When I played a disciplined, focused, tight game, and curbed all my desires to look people up, I made money. But online, it's a tough, tough game. I got bored for a couple of months and experimented with a LAG style, and promptly erased all my gains from the prior 6 months.

Maybe there are just a lot more fish playing tourneys. Like I said, they're options on a big ticket, and options of all varieties are largely for suckers. Excepting the people -- like those who read and post here -- who take such tourneys seriously, there are probably a lot of people who take comfort in knowing that "it's only 11 bucks."

[mmbt0ne]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
I love how all of us think that SNGs are the easiest to beat...yet there has to be a whole ton of people not on this forum losing piles of money playing us. I think i'd like to hear what a cash game player has to say about this subject. If they said that SNGs were the easiest, I would defintely think they're retarded for not playing them ahhaha.

[/ QUOTE ]

SNGs are the easiest to beat and have a nice low variance. However, the max earn is pretty much capped well below what a good limit or NL player will make.

Yes they're easier (at the $22s for me at last) because so many suck at it. Follow this strategy for easy $$:

Play only AA-QQ (maybe JJ) and AK in the first few levels and push them against non-2+2ers. Or see a flop with them (including AQ and AJ suited/non and TT-88; lower pocket pairs if u can limp) and push if you hit something.

You double up to about 1,600, wait for bubble and most times one of the fish will go broke over-pushing on the bubble with K3o. Then you're in the ITM.

Not rocket science.

[inyaface]

[ QUOTE ]
SNGs are easier to mutitable... There is less postflop play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think most people would agree with this.

[ QUOTE ]
...and therefore more profitable. There are less decisions involved

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a lot of people would disagree with this.

[ QUOTE ]
I play SNG's mostly the 20's at X-party skins and turbo's at UB.

I have a decent ROI and I make about as much per hour as a skilled employee would at a regular job.
--
tjh

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi.
I´m new to SNG tournaments so I have some questions that I think you can help me with:

1) Is it OK to start at the 5$ level, or should I start at 10$ or evan higher?

2)I read Aleo´s Guide for Party 10$ SNG:s. Is this a good guide to follow evan if I start at lower levels?

3)At what sites do I find the easiest (is that word spelled that way?) SNG:s to beat?

4)Since you mentioned it in the post: How much does a skilled employee make per hour in your country (USA?) and how many SNG:s do you have to play per week to make that kind of money?

All the best
// Miraculx - Sweden

[Mr_J]

Easier to multitable = more tables = better hourly rate. Cash is obviously potentially more profitable as there are much higher stakes to play at.

I'd guess O8 would be the most profitable if you could multitable as heavily as you wanted. Has the multitabling ease of sngs and a better earn per table than HE. I dumped sngs a couple of times for O8, but there just aren't enough tables running to compete with 12+ tabling $55s.

[Shilly]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I play SNG's mostly the 20's at X-party skins and turbo's at UB.

I have a decent ROI and I make about as much per hour as a skilled employee would at a regular job.
--
tjh

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi.
I´m new to SNG tournaments so I have some questions that I think you can help me with:

1) Is it OK to start at the 5$ level, or should I start at 10$ or evan higher?

2)I read Aleo´s Guide for Party 10$ SNG:s. Is this a good guide to follow evan if I start at lower levels?

3)At what sites do I find the easiest (is that word spelled that way?) SNG:s to beat?

4)Since you mentioned it in the post: How much does a skilled employee make per hour in your country (USA?) and how many SNG:s do you have to play per week to make that kind of money?

All the best
// Miraculx - Sweden

[/ QUOTE ]

1. It's ok to start at the $5s, but (assuming you're playing on Party Poker) the rake is 20% instead of the general 10%. If you have enough money to start at the 10's, I would do so.

2. Following the advice in Aleo's guide is a great start, especially for the early stages of play. Keep reading posts on 2+2 about playing on the bubble to figure out that part of the game.

3. Party Poker

4. I can't answer for the OP, but I'm guessing he's making somewhere between $20-$40 / hr., depending on how many tables he's playing and what his ROI is. A solid player playing 8-10 tables at the 20's can make $40+/hr.

[tjh]

Thanks guys....

Great discussion. I agree my question was a little bit oversimplified but I think you got the idea.

Specialization is what I was getting at. I would not want a whole football team made up of field goal kickers, although technically speaking they play good football, just rather specialized football, same goes for goalies in Hockey.

Of course we all play good poker, well if we are beating the SNG's that is. But how well do we play OTHER forms of poker. Myself, I am not sure I play the other games all that well yet.

How specialized is SNG play ?? Well rather specialized although a lot of the skills transfer to other games.

I have chosen to focus on 6max limit as my second game after SNG's. It is a fast way to clear bonuses, helps to develop people reading skills, has a lot of action, and rewards aggression. I would go for 6max NL but I fear the variance would make it harder for me to determine if I was beating the game or not.

In my opinion the games that are most beatable are the ones with fewer books on the bookshelves at Barnes and Noble and the ones that are more dificult to explain.

The knowledge on how to win at Full Ring limit is easilly available relatively easy to explain.

No Limit has more variables and is harder to learn.

Tournament adds another layer of variables on to NL.

SNG's are similar.

The other aspect is what type of mistakes the players are likely to make. SNG's require changing gears and most players seem to miss the inflection point.

6 MAX attracts action junkies and Bullies and also folks who play a tight full table style and miss many chances. So although you have to pay attention to see what mistake they are making there is a good chance that they are making mistakes.

Full ring I tend to just look for loose players and wait wait wait for cards.

Thanks again for the input and response.

--
tjh

[LostMyCaseMoney]

1) The $5 level is fine if it's 5+.50. The 20% vig will kill you on Party.

3) Noble and Party. If you need to start at the 5s go to Noble otherwise I'd suggest Party.

[sahala]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes they're easier (at the $22s for me at last) because so many suck at it. Follow this strategy for easy $$:

Play only AA-QQ (maybe JJ) and AK in the first few levels and push them against non-2+2ers. Or see a flop with them (including AQ and AJ suited/non and TT-88; lower pocket pairs if u can limp) and push if you hit something.

You double up to about 1,600, wait for bubble and most times one of the fish will go broke over-pushing on the bubble with K3o. Then you're in the ITM.

Not rocket science.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what's your plan if you don't double up early?

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
I get bored with SNG's and try NL, NL 6max, MTT, Limit, Limit 6 max. At these other games I seem to NOT be winning. Do you guys play SNG's because the other stuff is too hard, too boring, has too much variance, or what ? Why do we play SNG's? I for one seem to come back to them when I bleed my bankroll to a pitiful stack at the other forms of poker. Then I build a little stack at the SNG until I get bored again.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, you specifically asked about me, but also made some statements on your own. here's some suggestions and such.

if you get bored with sngs, either play fewer of them (don't count on them as your primary source of income, get a job, whatever) or play none of them. why would you play them if you actively dislike playing them? a lot of people will say "well the money's good" but really, meh to that whole venture. if you don't like playing poker specifically, you shouldn't be doing it, i think.

if you play those other games and you don't win, well, it's quite possible you're not a winner at those games. that is not necessarilly because you're some kind of mutant incapalbe of it, but because you don't have the practiced skills. sngs don't translate well to other games, and so if where you got your hours in was at sngs, then you are unlikely to just jump in to other games and be a winner. if you want to play the other games, play them, but study as well. there's tons of great resources out there for every type of poker, and finding them and reading them is a favor your should do yourself if you plan to play poker for any serious amount of time. even if you only intend to play one type of poker forever, learning the theory and fundamentals of other types will do you well in the long run.

people play sngs for a variety of reasons. i play them because i'm good at them, can make good money at them, and think they're fun. that doesn't mean that i don't play other games though. i play basically all the other games (though i really actively dislike playing stud, particularly stud high onlly, but whatever). the amount of time that i spend on each game as a percentage of total time playing poker per unit time is a varying thing, for instance i'm only playing like 30 minutes of poker on average the last couple weeks per day, and i'm playing almost entirely heads up no limit matches, though i've been playing quite a few PLO hu matches as well.

in that line, i don't not play anything because i think it's too boring, too hard, too variancy, etc. i tend not to play step 5s or 30/60 limit, or cash nl above 5/10 because i just don't like the swings that big, but i have played those as well. i dunno where all this rambling gets, but deep down i think my point i something like this:

at some point you have to decide if you like playing poker, and if you like playing sngs specifically. there's no shame in admitting to yourself at some point that no, you don't like one or the other or both of those things. i think it's much worse to sit around doing something you dislike just because you know how to do it.

citanul

[grandgnu]

I'd say 70-80% of the reason I play is to win money. The rest is divided between "having fun" and "challenging" myself.

I usually enjoy multi-tabling Omaha Hi/Lo cash games, since players are pretty terrible and making a profit is pretty easy.

But, it can get boring after awhile, and sit n' go's can give you that little action boost. Reading Harrington on Hold 'Em Volumes I &amp; II really helped my play in sit n' go's. I went from constant 3rd and 4th place finishes to more regularly finishing 1st and 2nd.

Switching from the 10-person Empire tournies with 800 starting chips, to the 9-person Stars tournies with 1500 chips required a bit of an adjustment though.

I used to be primarily a 7-stud player, but it's died off a lot because of Hold 'Em. And even Omaha Hi/Lo doesn't always have enough loose tables to suit my greed. So sit n' go's offer a nice alternative.

[inyaface]

[ QUOTE ]
Easier to multitable = more tables = better hourly rate. Cash is obviously potentially more profitable as there are much higher stakes to play at.

I'd guess O8 would be the most profitable if you could multitable as heavily as you wanted. Has the multitabling ease of sngs and a better earn per table than HE. I dumped sngs a couple of times for O8, but there just aren't enough tables running to compete with 12+ tabling $55s.

[/ QUOTE ]

NL cash depending on your final goal MIGHT be more profitable in the long run then SNG's. That is of course assuming you want to move up to higher stakes eventually and beat these higher stakes game by putting in effort to learn them.
I would say 6 max could be 4 tabled and full ring between 6-8 tabled with the same effort as 12 tabling 55's.

Of course higher variance is an issue.