Starting stack size question: Is it generally agreed that....

[LearnedfromTV]

all other things being equal, a winning player would have a larger ROI per tourney (though not necessarily per hour), in SNG's that start with more chips?

[junkmail3]

Yes.

[pergesu]

Blind structure matters too, because if the blinds shoot up real quick, it doesn't make any difference. The whole idea behind more chips is that the better players have more time and play to exploit their edges. So yeah, basically.

[downtown]

Yes. And not "not necessarily" per hour, but not per hour.

Well at the risk of generalizing too much, yes the larger the chip stack in comparison to the blinds then the more time there is for skill to be involved so the "better" players should generally do better.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
Well at the risk of generalizing too much, yes the larger the chip stack in comparison to the blinds then the more time there is for skill to be involved so the "better" players should generally do better.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not just time, by the way: good players understand that the game itself is different with deeper stacks (implied odds, etc.) and adjust accordingly. Donks just keep donking along.

[se2schul]

I'm a winning player, but I expect that I'd have a lower ROI with deeper stacks. I'm not a great player and I really lack post-flop skills, which is a large component of deep-stack poker. My strengths lie in my pre-flop game with well-timed pushes because of shorter stacks.

If a winning player were good at post-flop play or deep-stack poker, then yes he'd have a higher ROI. If a winning player is not good at deep-stack poker, then chances are that his ROI would be lower with more chips.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. And not "not necessarily" per hour, but not per hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to doubt you on this (I haven't played enough, primarily an MTT player). But - it seems that if you take this to an extreme, like everyone starts with 3 x BB, the rake may swallow any small skill edge a player has such that hourly rate would be lower. I wonder where the tipping point is, if there is one. Also, couldn't a skilled player make up for the overall edge he gets by playing shallower tourneys faster by playing higher buyins in deeper tourneys with the same risk of ruin, given that he has a greater edge?

As someone added, I agree that the speed with which the blinds increase is a factor in how deep a tourney plays, along with starting stack size.

Also, I guess I don't consider someone with no postflop skills a "winning player", even if they may win in a pushbot-friendly format. Maybe I should have said good, complete player instead of winning player.

I'd like to see some strong replies to this post.

It's an important set of questions.

Esp when you're comparing/contrasting $33s and $55s.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes. And not "not necessarily" per hour, but not per hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to doubt you on this (I haven't played enough, primarily an MTT player). But - it seems that if you take this to an extreme, like everyone starts with 3 x BB, the rake may swallow any small skill edge a player has such that hourly rate would be lower. I wonder where the tipping point is, if there is one. Also, couldn't a skilled player make up for the overall edge he gets by playing shallower tourneys faster by playing higher buyins in deeper tourneys with the same risk of ruin, given that he has a greater edge?

As someone added, I agree that the speed with which the blinds increase is a factor in how deep a tourney plays, along with starting stack size.

Also, I guess I don't consider someone with no postflop skills a "winning player", even if they may win in a pushbot-friendly format. Maybe I should have said good, complete player instead of winning player.

[/ QUOTE ]

[bennies]

dam, I wanna post too!

Yes.

[bluefeet]

[ QUOTE ]
all other things being equal

[/ QUOTE ]

One thing you may have overlooked - if "all other things" were equal, you'd be facing the same array of donk-to-winning skill levels within each structure. Even if the comparison of two structures led you to conclude that one would be more advantageous to a winning (well rounded) player, you cannot assume that this player would rise to a higher rung in the 'compared to' structure.

[SammyKid11]

[ QUOTE ]
But - it seems that if you take this to an extreme, like everyone starts with 3 x BB, the rake may swallow any small skill edge a player has such that hourly rate would be lower.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I think this would be a very profitable venture. Certainly one with high per-tourney variance...but the average SnG player out there simply doesn't recognize his own chip stack as being merely a multiple of the BB. Now, I do think that intuitively there would be some players who would begin to recognize that a starting-with-3xBB tourney would require a lot of upfront aggression...but I think many would still pick poor spots to exhibit that aggression. In short, I think if I played exclusively in 3xBB SnG's, my ROI would certainly decrease, but my hourly rate would likely increase (because avg. time/tourney would probably be reduced to something in the 10-15 minute range and the tourney would start at the point of our greatest mathematical advantage over non-thinking players).

[tigerite]

This may be true, however another offset would be the complete lack of reads on the players you would have, due to it being an all-in fest before you've even got chance to decide what type of player they are.

[SammyKid11]

Yeah, good point. I guess I'm thinking about this from the perspective of the 22's, which is what I primarily play. 8-tabling that level, sure - when I get a good read on a player's calling range and can adjust it, that's fantastic. However, I have to say the majority of the time (and I'm sure to keep winning as you move up this must change), as it relates to pushbotting, my concerns are in the following order:
1) Position
2) My Hand
3) Any specific reads I have on the calling range of the player (and if I have none, I start out with the Aggressive range on SnGPT's and adjust it looser as the tourney goes on and they start to pick up on what I'm doing -- if it's a player who clearly recognizes me, I start their calling range at Loose and adjust it towards Maniac as the bubble progresses).

My feeling is that this strategy would work quite well from a $/hour perspective at a similar level in a 3xBB starting stack structure. Do you feel differently?

[someday]

i like to start with a smaller amount of chips.
i think its an advantage.

its very easy to play incorrectly when you start with t800. Which is good for the few who understand how to place top 3 on a regular basis.