$/hr vs $/SnG

[triplc]

Okay...there have been a couple posts in another thread that espouse to seek maximum $/hr, rather than $/SnG...I don't see how you can separate the two that cleanly.

The only way that I can see to make this work is to play extremely recklessly at the start and either double up or go home, and when you double up, revert to solid poker. Could this possibly work? I'd like someone to prove this with real data from their own experience if they can.

At what point do you decide that your stack is too small to truly be a contender? What hand do you need to have to try to double through? I just never think like this when I play an SnG...should I?

For me, I look at each $11 that I spend at an SnG as an investment which can return to me $0, $20, $30, or $50 and I am unwilling to give up that investment until I absolutely have to. Thus, I measure my results by tourney, not by hour (of course, the fact that I don't keep good track of time spent is another factor... /images/graemlins/smile.gif).

Can somebody present a clear strategy that allows you to maximize $/hr while not considering $/SnG. This seems to be unique to SnGs, as in multis I believe $/hr to be even more irrelevant as a goal.

Anxious to hear people's views and strategies in this regard, but until someone can prove otherwise, I'm going to continue to try and maximize my $/SnG by building my stack without reckless play early. Note that I did not say that I won't play aggressively...just not recklessly. If I believe I have much the best of it, my chips go in whether the blinds are 10/20 or 1000/2000. Let's not confuse tight aggressive play with timidity here.

CCC

[Prickly Pete]

[ QUOTE ]
Can somebody present a clear strategy that allows you to maximize $/hr while not considering $/SnG. This seems to be unique to SnGs, as in multis I believe $/hr to be even more irrelevant as a goal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this would be a more of a concern with multis that could potentially last several hours. Take a gamble early to double up or get back to your normal game.

As for the SNGs: While I do focus on my $/hr, I don't think I've ever considered it when making an SNG decision. In other words, I've never said to myself "I know calling this allin is most likely a loser, but if I lose, I can get another tourney started right away."

Maybe on a really really close call, this could be a consideration. But I think it would come up very rarely.

[Cosimo]

Note: I'm assuming 10-handed $10+1 for the sake of argument.

$/hr while playing SNGs obviously includes a consideration of $/SNG. I want to get that out of the way. The choice isn't one or the other--the choice is, which is primary? What is your ultimate goal while playing poker? Is it to make money, or is it to have a stellar performance record that you can show off to friends and acquaintances?

If you had the choice of grabbing first place in every single SNG, but each one took four hours to play out, would you take that game? (net $9.75/hr) What if, as an option, you placed first in every third SNG, but each game took only twenty minutes? (net $17/hr)

$/hr is definitely a concern for me. Sklansky mirrors the sentiment in Tourney-FAP.

I don't think this has anything to do with reckless play. Loosening up and being more aggressive--if it wins you more money each year--sounds like a winner to me. But the if is the question, and we're not answering that here.

[gmunny]

I think tracking both would be important. I would think that for the pro, semi-pro or whoever, tracking $/hour in SNG Tourneys can be used to determine their "opportunity cost". For example, if you made $15/hr playing SNG's over a 500 hour period and you compared it to making $20/hr playing ring game over the same time period, then you should play more rings games as it is a more profitable use of your time. OR you can use your $/SNG and try to improve your $/hr for the SNG so it justifies playing these SNG's vs. the ring games.