Difference between limit and NL SNG ?

[Zelcious]

First a little history
I started playing 5+1 limit SNG at party with 18$ in my
bankroll. When I reached 250 I switched to 10+1, when I reached 640 I started playing 20+1 and after 100 tourneys I reached 1200$. Then I tried 30+3 and lost 9 straight games and finnished 3rd 1 time. I couldn't believe it, was it unluck or was I outplayed ? I returned to safe ground (I thought) 20+1. In the beginning I lost a lot but eventually I back to 1200 after ALOT of struggling. My results was not even close that before the 30+3 thing. 40 torneys later I'm at 950$. Can't understand what happened. Clearly my strategy has changed to the worse. Tried to vary my game and try out different strategys but nothing seem to help.
Sometimes I have 7 or 8 games without getting ITM.

So here is my question, what's the proper limit SNG strategy and how does it differ from NL SNG. (I've seen some NL SNG articles)

[Nemesis]

sounds like your variance is catching up with you... you won a LOT fast... time for you to lose a lot fast too =( unfortunately

[TJD]

Last year I played a lot of limit SnGs in GBP which were the equivalent of $50+$5. My ROI was pretty good but after a long run in which the suckouts were so bad I was becominmg increasingly frustrated, I returned to ring games.

During that time, I put lots of posts here asking questions and almost everyone assumed I was playing NL (even tho' I always said limit in my post). The replies were pretty unaminous - play NL!

I now agree with them.

My reasons are that in limit it is very difficult to get your opponents to make a really bad mistake and their general looseness can often be to your disadvantage.

In a SnG the chips are low and the blinds escalate quickly. In a limit tournament if you play a lot of hands early, there will be a lot of folks in the pot with you and you will probably bleed away a lot of chips. Even if you win some, the blinds will be so high soon that the extra few chips you had will evaporate in just a couple of "cold" rounds.

In SnGs you have to be aggressive in the later rounds to steal some blinds.

Let's say blinds are 100/200 and it is folded to you on the button with T1200. Let's assume SB will fold and BB has 1000 chips left after posting.

In NL you can move all in and you are saying to the BB, "take your choice; if you're wrong you're gone!"

In limit all you can do is raise to 400. The BB now gets 3.5 to one for a call which is better than his 2:1 against to hit the flop with his 2 random cards.

Now he may fold in limit in any case but he is much more likely to call. Let's give him a hand like K8o. If you raise all in is it good poker to call? I think not; perhaps others will disagree. However, if you just raise him 200 a call can't be less sensible can it(?). Against most players I found they would call here as a matter of routine and give it up if they missed.

Assuming you would continue your power play in limit and lose all your chips if they hit, we have these EV's (I think) if the player has K8o

NL - they fold every time = +300
Limit - they call every time and hit 1/3

You will win 500 x 2/3 and lose 1000 x 1/3 = breakeven

This analysis is not exhaustive and could easily be criticised (even by me) but is deliberately simplified to make a point. In NL it is easier to put pressure on opponents and keep yourself in the game.

The other point is the degree of mistake they can make. This hand came up this afternoon:-

The blinds are 15/30 and there are 2 limpers to me. The game has not been at all aggressive so I call in MP with 8 /images/graemlins/heart.gif8 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif hoping there will not be a big raise forcing me to abandon my investment.

The next player limps and everyone else folds to SB who completes and BB who checks.

6 of us see a flop of 9 /images/graemlins/spade.gif8 /images/graemlins/spade.gif6 /images/graemlins/heart.gif

First 3 players check and the player before me bets T60 into the T180 pot. He could be trapping but I have no reason to suspect him (he is probably a poor player).

I bet the pot, T240. Someone may already have a str8 but there is nothing I can do about that and if they have I have draws. The T240 bet removes the odds for the remaining players to draw for the turn card (including the one who has bet 60) if they have a str8 OR a flush draw

Next player calls and the others fold.

Turn is 9 /images/graemlins/club.gif (9 /images/graemlins/spade.gif8 /images/graemlins/spade.gif6 /images/graemlins/heart.gif)

I could be behind to 98 or 96 or even 99 but that would be seeing monsters so I push all in hoping he has a 9 and will call.

He does call and I win after a blank falls.

His hand was K /images/graemlins/spade.gif7 /images/graemlins/spade.gif

He typed in "I had to call with a str8 and a flush draw"

Personally, I would have folded his hand preflop but if for some reason I was in I would have reraised my 240 all in or if I was in the BB I would have CR all in. The reason for that is that there are great odds to hit in 2 cards and win but also there is some chance I may lay down my hand (he does not know I have a set).

However after not going all in, he has about 500 chips left, sees the board pair and sees an all in from me creating a pot of about 1200 chips.

Even if he is not drawing dead he has only 2.4:1 pot odds with 31:15 his likely best odds to win. With the chance that he is drawing dead this is too close to call in my opinion and he must finally fold and "live to fight another day"

Now, I am no expert at NL, far from it, but folks make awful big mistakes in NL. Others may argue whether this was a big mistake by him but in general, I believe it is those big mistakes that allow the best players to do better at NL.

You are one of the best I presume /images/graemlins/smile.gif

If you replay that hand in limit, you see that this guy is still around after this hand and my stack is not as big /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Trevor

[Zelcious]

Thank you for an excellent response. You put some time writing it, I really appreciate it.
Just one comment, even if they hit 1/3 it doesn't mean you can't hit too. But I get the point. Will start playing NL soon.

[Zelcious]

You mean that it was just a coincidence that the first maybe 400 tournaments went so well ? Maybe you're right but that would surprise me, 400 should even out some variance...

[TJD]

[ QUOTE ]
Just one comment, even if they hit 1/3 it doesn't mean you can't hit too. But I get the point. Will start playing NL soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite true; I told you my analysis could be argued with.

Mind you; if both the BB and I hit, I will probably be behind /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Trevor