[ QUOTE ]
I'm a chess player from long ago, and your analysis rings true. Here are a couple other points to add.

Single-table SNGs remind me enormously of a serious chess game. They come in stages -- and you need to know how to transition between them.

1. Opening. Very formulaic. You can and should study what to do at the beginning. Play logically. Don't make mistakes. Be patient.

2. Middle game. Now you've got all your stuff in action and so does your opponent. It's parry-and-thrust time. You want to seize the initiative -- without being reckless. These are much more complex patterns, and we learn them by playing a lot and developing "intuitive" senses of when we're in command and when we need to back off.

3. End game. We're down to bare bones. Suddenly our risk tolerance changes. In chess, the king becomes an attacking piece. In poker, all sorts of hands that were insta-folds early on now ought to be pushed. . . . Tempo matters enormously, too. Zwischenzug and slow play are kindred concepts. Ditto for opposition and the gap concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. I never thought of it that way, but it makes sense. Maybe that's why I feel like I'm much better at single table SNGs than regular limit play. Get through the opening to a playable middlegame (don't lose a lot of chips or go bust early.) In the middlegame, accumulate small advantages (steal blinds, win small pots) and be alert to tactical opportunities that win material (win a lot of chips.) Use counterplay to meet an attack (reraise, bluff.) Defend when necessary (fold.) Convert your advantages in the endgame and deliver checkmate (lean on your opponent until he loses all his chips.)

NH

ScottieK