Favourite Online SnGs

[harthag12]

I only have an account at the moment at Stars. Playing at the $5.00 +.50 Fixed lvl I find the competition to be easy. There's no reason to not finish top 3. I do seem to be much better at SNG's compared to just regular cash games though. Still working on that aspect. So I don't have much to compare, but Stars seems good. Looks tough to get a game quickly at higher amounts in fixed games though, I never see people enrolling.

[MojoRisin]

Did you change your play at all from AleoMagus's guide?

I've been playing Stars SnG's too, but have had trouble being a smaller stack against tight players at the end.

[stillnotking]

[ QUOTE ]
people complain about the lack of chips and the escalating blinds at party. i actually prefer this. it allows me to play many more sngs per hour, while still maintaining quite an edge on the competition. people play like absolute idiots even in the 50s and 100s. you can play 4 sngs every 45 minutes or so on average, and if your roi is only 10% on the 55s, you can still make a good 25-30 bucks an hour. thats being only a marginal winner. the reason the better players prefer this setup is because they can get so many more games in, even though the stats may not be AS good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100%, Raptor. I get tired of people downing the Party SNGs because "the blinds go up too fast", like that is automatically a bad thing. Either extreme is bad (10000 starting chips and blind increases every 3 hours would be just as awful as having the starting BB equal your entire stack). There's an optimal point, and IMO Party SNGs are closer to optimum than Pacific's. Even if you disagree, it's hard to argue that the difference in blind structure overshadows the difference in opponent skill level.

[burningyen]

Just stating the starting blinds doesn't tell you what you need to know, you also need to know how they progress. I like UB's structure:

10-handed w/1000 stacks & 8-minute levels:

5/10
10/20
15/30
20/40
30/60
50/100
75/150
100/200
150/300
200/400 (don't think I've ever gotten any higher)

Has anyone compared UB SnGs to the other sites'?

[Dominic]

I've played over 700 SNgs on UB...mostly at the $50 level...I do prefer them to the others, although I am curious to try Stars after reading this thread...

[popniklas]

why do you prefer UB sng:s? worse plyers? just being curious, i have nerev played on UB. i play $10+1 sng:s at party poker, and find the competition very soft.

[popniklas]

what's wrong with pacific NL ring games? i find them softer than those at party. (comparing the lowest NL limits. perhaps you are talking about NL $100 or so?)

[Vetstadium]

I actually prefer the party and party skins over paradise or ultimate. The blinds do go up fast but on the same token it punishes bad play4s as well. I multi 4 at a time so does stink when forced to go all in but also get in about 5 an hour or so at that rate. Just my preference maybe I am a little biased since I started there too though. I am very comfortable playing SNG's there and knowing in 45 mins or so it will be over.

[dcoles11]

the play at party is awful and I think the blind structures forces quick action, because if you don't get chips early your 800 starting stack gets ate up by the fast approaching 100-200 blinds. My experience with party poker was hot and cold. I'd win and when I say win, come in 1st 5 or 6 times in a row and then not place 5-6 in a row either because I just never got a hand before the blinds forced me to move in with an average hand or because the play is just so bad that bad beats are a norm when you have 6 people calling every flop. The games do get over quick though which allows you to get in alot of action. I'd say give party another shot and don't be discouraged if you get on a losing streak, look at the big picture.

[popniklas]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Svar till:</font><hr />
I play 2/4 ring games at a wide variety of sites however have limited my SnGs to Pacific Poker. The site is terrible for rings but their 10+1 NL SnGs have been very profitable for me - very poor players for the most part.

[/ QUOTE ]

why do you think pacific poker is terrible for rings? are you talking about any specific limits?

i think the NL$10 cash games at pacific are much easier than Party NL$25. the fixed lowlimit ring games are also very soft. perhaps you are talking about higher limits?

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Svar till:</font><hr />
My style of play is derived from AleoMagus' "Beating Party Poker's 10+1" posting.

[/ QUOTE ]

do you have a link to that post?