Which do you make more $ per hour at: SNG or ring games?

[john smith]

I've found SNGs to be much more profitable for me than ring games. I used to play a lot of 2/4 and 3/6 and I found them difficult because I wasn't able to pound those small edges to really make myself a solid winner. I think the 22s/33s are much easier, since you aren't faced with so many hard decisions so often and you don't have to be a great postflop player to book a decent winrate.

[gildwulf]

Six max is insanely profitable if you learn the ins and outs...I would say a solid 26/16/2 4-tabler at 3/6 six max makes more with rakeback than a solid 20% ROI 4-tabler 20+2 or 30+3 SNGs....maybe even 50+5...

I make more 4-tabling 3/6 than I do at SNGs but sample size is too small to really make anything of it (like 20K 3/6 hands and a couple thousand SNGs at 10s-50s).

[psyduck]

[ QUOTE ]
long term, learning ring is MUCH more profitable than learning sngs. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

I would love to hear your reasoning behind this (Gildwulf's too).

Personally, I used to play cash games almost exclusively till 3-4 months ago, trying to utilize SSHE to the max. But my bankroll fluctuated like crazy, it seemed like I was making 0 progress. Obviously, this is probably me just sucking ass at full ring game. But SNGs have been MUCH better for me than ring games.

[Mr_J]

it's an honest answer...

[gildwulf]

Shorthanded poker forces you to make the best of marginal decisions and it is highly dependent on reads and deductive reasoning. It also forces you to make a lot of marginally +EV decisions on a regular basis (K9o, Q8s, 98o, etc. are all playable in the right situations). The better poker player you are, the more easily you can correctly pick the most +EV out of a string of marginal decisions. Thus, it follows that the best poker players will make more money at a game like six-max where their skillset is more frequently used.

In addition, even the average winning full-ring player has absolutely no clue how to adjust to short-handed. 'Tight' in six-max (say 20-25% VPIP) is semi-loose full-ring, and most players play either weak-tight or way, way too loose.

All in all, I think the best poker player will make the most profit from a game like six-max just because it requires a high level of intuition and deductive reasoning that is often lacking from late-game SNGs (push/fold mentality).

[psyduck]

[ QUOTE ]
Shorthanded poker forces you to make the best of marginal decisions and it is highly dependent on reads and deductive reasoning. It also forces you to make a lot of marginally +EV decisions on a regular basis (K9o, Q8s, 98o, etc. are all playable in the right situations). The better poker player you are, the more easily you can correctly pick the most +EV out of a string of marginal decisions. Thus, it follows that the best poker players will make more money at a game like six-max where their skillset is more frequently used.

In addition, even the average winning full-ring player has absolutely no clue how to adjust to short-handed. 'Tight' in six-max (say 20-25% VPIP) is semi-loose full-ring, and most players play either weak-tight or way, way too loose.

All in all, I think the best poker player will make the most profit from a game like six-max just because it requires a high level of intuition and deductive reasoning that is often lacking from late-game SNGs (push/fold mentality).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I guess this is true. What I was wondering about is actual profitability. For example, how can you say that one game is *definitely* more profitable than another, assuming that a player equally studies both? Obviously, there are edges in STTs as well. Are you guys saying that the edges we push in STTs are smaller than ones that skilled 6-maxers push in ring games?

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
long term, learning ring is MUCH more profitable than learning sngs. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

I would love to hear your reasoning behind this (Gildwulf's too).

Personally, I used to play cash games almost exclusively till 3-4 months ago, trying to utilize SSHE to the max. But my bankroll fluctuated like crazy, it seemed like I was making 0 progress. Obviously, this is probably me just sucking ass at full ring game. But SNGs have been MUCH better for me than ring games.

[/ QUOTE ]

have you ever heard of diminishing returns? that holds much more true in sngs, where the blinds escalate at a continuous pace. in a cash game, you are not forced to make untimely moves based upon the blind structure. therefore, once you reach a certain point, the sngs wont be profitable anymore, no matter how good you are. this is not true in a ring game. holla

[lastchance]

You mean people can't beat the rake, right?

What level do you think SNG's become not beatable anymore, if any?

[psyduck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
long term, learning ring is MUCH more profitable than learning sngs. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

I would love to hear your reasoning behind this (Gildwulf's too).

Personally, I used to play cash games almost exclusively till 3-4 months ago, trying to utilize SSHE to the max. But my bankroll fluctuated like crazy, it seemed like I was making 0 progress. Obviously, this is probably me just sucking ass at full ring game. But SNGs have been MUCH better for me than ring games.

[/ QUOTE ]

have you ever heard of diminishing returns? that holds much more true in sngs, where the blinds escalate at a continuous pace. in a cash game, you are not forced to make untimely moves based upon the blind structure. therefore, once you reach a certain point, the sngs wont be profitable anymore, no matter how good you are. this is not true in a ring game. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

What the donk? I thought that blinds escalating was the only reason why our push/fold strategy is good. If the blinds never escalated, then we might as well be playing in a NL ring game (aw hell naw :zergrush

Sry if this is off topic, but which is harder to learn?

Right now im thinking sngs are harder because there are more factors to take in.