$20 SnG's

[lz5t38]

This is good stuff. I am wondering though can you account for players improving their game as they play? Is this what you mean when you say that the individuals change but the general distribution stays the same?

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]

So Player C, after watching player B play player A, will want to play player A, but how does this establish that Player C beats player A?

Or are you saying that, per Occam's Razor, the simplest assumption is that there is a transitive property for poker players, and that a poker room where this transitive property applies accurately represents real poker rooms on the Internet?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because poker is a zero-sum game, you are either the type of player that makes plays that rate to lose money, or you are the type of player that makes plays that rate to win money.

As long as there is somebody willing to play badly, all you have to do to win is NOT play badly.

It is the zero-sum nature of the game that creates a situation where the best player knows he can beat the worst player more soundly than the mediocre player.

This whole model only starts to change at the highest level. If you have a table full of players who never make "losing" plays... then the only way to win is to outplay them. This is so difficult, and so rare, that it can basically be ignored. Here's a real life example: at the Hustler last year the biggest game going was a stud game that had: John Juanda, Phil Ivey, Barry Greenstein, and Larry Flynt playing. When Laryy Flynt would go to the bathroom, the others would stop playing. They would just take a break and wait for him to come back. The fact that those players were playing together, and how they would behave when one particular player left, says a lot about zero-sum equilibrium and what it means to be a poker expert.

So, if player A beats player B, and player B beats player C, will player A beat player C? Yes. How sure can you be that this is true? Very sure... as long as you define the term "beat" correctly and you are not talking about precisely the top 3 players in a field of many.

Irieguy

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]
This is good stuff. I am wondering though can you account for players improving their game as they play? Is this what you mean when you say that the individuals change but the general distribution stays the same?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Nice first post, brief and insightful. Welcome to the forum.

Irieguy

[SuitedSixes]

Irie-
As long as we're discussing Economics as they apply to fish harvesting. Is there a danger of the SNG pool drying up? It seems like with ring games there is always some reward, even the worst of the fish will drag a pot every now and then, but isn't there far less of a reward for a fish competing against 9 other players, and probably not being able to beat even 7 of them? What are your views on this?

[Beavis68]

*totally pointless reply*

Actually Irie, poker is a -sum game due to rake and vigorish. The house is always removing money from the pool. You not only need to make moves that are profitable, but profitable enough to out-run the house take.

It has been a while since I have played a SnG on party, but I myself found the 20s to be easier than the 5s when I stopped. The 5s had turned into min raising rock gardens and we would still be 7 handed with blinds of 100/200 or some crap. I never could get a line on how to profitably steal enough chips to gain a lead.

The 20s were more like the 5s were when I first started. A lot of players mixing it up early. I didn't play enough 20s to get an accurate ROI, but they were fun.

[gazarsgo]

Busting in this position, assuming you did not ignore clear signs that you were beat (and additionally did not read those signs as a bluff), is what provides the variance in a SNG. It could be that you have small leaks in your game that allow you to bust at this point vs a marginal player such as not pushing your edges early enough before you get blinded down, but it's probably just variance and thinking otherwise is results-oriented thinking that's going to lead you down a bad path.

The best thing to do is post the hand on 2+2 if you aren't sure, and have other people look at your play.

[bpotus]

[ QUOTE ]
rickr,

I actually believe that the higher chip count at the 55's has the opposite effect than you're suggesting. I think it contributes to making them play more difficult.

The reason is that the typical 55 player has much more experience and a better developed set of skills for play on the bubble. My experience is that the biggest difference in play from the 33's to the 55's is the quality of play on the bubble and it is much easier to exploit the bubble situations at the 33's. That more than makes up for the difference in luck derived from the higher starting chip counts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great thread going here. Usually I'd just be lurking around and reading, but I thought I'd post my observations. Just to let you know where I'm coming from, I'm usually a 55 player on PP. Been tracking the past 200 w/an ITM of 39% and ROI of 31%. (Started multi-tabling lately at 4 tabes, from before w/just 1 table going and my ROI was 40%+/-) I've been watching many many many more than that to track opponents too so I think I could speak a little rationally about the level. I've played a decent amount of every level (except 200's).

For those mentioning that play is much different from the 30's and the 50's in the sense that the 50's are much harder, well, I just don't buy it. Sure there are more skilled opponents who steal more too, but I tend to think that the extra starting chips are a godsend in that if you are stupid (or unlucky) early and lose half your stack, you still have a good chance to win it if you don't bleed the rest of your chips. (aside from the obvious implied odds blah blah blah obvious other points made here already) At the lower buyins you're pretty much screwed if you lose a big hand in the first 3 levels. This is especially true of players who play a short stack correctly and parlay that into a big stack on the bubble.

As an experiment (and to get used to it), I started multi-tabling lately starting from the 10's. I also figured that I'd learn how to play different sets of opponents based on different skill levels. I never really started here so it was a whole new level for me. Honestly, my ROI was horrible and I realized that it's much much harder to beat people at a level where money means nothing compared to the higher buy-ins where people go into a cocoon come bubble time. To put it another way, why exactly do people hate tables that go to say Level 6/7 w/ 4 or 5 people left? Remember, tight early on doesn't equal skilled opposition later on in the sense that some people just never change gears. Personally, I love that situation as it creates more opportunities for me to pick up blinds when other people are trying to finish ITM. Big stack or not, there's a huge edge in the 50's where opponents won't call you come bubble time that just doesn't really exist at the lower levels. I understand about the GAP concept and all but I think it's just the perfect level where you unconsciously start playing better to try to inch into the money versus others going all out for 1st place. We could go into a whole other discussion regarding this matter (if it hasn't been done already), and you could even say money doesn't mean much to some people, but to MOST I think this is the level where $$$ comes into their heads.

Oh and BTW, out of the 10-30's, I'd say the 20's were the most difficult out of the 4 lower buyins.

[Beavis68]

[ QUOTE ]

To put it another way, why exactly do people hate tables that go to say Level 6/7 w/ 4 or 5 people left? Remember, tight early on doesn't equal skilled opposition later on in the sense that some people just never change gears.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really agree with this, I just havent figured out how to best exploit it. Especially against players that may be min raising with QJ or AA.

[bball904]

ahhhh, exactly the opposite of Irie's reply to lz5t38

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
Honestly, my ROI was horrible and I realized that it's much much harder to beat people at a level where money means nothing

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I sure do hate it when people think 'eh, it's just $10' and call a PF reraise and then a flop all in with bottom pair. It's much harder to beat them with their flopped five outs than it is to just go all in on the bubble with pocket sixes and hope that you win the flip when AQ calls.

I've seen a thousand of these posts and I get them less and less every single time.