|
|
#1
01-20-2005, 03:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Omaha/8 SNG\'s
Does anyone else here play Omaha/8 sit-and-go tournaments? I've played a few (<20 5's and 10's on Party) because I like Omaha/8 and I'm burnt out on HE SNG's. So here's what I'm hoping someone can tell me: Do real O8 players play in SNG's, and if so, can they be as profitable as O8 ring games and/or HE SNG's? Alternately, is the variance so high over <100 hands in an SNG that skill is irrelevant?
Slim 
|
|
#2
01-20-2005, 05:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Omaha/8 SNG\'s
If you're talking about Party's sng's, then I think the ring games are a lot more profitable, even though the play at the sng's is absolutely abysmal. Party's sng structure is bad enough for hold 'em, but it's even worse for a limit split pot game because the terrible players still often grab half the pot with terrible hands. This means that there are more players left when it gets down to crapshoot time.
In terms of profitability of the choices you gave I'd rank them: 3) O8 sng's 2)HE sng's 1) O8 ring game
|
|
#5
01-20-2005, 12:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Omaha/8 SNG\'s
I tried one on paradise last night - thought it was PL, but realized it was limit.
blinds were at like 100/200 with still I think 6 people in, and most having stacks of under 1K. At the end we were 3 handed with blinds of 500/1000 - and with only 8000 total chips it was a total crap shoot. I finished second, but it was almost all in or fold every hand.
|
|
#6
01-20-2005, 03:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Omaha/8 SNG\'s
I just started playing 10+1 at Party, so my comments are based on a limited sample. My experience so far is that they can be profitable, but can't tell yet if they are better than ring games. I remember a thread here a while back that showed that SnGs usually have less variance than ring games, and I think this applies to O8 SnGs also. My guess, again based on early obsevations, is that O8 SnGs should be more profitable than HE SnGs, for the same reasons that O8 is generally more profitable than HE.
They play very differently than NLHE SnGs both because of the limits and because of the split pots. I find that about half the players at a typical table will see every flop. Most of the chips get passed back and forth between these 4-5 during the first few levels, and you can pick off a good pot, even a scoop, if you lay back and play very tight. A preflop raise generally means A2xx. Many of the tight players who know enough to see few flops don't know enough to play only premium hands, or how to play them. Unlike NLHE, usually all the players are still in until about round three, when the loose short-stacks start chasing hands and getting busted. Very few players seem to adjust their play as the field shrinks. Many are still playing 4-handed just like it was a 10-handed game. A key to limit SnGs that I think most players miss is that once the blinds get high enough, around level 4 or 5, the game has essentially changed into no-limit. Most of these players don't know how to play no-limit, and don't understand the importance of attacking or defending the blinds.
|
|
#8
01-26-2005, 04:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Omaha/8 SNG\'s
I play some on Paradise (for esoteric personal reasons). I find them to be consistently profitable, moreso than ring games for me. This seems to be quite the opposite of others' experience here. I think the reason is that I'm able to figure out my opponent's style more easily and play the player. In a ring, just when you've got it all worked out, someone leaves.
I agree that the money round can be a crap shoot, but I certainly like a game where: - I lose, I make $4 - I place, I make $9 - I win, I make $19 I find that I can make the money consistently enough for this to be a low variance way to profit. Given that it takes about an hour and a half to complete, and I seem to make the money more than 60% of the time, that makes my EV around $5-6 for that time. But my variance is considerably lower than a ring game (and I prefer that, also for esoteric personal reasons).
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
