Starting stack size question: Is it generally agreed that....

[LearnedfromTV]

all other things being equal, a winning player would have a larger ROI per tourney (though not necessarily per hour), in SNG's that start with more chips?

[junkmail3]

Yes.

[pergesu]

Blind structure matters too, because if the blinds shoot up real quick, it doesn't make any difference. The whole idea behind more chips is that the better players have more time and play to exploit their edges. So yeah, basically.

[downtown]

Yes. And not "not necessarily" per hour, but not per hour.

Well at the risk of generalizing too much, yes the larger the chip stack in comparison to the blinds then the more time there is for skill to be involved so the "better" players should generally do better.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
Well at the risk of generalizing too much, yes the larger the chip stack in comparison to the blinds then the more time there is for skill to be involved so the "better" players should generally do better.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not just time, by the way: good players understand that the game itself is different with deeper stacks (implied odds, etc.) and adjust accordingly. Donks just keep donking along.

[se2schul]

I'm a winning player, but I expect that I'd have a lower ROI with deeper stacks. I'm not a great player and I really lack post-flop skills, which is a large component of deep-stack poker. My strengths lie in my pre-flop game with well-timed pushes because of shorter stacks.

If a winning player were good at post-flop play or deep-stack poker, then yes he'd have a higher ROI. If a winning player is not good at deep-stack poker, then chances are that his ROI would be lower with more chips.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. And not "not necessarily" per hour, but not per hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to doubt you on this (I haven't played enough, primarily an MTT player). But - it seems that if you take this to an extreme, like everyone starts with 3 x BB, the rake may swallow any small skill edge a player has such that hourly rate would be lower. I wonder where the tipping point is, if there is one. Also, couldn't a skilled player make up for the overall edge he gets by playing shallower tourneys faster by playing higher buyins in deeper tourneys with the same risk of ruin, given that he has a greater edge?

As someone added, I agree that the speed with which the blinds increase is a factor in how deep a tourney plays, along with starting stack size.

Also, I guess I don't consider someone with no postflop skills a "winning player", even if they may win in a pushbot-friendly format. Maybe I should have said good, complete player instead of winning player.

I'd like to see some strong replies to this post.

It's an important set of questions.

Esp when you're comparing/contrasting $33s and $55s.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes. And not "not necessarily" per hour, but not per hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to doubt you on this (I haven't played enough, primarily an MTT player). But - it seems that if you take this to an extreme, like everyone starts with 3 x BB, the rake may swallow any small skill edge a player has such that hourly rate would be lower. I wonder where the tipping point is, if there is one. Also, couldn't a skilled player make up for the overall edge he gets by playing shallower tourneys faster by playing higher buyins in deeper tourneys with the same risk of ruin, given that he has a greater edge?

As someone added, I agree that the speed with which the blinds increase is a factor in how deep a tourney plays, along with starting stack size.

Also, I guess I don't consider someone with no postflop skills a "winning player", even if they may win in a pushbot-friendly format. Maybe I should have said good, complete player instead of winning player.

[/ QUOTE ]

[bennies]

dam, I wanna post too!

Yes.