Don't like 1-table SNGs with multiple places paying

[Colonel Kataffy]

[ QUOTE ]
I could be wrong, but I think the average opponent will play better in this format because there are fewer adjustments to make.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure cause i've never played with the standard party crowd in a winner take all tournament, but I wouldn't be suprised if a significant number of the players did make adjustments to prolong survival even though there is a winner take all format. I think many would genuinly believe just surviving gives them a better shot at winning. "If I can just get down the final two or three, then I'll have a shot"--type of thinking. I think the majority of these crappy players wouldn't understand that the player who busted out in 5th place pushing an edge trying to get a large share of the chips actually came closer to winning the tournament then the guy who survived to heads up with 10 percent of the total chips.

I wouldn't be all that suprised if experts had a bigger advantage simply because typical bad players made the mistakes of making survival adjustments.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
I think winner take all is somehow a lot less skill than 1/2/3 and that can't be too good of a thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about that. I think that bad players will make bad decisions no matter what the format is. People are playing bad poker at the cash tables, witout them having to make any CEV to $EV adjustments. And also, as another poster mentioned, I think that most avarage players will play winner-take-all as if suvival means much more than it really does in such a format (because it's still a *tournament*), and so will make many mistakes.

EDIT: btw, I've played quite a nice number of $160 double-shootouts for the WSOP, which is practically a 2-stage winner-takes-all SNG, and people played *horribly*, especially at the first round. 2nd round was usually much tougher, although always a few weak spots. Unfortunately I didn't manage to take 1st in any of my trials (1st at the 2nd table, i.e, final table)... and decided to let it go at some point.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah but those 50/30/20 SNGs are by far the most popluar format for a SNG, so getting used to the necessary adjustments is very +EV.

And about cutting down on your aggressive style when blinds are big (or let's say, around bubble) this is really more relevant (in some cases) in buy-ins <$100 I'd say. At the higher buy-ins, aggression when blinds are big is, generally, highly rewarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

People will play this miniraising, limping style with like 5xBB and it sort of works because they don't bust out as easily. Some loose/passive player will limp, I will push, and they will call me with KTo or something, and I wind up losing a coin flip and not making the cash. Or I will open push from the button with 5xBB and A9o, 22, KJ, 86s or something, get called, lose a coin flip, and not cash. In an MTT or winner take all sattellite, that push would be an automatic play.

I haven't tried any $100+ SNGs. I generally multitable. Since I can't beat the $30 and $50 ones well, I haven't tried bigger ones.

I have played in 3 ministep 5s. I liked the 2000-1200-800-500-200 payouts, because there is less of a bubble. I bought in directly, because I don't like the multiplace lower steps. I won the first one, but didn't place in two others.

[RhitTaker]

Personally, I LOVE getting two hands per round without posting a blind, when we're one elimination away from the money. In most SnGs, a 4-person table with a clearly-defined short stack is basically a license to print money. Even without a short stack, it's still "moving time".

I think it would hurt me to cut the number of payout spots. Not that this has anything to do with fairness, just my personal preference.

[microbet]

If opponents incorrectly have too tight of a calling range in 50-30-20, but not in winner take all, then you could be more aggressive in pushing, but not necessarily calling in 50-30-20. I don't really find that the average player has too tight of a calling range very often.

What I meant was just mathmatical. In a cash game, and I believe a winner take all game, you should take any edge at any time (ignoring gambler's ruin which I don't think applies unless you are playing your whole BR). Any flattening of the payouts means (standard theory - not block theory) that you need an edge.

I really only play the 50-30-20, but some posts are about qualifiers or something that pay like the same exact prize to half the people or something and those call for being very conservative.

You can see this stuff if you play around with the payouts on an ICM calculator.

[RhitTaker]

[ QUOTE ]
In a cash game, and I believe a winner take all game, you should take any edge at any time (ignoring gambler's ruin which I don't think applies unless you are playing your whole BR). Any flattening of the payouts means (standard theory - not block theory) that you need an edge.

[/ QUOTE ]
I certainly agree with that. Any manipulation of monetary reward definitely changes the optimal strategy.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really find that the average player has too tight of a calling range very often.

[/ QUOTE ]
I just don't agree with that. Admittedly, I am not 8-tabling SnGs 6 hours a day. I play for entertainment, not money (that's just a pleasant byproduct). I know that my claim that I "run over 4-handed SnGs" is absolutely meaningless in a scientific sense, but that's been my observation over a reasonable number of iterations.

[microbet]

I do think people pretty much always call too much. Still, games can be run over under the right circumstances. In those circumstances people will have very tight calling standards, but still probably not as tight as they should have.

Situations where hero is a big stack, villian is a medium stack and there exists a small stack are the most severe example where people will fold good hands. It may be theoretically that they should fold everything but AA or KK and they may come close to that, but probably don't get that tight.

This is a case in a 50-30-20 where there is a huge gap and it is a time when you can be more aggressive pushing than you would in a cash or winner take all game. It's just that in general a winner take all game calls for more aggressive play (calling as well as raising).

I think the two "opposing" sides of this argument have been talking past each other a bit.

[JayKon]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure cause i've never played with the standard party crowd in a winner take all tournament ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Does Party have WTA SnG's? I've never seen them. Where are they?

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Winner take all STTs do call for more aggression than multiple places paying.

[/ QUOTE ]
Am I missing something? I've never played a winner takes all tourney but I would imagine that it would call for less aggression. Even most donks realize that they shouldn't be calling without a very strong hand on the bubble, letting you bully like crazy

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you're missing something.

To win $$ in a winner-take-all tournament you must have 100% of the chips at the end of said tournament. This requires pushing smaller edges and making more marginal calls in order to acquire chips, which is more aggression.

It plays more like an MTT, where chip accumlation takes precedence over survival. Unlike the format we play.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
Does Party have WTA SnG's? I've never seen them. Where are they?

[/ QUOTE ]

Under single table tournaments -- special, they have WTA satellites.