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

betgo · #1 07-16-2005, 03:09 AM

I don't like and don't do particularly well in 1 table SNGs or satellite/steps with multiple places paying. Winner-take all satellites are fine. So are 2 or 3 table tournaments and heads up SNGs.

In these standard 100-60-40 paying SNGs, I have to cut down too much on my usual aggressive style when the blinds are large. I like to play to win rather than for survival.

citanul · #2 07-16-2005, 03:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't like and don't do particularly well in 1 table SNGs or satellite/steps with multiple places paying. Winner-take all satellites are fine. So are 2 or 3 table tournaments and heads up SNGs.

In these standard 100-60-40 paying SNGs, I have to cut down too much on my usual aggressive style when the blinds are large. I like to play to win rather than for survival.

[/ QUOTE ]

er? ok. sorry?

but seriously: if you're cutting down your aggressive style when the blinds are large in "normal" sngs, either a) you're doing something wrong or b) i don't even want to know what your normal level of aggression is at whatever game you normally play...

citanul

PrayingMantis · #3 07-16-2005, 03:14 AM

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.

Mr_J · #4 07-16-2005, 03:15 AM

In an EV sense I'd prefer only top place paying too, but then the variance would go up to a silly level.

microbet · #5 07-16-2005, 03:36 AM

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

I know I'm agreeing with you.

Winner take all is a lot more like (perhaps exactly like) a cash game. I could be wrong, but I think the average opponent will play better in this format because there are fewer adjustments to make. That would mean lower ROIs as well as higher variance.

curtains · #6 07-16-2005, 03:49 AM

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.

betgo · #7 07-16-2005, 03:53 AM

[ 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 ]
You would, given your name.

Incidently, your name is pretty funny.

curtains · #8 07-16-2005, 04:03 AM

btw I feel that even though I have more 1st places than 2nd/3rd by a large margin, that winner take all would be less profitable for me.

Benholio · #9 07-16-2005, 04:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]

btw I feel that even though I have more 1st places than 2nd/3rd by a large margin, that winner take all would be less profitable for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I make most of my money exploiting weak bubble play (as most of us do, I'm sure). If you take away the bubble, you take away a bunch of mistakes that your opponents make.

Newt_Buggs · #10 07-16-2005, 04:49 AM

[ 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