ring games or sit n go

[treeofwisdom7]

wow it sounds like some of you are really talented players.. i think i may have some kind of flaw in my basic playing strategy. one thing i think it could be is my starting hand requirements.. maybe i play too tight

[Newt_Buggs]

Yes, its easy for us to learn SnGs and we were able to get rolling in a month, but (not to brag) we really are tallented at this game. Have you ever tried to teach people who haven't played or have played very little poker in their life? I don't mean just teach the rules, but spend at least a couple of hours really try to teach some strategy and explain "self evident" truths. Chances are they didn't get it. When I tried this it made me realize how easily the strategies just integrated into my game naturally. I never realized that most of the strategies and theories of the game that were very easy for me to understand are difficult for most people to grasp. Most people can't naturally analyze the wide variety of situations faced in poker, but I have faith that they can be taught.

[Blarg]

I'm of the same opinion. I think most anyone could be taught to become at least a satisfactorily moderate winner at poker. But hauling yourself up by your own bootstraps starting from nothing, just teaching yourself, is much harder.

[Mr_J]

"Have you ever tried to teach people who haven't played or have played very little poker in their life?"

Yes, when learning sngs [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I agree that everyone will learn at different rates. I learnt quickly, partly because I was able to and partly because I HAD to.

I guess I was responding to the point "it isn't as easy as these guys make it out to be". I should've just said that "easy" is relative, but it is simple.

[GtrHtr]

[ QUOTE ]
i think i may have some kind of flaw in my basic playing strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo.

I play the 5's and the occasional 10 due to my current BR. Up until about a month ago it was hit or miss. I'd go up and down, win a few, bust out a few, finish ITM barely, bust a few more, etc. Then all of a sudden, all the info I'd been processing from reading and the forum suddenly made became clear. Early play, position, bubble play, HU play and primarily patience came together.

[pergesu]

I started playing SNGs because my buddy said I was way too aggressive for low-limit ring games, but that it could translate well to SNGs.

Needless to say, I like the guy a lot more now.

[Domer]

My suggestion is to stick with the $5 tourneys, but cash out that PP account and move on over to Poker Stars, which takes only a $.50 rake. If you play 11 SnG per day, you save yourself one buyin on the rake alone. In addition, the additional chips and slower blind structure at PS may fit better with your current strategy, as you mentioned that your hand requirements may be "too tight".

The second piece of advice I have, and this has been extremely important to me, is to pay close attention to the stakes of the game for which people are giving advice on this forum. For example, if you are taking advice from a hand history from a $215 SnG, that may not necessarily apply directly to you. The same goes for the Slansky and Harrington books.

In the end, I think almost anyone can become a winning player with enough time and effort. Hang in there.

[multifast1]

Without knowing anything about your play strategy.. only from what's you've said in this thread.. I think it might be your bankroll/agressiveness leading to the wrong strategy. I say that because you've been playing for a year now and only 1 or 2 tabling the $5+1 Sng's primarily.. Geez. I mean that's a good way to start but after a few months I would be moving to at the least the $10+1 tables, especially if only single tabling! I mean how low is your bankroll?? You did say you have a positive ROI on the 5's over that year right? By now you should have more than a sufficient bankroll to jump. The 10's have the same vig and about the same level of play as the 5's!!

I dunno. I just think you haven't made the financial commitment to be successful. If you're 22, have a full time job, and are spending the 2-4 hours per day playing PLUS spending additional time reading 2+2 and books... there's no reason you shouldn't be at least beating the 5's and 10's after a year.. if not crushing them.

I would either reconsider your financial commitment to winning or concede to just playing for fun and dumping in a few $ for entertainment.. Either way good luck and don't stop learning.

[Iamafish]

Ya know, ive been thinking a lot about this. I dont really know where I should be at this point. I play everything right now, limit, NL, SnG's, MTT.

My limit game is sorta screwed up becuase I worked on my NL game a lot. What Im trying to figure out is if SnG's are more profitable that NL, or even limit.

I don't see them more profitable in the low buy-ins than limit for sure, and it seems even at the higher buy-ins its still doesnt look as great agiants limit (TIME).

A winning 30/60 player can make way more than a player at the 215's. Its just from what I heard from some 215 players about there swings and how long they play. What im looking at most is $ per hour. A 215 winning player can 4-8 table for 6 hours and break even or lose (not everyone, not always) . A 30/60 player will break even or lose after 2 hours, but look how much time was only spent (plenty left to work it back up, and very possible if you're winner). Also all the post i hear about 50 buy in swings and all, no way. Sure you get large swings in limit but its definatly not 50% of a roll for a WINNING player. Look how big a 50 buy in swing is, and how long it’ll take to make it back.

The only way I can really see 215’s being more profitable is if you one table and win first a lot. 1000’s bucks a day. If you 4-table, win 1 first, and lose the rest you get a nice $140 profit, awsome. WTF? The thing Im getting at is how much TIME it takes to make money. What you guys think about this, even the winners, what are you comments?

Ive been thinking a lot about variance, and in limit, if you are a winning player, I think it is definatly lower than SnG's. I totally disagree with everyone saying its lower in SnG’s. Ya its lower in the low buy-ins but you make more in Limit or No limit in lower buyins (if you can play SnG’s you shouuld be able to make it in NL).

Also look at the amount of time you'll have to play. If your better at SnG's then thats great. Im just trying to make a post about deciding where to play, and what is the MOST profitable if your pretty good at everything.

If you have the roll to play 215's you definatly have the roll to play 30/60.

Also, to the original poster....you can 3 table NL but you can’t 4-6 table SnG’s? I find that very strange that you can’t fold fold fold fold push...but you can do a million things at 3 NL tables at once? You should try 4 tabling SnG’s (once you start really beating them though).

Im also ADD big time. Well, sometimes more than other...and sometimes I just let it get to me (like right now, thats why this post is so messy). I think im getting worse, this shits bad. I need a perscription. Anyway, what do you guys think is best if your ADD.

I four tabled SnG’s for the first time a couple weeks ago and found that I was MORE concentrated on my game. I can only play 1 table in NL. And my limit game got bad but I think i can 2-3 table it fairly.

I know my post is all screwy but id like to continue. Please leave your comments/thoughts about this topic.

[AliasMrJones]

2 suggestions:

1. Play the $10+1 rather than the $5+1. You're paying double rake which will affect your ability to make money and your ROI.

2. Read. Study. Really. I would suggest starting with a basic hold 'em book, even if it is a limit hold 'em book. After you learn the basic hold 'em concepts, Harrington on Hold 'Em is, IMHO, very good for the low buy-in SnG's. Read, play, repeat.