1 Table vs 2 Table SnG

[DaNoob]

I've read many posters here say that they prefer the 2 table SnG format over 1 tables. Would you guys mind explaining why you like them so much better?

It seems like you need to win a coin flip or two to win the 1-tables, so I assume that you would need more to win the 2-table tourneys. Is this not true.

Thanks in advance...

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I'd say that 2-table SNGs offer about an equal chance for a skilled player to hit the money with a higher payout.

[mrbaseball]

I think there is just a tad less luck involved in a 2 table SNG compared to a one table. Plus you get 2 opportunities to play shorthanded if you like playing shorthanded. Once before the tables combine and as always at the end. The payoff to effort ratio seems a bit better to me as well.

[DaNoob]

Also, if you will, elaborate on the key strategy differences (if any) between the two.

I'm thinking I might make the switch, but would like to make the transition as painless as possible.

Thanks!

[Copernicus]

I don't see much of a playing advantage if any and dont change strategies for the two. Since the tables are always balanced the shortest it gets before they combine is 4 handed, and usually not for that long. Since tournament strategy (at least my tournament strategy) is similar to short handed strategy anyway, I dont see much of an advantage to having 2 shorthanded situations.

The main advantage I see is in the payout structure. A two tabler has twice the total pot but is spread over only 1 more player, so there is more leverage over the initial buy-in when you come in the money.

[maplepig]

less rake.

[trillig]

More money to win for same entry fee?

That's my reason, anyhow....

-t

[Miwala]

Hi.

I think people have a tendency to play pretty aggressive early on. That will often result in a lot of action that in turn often results in the exit of 2-3 before level 3-4. So in my experience it´s a lot more likely to make the money if you are a skilled but patient player in 1-SnG than in 2-Sng.

The coin-flip factor is less, when you are 6 players left competing for top 3 than when you are 12 players left competing for top 4. Sure the money is better but if you make the money 3 times as much in 1-SnG thats where you want to put your money.

If you want to make more money go up in buy-in.

PS. Should say that im a lowlimit SnG player (5$, 10$, 20$ buyin) so can i can´t say if the above applies to higher buy-ins as well.

Miwala

[Guy McSucker]

In terms of playing advantages, I think the fact that the table is full, then short, then full again, then short again, gives a bit of extra advantage to players who understand the strategy differences between the two.

The fact that the tournament runs that little bit longer also gives better players a small advantage: more chances to outplay the opposition, and often somewhat deeper stacks.

Based on a rather small sample, my win ratio for two-tables is the same as that for one-tables at the moment, and the payouts at two-table games are that much bigger. However, I believe my win ratios to date are unsustainably high, so this could be a mirage. On the other hand, they're about the same as Copernicus's, which are much longer term, so perhaps it is sustainable. I hope so!

Guy.

[DaNoob]

I see where you're coming from, but here's where the logic defies me.

I can enter a $1+0 NLHE tourney on Stars and have a shot at a $300 first place kitty. Yet, my odds of making this money are MUCH less than of me winning the $22.50 in a single table SnG with a $5.50 buy-in.

I'm not a statistics major and suck at calculating odds, but I'd be curious to see the odds differences (if any) between the 1 & 2 table games. I guess you would have to exclude skill for the initial analysis and then factor in post-facto for most leverageable results.

Anyone know how to do this?