|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 12/2/2008 12:46:34 AM PACIFIC |
 SnG Theory of Play - Feedback Appreciated, Russ, 21. Oct 2003 12:35 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| The genius behind SnG tourneys is that there is no 'right' or 'wrong' way to play them. Obviously, the generic odds of poker apply when playing any poker game (ring,sng,mt), but the diverse amount of winning strategies with SnGs afford me the position of not focusing on any poker 'style' per say, but more on the poker 'management' for those players confident in their abilities, but are constantly choosing the wrong games to play. My theory of SnG has been developed over 1000+ tourneys played since late 2002, and since adopting the strategy I developed, my 'cash out' rate is now 52%. I have played at stars, party, but now play exclusively at UB. The best table is the $50 6 seat SnG. It's now the only type I will play, no matter how many times I would like to play for more/less. The payout structure is 70/30 and the odds of cashing out are 33% compared to 30% in 10 per. tables. The other advantages of the 6 seats is the fact that the winners share being 70% vs. 50% for 10 person tables, and the quick turnover given the fact there are 4 less fish to eliminate. In my opinion, anyone looking to 'make money' in SnG's will play a 6 button table. Some stats: Avg time to finish 6 seat SnG - 58mins (from my stats) Avg time to finish 10 seat SnG - 79mins (from my stats) 1st place cut of pot for $50 6 seat - $210 (profit 160) 1st place cut of pot for $50 10 seat - $250 (profit 200) Stack odds of winning 6 seat - 16.67% Stack odds of winning 10 seat - 10% Just in this brief blurb, you see that you can profit almost as well (75%) in 1/4 less time, with a higher probability of winning the pot. With four fewer players to beat out, a strong NL HE player will profit around 4-6% more using this theory than in 10 seaters. Now this theory is also tailored to those players who are profit seekers rather than fun seekers. I always suggest that fun seekers stay to lower limit SnG to test your skills and to enjoy the challenge of poker. As always, everyone has their own unique manner in approaching gambling of any kind. This is my manner and I encourage feedback as we can all strive to be better players and make more money!!! Russ B. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: SnG Theory of Play - Feedback Appreciated, modestmice, 21. Oct 2003 13:18 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 21. Oct 2003 12:35 Russ wrote: > The genius behind SnG tourneys is that there is no 'right' or 'wrong' way to > play them. Obviously, the generic odds of poker apply when playing any poker > game (ring,sng,mt), but the diverse amount of winning strategies with SnGs > afford me the position of not focusing on any poker 'style' per say, but more on > the poker 'management' for those players confident in their abilities, but are > constantly choosing the wrong games to play. > > My theory of SnG has been developed over 1000+ tourneys played since late 2002, > and since adopting the strategy I developed, my 'cash out' rate is now 52%. I > have played at stars, party, but now play exclusively at UB. > > The best table is the $50 6 seat SnG. It's now the only type I will play, no > matter how many times I would like to play for more/less. The payout structure > is 70/30 and the odds of cashing out are 33% compared to 30% in 10 per. tables. > The other advantages of the 6 seats is the fact that the winners share being 70% > vs. 50% for 10 person tables, and the quick turnover given the fact there are 4 > less fish to eliminate. In my opinion, anyone looking to 'make money' in SnG's > will play a 6 button table. Some stats: > > Avg time to finish 6 seat SnG - 58mins (from my stats) > Avg time to finish 10 seat SnG - 79mins (from my stats) > 1st place cut of pot for $50 6 seat - $210 (profit 160) > 1st place cut of pot for $50 10 seat - $250 (profit 200) > Stack odds of winning 6 seat - 16.67% > Stack odds of winning 10 seat - 10% > > Just in this brief blurb, you see that you can profit almost as well (75%) in > 1/4 less time, with a higher probability of winning the pot. With four fewer > players to beat out, a strong NL HE player will profit around 4-6% more using > this theory than in 10 seaters. > > Now this theory is also tailored to those players who are profit seekers rather > than fun seekers. I always suggest that fun seekers stay to lower limit SnG to > test your skills and to enjoy the challenge of poker. > > As always, everyone has their own unique manner in approaching gambling of any > kind. This is my manner and I encourage feedback as we can all strive to be > better players and make more money!!! > > Russ B. > poker is not gambling. ----------------------------------------------------- "I prefer talking with old persons of the female sex who peddle family gossip; next, with the insane-and last, with very sensible people" -S. Kierkegaard | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: SnG Theory of Play - Feedback Appreciated, GambleAB, 21. Oct 2003 13:19 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Following this line of thinking, you would be *best* off playing head to head. The facts that you are omitting is that you can place 3rd in a 10-seat and make more money than finishing 2nd in a 6-seat (in a $50 SNG, it would be $100 vs. $90). I think its more of a preference thing, and how you perceve the tables strengths. Personally, I find it easier to place in the top 30% of a 10 seater (which I find to have more fish) than the top 33% of a 6 seater (which I find to be filled with more people who know what they are doing). Either way, 52% is a very solid cash rate, so keep on doing what works for you. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: SnG Theory of Play - Feedback Appreciated, modestmice, 21. Oct 2003 13:28 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 21. Oct 2003 13:19 GambleAB wrote: > Following this line of thinking, you would be *best* off playing head to head. > The facts that you are omitting is that you can place 3rd in a 10-seat and make more > money than finishing 2nd in a 6-seat (in a $50 SNG, it would be $100 vs. $90). > I think its more of a preference thing, and how you perceve the tables strengths. > Personally, I find it easier to place in the top 30% of a 10 seater (which I find to > have more fish) than the top 33% of a 6 seater (which I find to be filled with more > people who know what they are doing). > Either way, 52% is a very solid cash rate, so keep on doing what works for you. bigger swings on a smaller table. ----------------------------------------------------- "I prefer talking with old persons of the female sex who peddle family gossip; next, with the insane-and last, with very sensible people" -S. Kierkegaard | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: SnG Theory of Play - Feedback Appreciated, mroban, 21. Oct 2003 14:35 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Its interesting because I have far more second and third place finishes than first place finishes. This is mainly because my head to head play isn't that great (a bit too aggressive and I am too quick to try for the knockout punch rather than being patient and chipping away and waiting for a good trap situation). Anyway, for that reason I tend to prefer the 10 seated tables because I know I can easily get into the top 5 waiting for 5 fish to bust out, then I can start playing aggressive, stealing blinds when everyone tightens up with the money line close. This style has gotten me into the money about 60% of the time in my last 20 SNGs. When I get busted its usually in 4th place playing an aggressive style. Anyway, since I am having trouble winning heads up, I think 10 seated is better for me, but thats just my opinion. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: SnG Theory of Play - Feedback Appreciated, Russ, 21. Oct 2003 14:26 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 21. Oct 2003 13:19 GambleAB wrote: > Following this line of thinking, you would be *best* off playing head to head. Totally disagree with this point. head to head presents a luck factor that makes it more "gambling" than poker. (Is that better modestmice?) Head to head also creates an environment where the rake begins taking a toll on profits, and if you experience even a 60% winrate you break even. The 6 seater in my experiences actually gives you a lower calibur of player and most importantly a more impatient player (hence why they would choose 4 less players) Impatience=dead money. The 10 seaters attract those interested in the longer timeframe type of game from my experience, so it naturally takes longer for any type of loose action to occur. Anyone at all agree? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| POKER FORUM HOME | POKER FORUM | LINK TO US | ARCHIVE | ONLINE POKER | Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum |
|
Getting Started |
UPF Tournaments |
Poker News, Views, Rules |
Poker Strategy & Psychology |
Money and Bankroll Poker Bonuses & Promotions | World Series of Poker (WSOP) | Play Online Poker | Poker Odds & Statistics | Tournament Poker | Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools Looking for a Poker Game | Poker Bad Beats | Not Quite Poker | Quizzes and Polls | Forum Suggestions & Bugs |
|
|
|
|
Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network |
|