|
Crunch
|
05-13-2005, 05:35 PM
Post subject: Ring games vs. SnG - Strategies differ?
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Saint John
Posts: 82
|
|
I've been playing online for 6 months or so now and growing more comfortable with certain aspects of online poker, namely tournies and SnGs.
A little background:
I'm building up a small bankroll (or at least trying to) by playing in small SnGs and taking some freeroll MTTs now and then (of which I have had 0% ITM in the freerolls.) Small being $2 SnGs. I'm growing fairly comfortable with the single-table SnGs and have a 66% ITM currently with a fairly small number of games played. I've taken a stab at a 10+1 and a 15 turbo at Poker Champs, and ITM both of them. My recent initial investment has gone from $40 to $110 in 6 days.
Last night I went over to a $.50/$1 ring game to try my hand again at rings. When I first started, 10-handed ring was all I played and I was marginal. When I sat down and played a few hands, I noticed something: I was scared. I was scared to lose the money I had gained, but even more, I was scared of there being no firm 'end' of the ring games. After a dozen hands with a $6 loss and a $6 win, I got out with what I went in with.
My comfort level I've found has come from getting a better grasp of knowing what to do in an SnG. People know that if they screw up, they're out. I know how to get to to 5 left with great frequency, and getting better at the bubble agression and hand selection as it winds down. This doesnt much happen in an 10-handed ring game.
I think the thing that bothered me the most was the action in the ring-game, and the fact that *that* bothers me, bothers me more. Action is where you make the most money, right? When I see a 4x bb raise and 3 callers....I just don't know what to do. AKo starts to look scary against 4 opponents...small pair are worth a call, but I'm nervous as hell to see a suited connector knowing that unless I hit it hard, my called raise is going to be forfeit. Also the hard betting that usually comes after screws my pot odds and I know I need to see the turn to have a shot at anything. Big pairs even have a reduction in win % where I'm not totally comfortable againt multiple opponents. Reraise is of course the option to narrow down the field, but in rings....they just all seem to call with their investment already in the pot. In an SnG when faced against blowing half your stack on a loose call, you can still cut down opponents.
In an SnG, things seem different. I can call off 1/6th of my stack on reasonable odds with suited connectors.....is the strategy for Ring games that much different than SnG's, or do I have a confidence issue with loose Ring games?
|
|
|
Play for FREE and practice your game at...
Join the FTR Poker Forum to disable these banners and start posting!
|
|
dsaxton
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 2,667
|
|
I like cash games because you're always in the money.
|
|
|
|
Bmxicle
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 947
|
|
They have all the same concepts but the there are a few differences. It sounds like you are having confidence issues in the ring and are playing scared. Basic strategy for both Ring games and Sngs is pretty much the same. You are scared of the fish in ring games, but you shouldn't be, you just need to adjust your play accordingly. If a small raise doesn't eliminate limpers, then make a big raise. Bet your good hands for value and bluff less. Basic strategy for both Ring games and Sngs is pretty much the same. You just sound like you are too scared to cary out the right strategy in ring games.
Also, if you "took a stab" at 10+1 sngs you have way to small a bankroll to be playing 0.5/1 which is probably contributing to your fear in the ring.
So i'd suggest playing something smaller (even if you are properly bankrolled for 100nl) because you aren't mentally prepared to play at those stakes.
|
|
|
|
Crunch
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Saint John
Posts: 82
|
|
Yeah, good advice. I'm up to $110 in bankroll, and I spent some of my winnings to see if I could hack it in an $10+1. Got second....but I know I'm not bankrolled for it and thinking about the move to $5 SnGs of if I should spend more time in the $2.
In the rings, should I be looking more for the big money winners (suited connectors, Axs), or staying with the high percentage hands (big pairs, AKs)?
|
|
|
|
homerdash
|
|
Straight
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Fairfax, VA (and Stars)
Posts: 212
|
|
Sounds to me like you should definitely move up to $5 SnGs if you've got a roll of $110 and you're consistently beating the $2 games. Don't worry about ring yet, just keep building your roll with what you're comfortable with. Like Bmxicle was saying, once you have enough where you're not terrified of losing your whole stack if the situation warrants it, get in there.
|
|
|
|
Bmxicle
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 947
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Crunch
Yeah, good advice. I'm up to $110 in bankroll, and I spent some of my winnings to see if I could hack it in an $10+1. Got second....but I know I'm not bankrolled for it and thinking about the move to $5 SnGs of if I should spend more time in the $2.
In the rings, should I be looking more for the big money winners (suited connectors, Axs), or staying with the high percentage hands (big pairs, AKs)?
|
Suited connectors and small pp's have good implied odds, Ax's aren't that great because you tend to get sucked into the pot when you hit your ace. Big pocket pairs are good in any type of the game.
You took a huge risk by playing 0.5/1, its a good thing you were playing scared. If you play any more ring games (which i reccomend you do cause that is literally where the money is at) then go down to the micro limits, you don't want to play anything more than 5c/10c with your bankroll.
|
|
|
|
evman150
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 269
|
|
Players that play only SnGs get destroyed in ring a lot of the time.
You can always tell who the tourney players are because they all overvalue pocket pairs constantly. I love those people.
With that sort of bankroll, I'd recommend playing the micro stakes at UB, Stars or Prima. Anything else is definitely out of your range and you'll probably end up losing all of your money very quickly.
|
|
Light years ahead of the competition.
|
|
dsaxton
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 2,667
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by evman150
Players that play only SnGs get destroyed in ring a lot of the time.
You can always tell who the tourney players are because they all overvalue pocket pairs constantly. I love those people.
|
Yes, I'm always pleased when some guy with a full stack pushes all-in with nines after I open the pot with my aces.
|
|
|
|
Khabbi
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 381
|
|
I'm in exactly the same position as you Crunch except that I began in the ring and feel more comfortable there. I enjoy plahing SnGs more, so I am trying to transition over to that style of play now.
At the beginning of February I deposited $50 on Paradise and played the .01/.02 tables exclusively. I dropped to about $40 pretty quickly but then I tightened up a bit and learned how to bet for value and get the best out of my hands at that level.
I battled my way slowly over the past couple months at those levels and got my BR up to $110 and decided to make the switch to the $5+$1 SnGs. I did pretty well initially and boosted my BR to $140 over the past couple weeks.
I have been stagnant as of late, suffering in the tournaments - only 1 3rd place finish in my last 5 tourneys - while recouperating the losses in the .05/.1 ring. I have consistently been beating the ring games but it's not what I enjoy doing. It seem tedious compared to the fast action you get into late in the tournaments.
I will try to maintain my BR playing ring games while learing the ropes of the SnGs. The thing that I am having trouble with there is that I have been trying to be too aggressive and trying to double up on one hand too early (when taking 5 smaller pots would do the same thing).
|
|
|
|
Hubris1
|
|
Straight
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 163
|
|
As BMX mentioned with a bankroll of 140 the only reason you should be at a .5/1 table is to railbird, its not unheard of for regular seasoned ring players to drop a buy in or two in a night. The reason why you were playing scared was because you were playing with a monster part of your bankroll.
|
|
|
|
JeffreyGB
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Jenks, OK
Posts: 3,477
|
|
I'm going to echo what everyone else has said about playing in the .5/1 ring game. The more common term for that level is NL$100, because the max buy-in (what most styles of play would use) is $100. For ring, you want a bare minimum of 10 buy-ins for the level you're playing, with 20-30 buy-ins being far preferred.
I'm guessing that you didn't buy in with a full stack at the NL$100 ring table. Even buying in with the min ($20), you're still risking a sizeable portion of your bankroll. Further, playing short stack is a much different thing than playing with a full stack. You lack the intimidation power of a full stack, so you absolutely can't play scared - the rest of the table will walk all over you.
|
|
|
|
Crunch
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Saint John
Posts: 82
|
|
It all makes sense. I didn't do the math when I went in and just picked a room with a high flop% and action vaule. I used to eat up the loosies back when I was playing ring games and liked the loose action, just so happened to be a .5/1. Also the promise of winning a chunk of cash quick was interesting, but yes, I was way over my head.
|
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Pусский
Svenska
05-26-2012, 03:08 PM Australia Legalized Online Poker coming up in next 6 to 12 Months
Linear Mode
