Ring Games v. Sit-n-Go

[TheBlueKnave]

... or other tournaments.

Seems like most of the talk here (other than hand-by-hand analysis) is generally driven by the ring game experience. First two weeks of online poker that was all I played, and I've had a pretty good run, albeit the grind is still pretty slow.

However, just these past couple of days I started playing some sit-n-go's. Much fun! And way more profitable! $10/hour instead of $.50/hour.

Except... I'm reading that the tournaments have a lot more variance, so I'm probably just enjoying a little upswing variance.

So: do most people play the ring games for the reliability of it? Are there people grinding their way up via tournaments? Or is that for suckers?

[surviva316]

ring games are far and away the best way to learn the game of poker as a whole. sng's are the worst (not saying i discourage playing them, though). sng's is a lot of understanding icm in and out, and doing a lot of pokerstoving and a lot of sng wizarding and just having a keen understanding of how your hand fares pf against ranges and what stage of the tourney you're in and all that stuff. there's no floating or barrelling or 3ballin or anything like that. there's very little post flop poker.

low BI mtt's are so donk infested that you can just be a complete nit and get paid off with your AA or sets and never do anything for the rest of the tourney and get in 3rd and get 150 dollars. i play a lot of sng's 'cause it's lolez money, but it's very boring and it isn't gonna teach you much about how to play poker. (not to say that you can just buy in to any 2.20 tourney and pwn it because i'm pretty sure i was playing like b/e in tourneys as of just a few months ago. it's just that the amount of poker learning you need is a lot less).

i'd try to find a game that you're comfortable with and settle there though and learn that game almost exclusively lest you muddle in mediocrity at EVERYTHING you play for months

[Robb]

I suggest focus, like surviva says, on one type of game. I would choose whatever you like best. I play cash because I rarely have an hour I'm SURE I can dedicate to pokerz. With cash, I can leave any time something comes up (I have 3 kids).

Find something you like and are winning at and get good at it, build your roll. I disagree that SNG's will teach you little. Playing them well requires hand reading, the essential skill of poker.

The big key is to find games where you have a skill advantage and profit. As the profits come in, you can build a roll and learn other types of games.

[Jason]

Cash games are a better way to build a bankroll in my opinion because you're more consistently and immediately rewarded for making correct decisions. You can make a lot of good decisions for a long time in SNG's or MTT's but still have your bubble burst or get eliminated before you get a decent win. Tournaments often devolve into coin flips and you have to come out ahead in many of those spots to do well. In a cash game, every time you win a flip, you win. Every time you lose a flip, you lose. It's not a culmination of many of those marginal spots equaling one big win or loss. Plus, with cash games, there is no pressure to even get in a coin flip to begin with. If there is a fish @ your table and you feel like you're pushing a 55% edge in one situation, you can often just fold or wait for a better spot when your edge is higher or you have him drawing dead. This is a very powerful tool for building up your bankroll.

Don't get me wrong, though, tournaments are fun and I got my start in SNG's and did pretty well at them even struggling with cash myself in the beginning. But, after a while, I realized that tournaments are a novelty in terms of making cash. Even Dan Harrington recently did an interview and said that the best way to make money is through cash games. They recommend you have like 100 buy-ins for any MTT that you enter because the variance can get so high.

Surviva316 makes a good point, too. You really learn the game by playing cash. You don't look for spots to push all-in because your stack is low. You're not pressured to play trash because the blinds are about to go up. There's brief periods in tournaments @ the beginning where you can play real poker, but cash games are ALWAYS in that moment.

So, if you REALLY like tournaments, you should probably play them because poker SHOULD be fun. On the other hand, if you want to make a lot of money and get good @ poker, cash games are the pure way to go in my opinion and I find them very fun. Whichever you choose, you can still sprinkle in some of the other one for fun, but I think it's best early on to stick with one game to try to get good @ it.

Good luck.

[tuuk2]

When I first started playing poker for money, I was exclusively playing SNGs. I was able to make around $200 or so between single table, and multi-table sngs with a MTT thrown in there every now and then. It's possible to make decent money, although I think the micros have gotten much harder now since you don't have those three or 4 players going out in the first few minutes.

Now I almost exclusively play 6-max NLHE. Why? It's so much easier to make money. The variance is lower, you can choose when to play a hand and aren't forced to play because of escalating blinds. You can come and go as you please and can sit out when you get interrupted (if in a SNG, you might sit out and lose that A-K or AA you so desperately need to double up with). I've made more in a couple of months playing NLHE than I did in all the time I've played SNGs.

So here's how I rank poker for making money. Other's rankings probably will differ.

1. Ring (HU, FR, 6-max)
2. DONs (pretty easy money considering half the table wins, but man you can take some wicked beats near the bubble)
3. SNGs (Used to be very easy on Pokerstars, but not any longer)
4. MTTs (The highest variance but the biggest payouts)

Now another consideration is time. If I only have half an hour, I can play Ring and leave. I can't do that with any of the others. I can also change tables if I don't like how things are going.

[kb coolman]

I don't like playing SNGs for one reason: They're short stacked-poker. You start off with 50bb in your typical game, and it only gets worse from there. One bad beat ends your tournament. In ring, you can take the suckout from the donk, reload, and take it back.

IMO, the best thing about SNGs is that force you to develop your hand reading ability and have an understanding of shoving ranges. This is a great skill to have against the ratholing short-stacking scum when you're playing ring on full tilt.

[TheBlueKnave]

Thanks for the insights so far.

At this point, I'm still exploring, but I have to say that there's a lot more adrenalin in tournament play, and I like the way the game changes as people get knocked out. I like the process of shifting the game from tight-aggressive to adjust to the various circumstances that evolve, whether it's playing from a big stack and pounding on the other players, or playing from a short stack, trying to set up that one good hand you hope to get.

And the reduction to heads up, it doesn't seem like coin tossing at all. It's a negotiation between two players about risk. Coins are flipped, sure, but stack size matters.

All this is in contrast to cash games, where I'm doing well--consistent small profit--but which have are considerably more constant in the strategy. Sure there are adjustments for players, but overall, it's a much more level experience (bad beats and maniacs notwithstanding).

Now, I've had a great run at the sit-n-gos, so when that variance comes home to roost, I may be glad of the level experience at the ring table...

[tuuk2]

I agree that SNG and MTTs can be fun. There's a definite beginning and end, which you don't get in the Ring games. However, especially in the MTTs, you really are flipping a coin several times in the tournament. The best player doesn't always win, it's the one who wins the most coin tosses or who gets the best cards near the end.

Here's what the various games are good for.

Ring - Teaches you deep stack poker and how to play post flop
SNG (Single Table) - Teaches you how to play pre-flop, especially near the bubble.
DON - Teaches you bubble play
MTT - Teaches you have to deal with sick beats and how to play from low blinds to super high blinds late in the tourney.

[TheBlueKnave]

Ring - Teaches you deep stack poker and how to play post flop
SNG (Single Table) - Teaches you how to play pre-flop, especially near the bubble.
DON - Teaches you bubble play
MTT - Teaches you have to deal with sick beats and how to play from low blinds to super high blinds late in the tourney.

Nice.

I've seen the Double-Or-Nothing games in the Sit-n-Go lobby, but had not yet investigated them... I imagined a game that encouraged all-in betting. It sounds like the opposite.

What do you think of this take on the DON: http://pokerbankrollblog.com/poker-b...-don-poker.htm

[Robb]

Poker should be (1) profitable and (2) enjoyable, profitable so we can keep enjoying it, enjoyable so we can keep profiting from it. Do whatever it takes to have fun (whatever you see as fun) and profit. There's plenty of time to learn cash game poker in the future.

[amir is cool]

sure is some misinformation going around here.

If there is a fish @ your table and you feel like you're pushing a 55% edge in one situation, you can often just fold or wait for a better spot when your edge is higher or you have him drawing dead. This is a very powerful tool for building up your bankroll.

there isnt such thing as a better spot in a cash game. a play is either +ev or -ev. if its +ev and you dont take it, there are only 2 reasons:
1. you are not properly rolled for your stakes and dont want to take marginally +ev spots because you're on scared money in which case, lol@you
2. you are braindead and can't understand the concept of expected value.

However, just these past couple of days I started playing some sit-n-go's. Much fun! And way more profitable! $10/hour instead of $.50/hour.

[Jason]

You are correct that pushing a 55% or any edge is +EV but I disagree that that means it's ALWAYS the best decision to push it. Chip Reese explained this concept way back in the original Super System book by Doyle Brunson. He said he kept pushing marginal edges against a donkey one night in Vegas and ended up losing his money for the night because the edge didn't work his way while other players ended up busting the donkey. He knew he could have outplayed him in much better spots but got over anxious trying to push small edges that went against him. He learned from that situation to be selective about how you attack a fish and not just jump on the first marginal opportunity that comes along.

Say, for example, you're against a loose, maniac who will stack off with just about anything, and he keeps pushing all-in pre-flop and you find yourself with pocket deuces. Your only options are to call your stack or fold. You know he has any random two cards and you're the last to act and everyone has folded. If you call, you're probably a little more than 50% which IS a favorite and WOULD be pushing your edge. But, would you call?

In a tournament with escalating blinds, you'll probably have to call with Jack high in many situations. But, in a cash game, you decide when you want to take advantage of what situation. You can call off your pocket deuces now or wait till you get pocket Queens and now you're an 80% or better favorite.

If you constantly find yourself pushing marginal edges over big ones, you'll be playing a lot of break-even poker.

[amir is cool]

You are correct that pushing a 55% or any edge is +EV but I disagree that that means it's ALWAYS the best decision to push it. Chip Reese explained this concept way back in the original Super System book by Doyle Brunson. He said he kept pushing marginal edges against a donkey one night in Vegas and ended up losing his money for the night because the edge didn't work his way while other players ended up busting the donkey. He knew he could have outplayed him in much better spots but got over anxious trying to push small edges that went against him. He learned from that situation to be selective about how you attack a fish and not just jump on the first marginal opportunity that comes along.

Say, for example, you're against a loose, maniac who will stack off with just about anything, and he keeps pushing all-in pre-flop and you find yourself with pocket deuces. Your only options are to call your stack or fold. You know he has any random two cards and you're the last to act and everyone has folded. If you call, you're probably a little more than 50% which IS a favorite and WOULD be pushing your edge. But, would you call?

In a tournament with escalating blinds, you'll probably have to call with Jack high in many situations. But, in a cash game, you decide when you want to take advantage of what situation. You can call off your pocket deuces now or wait till you get pocket Queens and now you're an 80% or better favorite.

If you constantly find yourself brpushing marginal edges over big ones, you'll be playing a lot of eak-even poker.

super system was written 30 years ago. the game's have changed from what they were back then. if you want proof, look at the game like 4 years ago in the party poker days and tell me they are the same as today. if you take outdated advice like that to the table, you'll be playing alot of break-even poker. LOL AMIRITE?

this nit style of play you seem to be advocating (ZOMG WAIT FOR QQ TO MAKE A MOVE LULZ) is ridiculous and will not hold water while playing against players with an attention span greater than that of an ant.

unless if what you mean was for micro stakes games in which case i agree that just waiting for strong hands and going for fat value is a winning strategy for obvious reasons.

[daven]

can't be bothered finding the hand history:

3hrs into an MTT, well placed chipwise and on the bubble.
3-bet an ep open from the button and sb chip leader plus ep called. Flop 37T, i shove over ep donk, sb folds, ep calls 34, i lose ldo.

ok, this is typical in an mtt, the difference is that you can't simply re-load, and your 3hr investment is gone.
MTTs are high variance and require a high time investment.
one big pay makes up for that though
Your call.

[Monsieur_chat]

In my experience *when you're a beginner* playing cash will make you 10x the player that grinding SNGs / MTTs will.

Learn the tools of the trade first, then, once you're up to around 25nl, if you're naturally more inclined to the SNG format, go for it then.

[kiwiMark]

He said he kept pushing marginal edges against a donkey one night in Vegas and ended up losing his money for the night because the edge didn't work his way while other players ended up busting the donkey. He knew he could have outplayed him in much better spots but got over anxious trying to push small edges that went against him.

You can call off your pocket deuces now or wait till you get pocket Queens and now you're an 80% or better favorite.

Gonna have to side with amir on this one. I don't understand how the fish "got the better" of Chip. He was sucked out on on a number of occasions. That however does not make his play bad, as - as we all know - if he kept pushing these marginal edges against the fish he would, in the longrun, show a profit matching his EV. So there's something stopping Chip from reaching the longrun.
Perhaps the fish is going to get tired and leave, or other players are going to bust him first. Playing tigher is not going to change either of those so waiting around for QQ is not a more profitable idea. On the contrary, all edges, small and big alike, should be pushed ASAP before the fish escapes.
Or perhaps Chip did not have the money to keep playing against the fish after losing in a couple of marginal spots. This one seems more likely, but is not a risk we face on the internet when we are playing fully rolled for our limit and can rebuy to a full stack at any time.

[Outlaw]

Man, I feel much dumber having read this thread.

What's this BS talk about "Edges"? WTF is an edge? All I care about is equity and ranges. Piss on edges and piss on luck.

Btw, learn to play every type of game first and then focus on the one you are best at and enjoy the most (hopefully they are the same)

[bjsaust]

I started on Sit'n'Gos and am glad I did.

a) They're great fun and suited me at the time. Good intro to poker and discipline in a game style that came fairly naturally to me.

b) Even though I play cash now, I can easily jump into an STT or MTT and know what I'm doing.

[Robb]

I started on Sit'n'Gos and am glad I did.

a) They're great fun and suited me at the time. Good intro to poker and discipline in a game style that came fairly naturally to me.

b) Even though I play cash now, I can easily jump into an STT or MTT and know what I'm doing.

^^^

Poker should be fun for YOU, and should help YOU learn. Find your best poker fit and enjoy the game.

[WillburForce]

doesn't everyone start at SnG's?

I genrally now have
3-4 6max cash tables plus either
2-3 DoN'
or 1-2 either MTT's/ SnG's

running. If I do get deep I can shut down a coupld of cash tables to concentrate.

MTT's drive me fking insane - I swore i'd never play one again, but then cashed (only for $300ish) recently and it spurs you on for the big one.

[Jason]

As coincidence would have it, an interview with Phil Galf0nd just came out and they briefly touched on SNG's around the the 3:30 mark:

Bart Hanson: You know it's really interesting because I started playing SNG's, too and a lot of people have like a similar story. You know, the SNG has kind of gone by the wayside. It's like ancient history now. I guess it's like it's mathematically solved, right?

Phil Galfond: That's what I found towards the the end of my SNG career. And I could be wrong because I haven't really been as in touch with the games the last few years. The early game was somewhat unimportant and late game was mathematically solved. So, you didn't have much of an edge. There's not that much of an edge to get. And then that combined with the high rake makes it tough to beat.

As for the edges. Think about it this way. If you were 49% of a an underdog, you wouldn't push because you'll lose in the long run. What if you're a 50% favorite? Probably not because you have no edge and it's why people don't spend more time trying to grind a bankroll flipping a coin. But, now say you're 51%. Ok, you have an edge, but it's not much of one. Are we suddenly going to start betting the farm just because we have a small edge? It will work out in the long run, but the long run is LONG. Like I said, you're going to play a LOT of break-even and temporary losing poker if your edges are always small. Against most fish, the percent chance that you will have a better edge may be better than the chance your small edge will hold up.

Anyway, I think we're reading too much into this and getting off topic. My main point was that in cash games, you can pick and choose your spots. Obviously some of you would ALWAYS push a 50.00001% edge but some of us against some opponents may not want to push that edge because we feel we have a much bigger edge to push that will yield better long term results with less variance. It's fine that we disagree and I like the fact that cash games allow us that choice. In tournaments, you will find yourself in spots where you have to push your 40% dog because it's probably the best chance you'll have before you get blinded out. The choice has basically been made for you.

[TheBlueKnave]

Phil Galfond... The early game was somewhat unimportant and late game was mathematically solved.

Thanks for posting that.

So, just for my understanding, "mathematically solved" refers to the ICM, etc. etc. I don't claim to have any of that incorporated into my game yet in any rigorous way, so presumably the *best* I can hope for is to migrate from ignorant donkey flipping coins to educated expert playing a theoretically break-even game?

However, none of this math actually incorporates making decisions based on opponent reads, is that right?

[Stacks]

However, none of this math actually incorporates making decisions based on opponent reads, is that right?

Reads affect ranges, ranges affect equity, equity effects decisions, no?

[Outlaw]

SNGs are hardly solved.

This assumes everyone plays perfectly in every game you play in.
You can still crush these things at any level.

Table selection ftw.

In the end we can never be sure this play is +ev or that play is -ev. Its all still a guessing game... those with experience and intellect just guess a little better over time.

[kiwiMark]

As for the edges. Think about it this way. If you were 49% of a an underdog, you wouldn't push because you'll lose in the long run. What if you're a 50% favorite? Probably not because you have no edge and it's why people don't spend more time trying to grind a bankroll flipping a coin. But, now say you're 51%. Ok, you have an edge, but it's not much of one. Are we suddenly going to start betting the farm just because we have a small edge? It will work out in the long run, but the long run is LONG. Like I said, you're going to play a LOT of break-even and temporary losing poker if your edges are always small. Against most fish, the percent chance that you will have a better edge may be better than the chance your small edge will hold up.

I feel like this thread is kinda being hijacked, apologies to OP.

I'm not advocating folding when I have QQ because 80% is to big an edge for me and I'm hanging out for my 51%er. So it's not like my edges will be "always small".
As such an avid follower of BRM you yourself must know we're never going to bet the farm as an 80% favourite, either. We're properly rolled for a reason, and this reason is that we can withstand variance and keep pushing edges, regardless of how small, so that we show a profit.
I think where your argument falls down is that you seem to believe that pushing small edges now somehow stops us from pushing larger edges as well, or in the future, and I just don't see how you've come to that conclusion.

[amir is cool]

SNGs are hardly solved.

Table selection ftw.

[ClairvoyantX]

Part of the reason I am playing ring games now is to improve my skills, post flop and prelop. SNGs in later stages have little to no need for post flop skills.

[BrianMac]

how do you table select a SNG?