|
I'm gonna throw my completely subjective and probably ill-informed .02 in here. I've been single-tabling 5 .5/11 SnGs for about 2 months now and have twice built a BR from 25 to over 200 (first time, I withdrew. This time, I have goals and am keeping the money for poker).
I've also played some ring in this time, and have found it to be wildly variant. Some times, you plop down 5 bucks and walk away twenty minutes later up 50. Other times, you correctly call an all-in and get destroyed. Now, having read some of the long-term posters' opinions, my impression is that that's just the way lower limit rings are. You cannot push people off hands--they will go down with their sweet, sweet low pair, or whatever.
My point being, I find SnGs, at least the cheap ones, tend to proportionately reward skill more than cheap rings. At the lower levels, players tend to want to push constantly--with SnGs, this type of maniacal style results in many bust-outs early, with the occasional 1st--in general, they don't seem to reward bad play quite as much, or maybe they don't punish good play.
Then again, it may just be that I'm tempermentally suited to SnGs. I like having a clear goal, and I like how many opportunities the SnG format offers donks to commit hari-kari.
|