Pot control in SnG's

[SwedishMedusah]

Is pot control more or less important than in a cash game? Explain why.

[Pudge714]

Much less important because you are shallower. Please lock the thread now.

[HoRRoR]

less cause ur weak

[SwedishMedusah]

Sklansky writes in TPFAP that keeping the pot small is more important in tourney play. Is he wrong, or does that only apply to MTT's?

[DevinLake]

[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky writes in TPFAP that keeping the pot small is more important in tourney play. Is he wrong, or does that only apply to MTT's?

[/ QUOTE ]

Mostly just MTTs.

Pot control can be useful in the first level or two of a sng, but after that your pretty much always committed to getting your stack in.

[weknowhowtolive]

[ QUOTE ]
Much less important because you are shallower. Please lock the thread now.

[/ QUOTE ]Why? Its a reasonable question.

Some of you around here want to be mods so bad its disgusting.

[Fels krone]

I think early in a SNG there is conflict of pot control when you start off with big unpaired cards. Say 1st or 2nd level and you look at AK or AQ. you want to minimize opponents, but you also dont want to raise too much and lose control of the pot.

This is very difficult to manage at lower buy ins, because even a 6 or 7 BB raise will get 3 or 4 callers. I guess it becomes a question of slowing down with certain hands early, even if it seems like they are losing value.

[Pudge714]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Much less important because you are shallower. Please lock the thread now.

[/ QUOTE ]Why? Its a reasonable question.

Some of you around here want to be mods so bad its disgusting.

[/ QUOTE ]
Me posting stuff like this has pretty close to zero chance of increasing the probability of me becoming a mod.
The OP's question has an easy answer there is no real discussion my first post is pretty much objectively correct.

[SwedishMedusah]

You are obviously right about stack sizes. When you get short pot control goes out the window. However, isn't the exact same thing true in a cash game given that you are equally short? So it's a matter of stack sizes, and not sng vs cg per se, right?

Stack sizes makes the concept of pot control pretty much irrelevant for the later stages of the game. But what about the early stages? If you compare to a cash game with the exact same stack sizes, is there then a difference between sng and cg because of the different structure?

[Shillx]

More important in SNGs. Obviously I'd be more willing to go broke with bottom set in a 75 bb deep SNG then a 500 bb deep cash game but given the same opponents/stack sizes I'd play more carefully in an SNG.