LC: We're playing SNGs-are we idiots?

[Shillx]

SNGs have way more varience then NL cash. It is comparable to high varience LHE play. It is funny that cash players laugh at SNGers given that you could show a profit by having like a 3% VPIP not too long ago. High level SNG play is much more complex then low to mid level cash play. It is even more true since you can't just avoid certain players like you can in cash games. You can be the 7th best player in a cash game and still be +EV while that will never be the case in a SNG. The only reason not to play SNGs is the [censored] insane rake but anymore it has become a pretty big reason.

[kevstreet]

I'd love to learn cash games so I'd have knowledge of more poker games, not to run from STTs. That said, I do believe SnGs have become much tougher than when we all started.

Nice posts recently KPL! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[AMT]

this topic has been discussed tirelessly over the last several months. I'm way too tired to go into my own thoughts on the topic, but I generally like most of the points made in this thread by pudge and shillx.

also, on a personal level, I will never stop playing any of SNGs, cash or mtts as they all contribute to my poker learning, profit and knowledge. I feel that I stay a "complete player" by playing all the games (though ideally cash in the most volume).

[mortimo]

I find the $54-sngs in the pokerroom-network softer than the $16`s at stars..I may be result-oriented, but I see so many donks there

I`m sure others will say the same

[JamieO]

When i first started playing online i played ssnl. Then i had a big mtt win and played exclusively mtt's for a long time. I came to stt's from mtt's because I needed to lower my variance drastically. My bankroll had taken a big hit and i needed to build it safely at a decent pace. With my tiny bankroll right now, i think multitabling (8-10) smaller stakes stt's (20's now soon 27's) is making me the most per hour with the least risk.
I think this simply because there are a large number people who are just awful at stt's. I think the main reason is that rocks are just so much easier to take advantage of in stt's then ssnl. It's hard to make a lot off a rock in ssnl, but in stt's they have to open up eventually. They never do enough. My roi isnt that pretty and my per hour is less than id like it, but in my first 400 tourneys at the 20's the worst downswing ive had is 18 buy ins. Thats nothing compared to mtts, and im gonna stick around here until i get a proper roll again. I have thought quite a bit about cash though.

[Foldem78]

Play both.

I recently started playing cash games about 3-months ago..but, I've been playing sng's for about 1.5 years..Sadly, I've already made more money off my cash hands than I did the whole time I was playing sng's..(never had a coach; which was probably stupid)

I play low-stakes sng's mostly (6.5's, 11's)

However, I would say that if you're playing low-stakes sng's and you're just starting out..learn cash instead..If you're beating the 27's or higher for at least 10% ROI..stick with sng's..(Assuming you only care about making the most money in the least amount of time.)

[easternbloc]

I agree with checkmate's first response--if you enjoy playing sngs then by all means, play sngs. sngs were the first form of poker I was introduced to, so I have a certain fondness for them, and being a small-stakes player, I can get by on a much shorter bankroll than if I was playing any cash game that could result in winning an amount of money that would interest me.

I think saying that either sngs or cash games are truer forms of 'poker' is silly. it's comparing apples and oranges. poker is any game that uses the common hand rankings (with games like razz ignoring things like straights, but that's off topic). clearly sngs, mtts, nl cash games and limit cash games all have different skillsets with some overlaps, they are 4 different games even though they have the same common thread of being 'poker' games.

to say one is better than another would only make sense if you qualify it as saying your main goal is to achieve maximum return per time (I just enjoy the competition aspect of the game) or if you were trying to argue that one requires more skill than another (and I doubt that anyone could definitive proof that any of those games is significantly less complex.) unless you're specifically discussing one of those two points, I don't think there's much of a point of comparing the different formats of poker, but that's just my two cents.

[donkeykong2]

[ QUOTE ]
I find the $54-sngs in the pokerroom-network softer than the $16`s at stars..I may be result-oriented, but I see so many donks there

I`m sure others will say the same

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, i saw a very fishy game there with 4 players left with around 4k in chips and 400/800 or 3/6 blinds and no one was pushing all in like they should do, never played on stars though.

problem: these games dont run frequently and pokerroom is terrible to multitable.
also the turbos seem to be a huge crapshoot there with 3 mins blind levels.

[Stake Monster]

I went from cash to SnGs because I had been on a 4-5 months rollercoaster and needed to play a game with less variance. It's nice to know you'll only lose X amount if you get stacked, and psychologically it's what I needed to get back into poker.

I'll likely go back to cash games once I feel I ain't prone to tilting easily.

Also, I think playing SnGs and cash games helps your game a lot more than playing just 1 type. IMO, it's always good to vary what you play, for the sake of interest, and improving further.

[PLO8FaceKilla]

i play only Sit n gos. After a few attempts, cash games are just not for me.

I play HU PLO8 30s and do pretty well.

Can't we expect all of our ROIs to go up once things get better and all the "casual" players come back online?

or is this just an overblown myth?