LC: We're playing SNGs-are we idiots? - Page 2

Pudge714 · #11 06-23-2007, 07:55 PM

I have a bunch of thoughts so I am just going to ramble.
In order to achieve my sng hourly you would need to be a good 2/4 player (3ptbs 6 tabling) or a marginally winning 3/6 player. This isn't that difficult for a good player. However there are a lot more players who can achieve that than achieve my sng hourly.
Beating SSNL or uNL isn't that difficult especially if you play FR, which is similarly easy to auto pilot as SNGs.
SNG variance isn't as extreme as cash variance. I have a similar bankroll to a 2/4 NL player and I don't have nearly as many 2k or 3k days (either way) as cash players. That being said SNG variance is a lot more soul crushing day after day of smallish losses. I should also add it is very likely I will move to cash, once I clear enough rake on stars to buy a TV using FPPs.
I would never be an MTT pro. I like MTTs, but they tilt me so much. Basically unless I win such a large amount of money, I'm upset with anything that isn't first place. If I was an MTT pro, I would probably kill myself within a week.

Al,
Saying my biggest sng downswing was x BIs, while my biggest cash downswing is y BIs, doesn't really show anything since BR requirements are very different. Also you have gotten very lucky to have Pasterbator coach you, which is something a lot of people haven't gotten. I don't know how many hands you have played, but it is possible you have been running good this whole time. It is possible 50k hands from now your thoughts will be very different.

The biggest problem with SNG players moving to cash is that they don't think. I have noticed this coaching (btw I realize everyone I have coached is going to think I am talking about them). Oftentimes students will ask me questions "Do you raise/call/fold here?" most of my students want to hear a definitive answer, but that is too easy. The real answer is that it depends. Reads on opponents, stack sizes, your image, etc. This is a pretty major leak most people have, but often times it is irrelevant in SNGs since there are so many unexploitable plays. In cash people need to start thinking more, a lot of people have sucess, but don't think well, they just stumbled into a good tag style to play. Raise hand X% or greater from the button. It isn't that easy. Many sng players when they move to cash and MTTs want to learn formulas how to play succesfully, those exist, but it is much more profitable, to think about why you are making plays, putting your opponents on hand ranges, hand reading etc. As opposed to justifying plays solely on hand strength.

ManChild · #12 06-23-2007, 08:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
online poker in general is just getting tougher

[/ QUOTE ]

this doesn't mean the games aren't beatable, they still are, but not at the same rate at which they used to be. SNG's vs. cash is really a matter of personal preference.

Dr_Jeckyl_00 · #13 06-23-2007, 11:21 PM

I play small stakes sng's. I can beat $16's and lower. With these profits I dable in (and lose) cash, higher stakes SnG's, WSOP sats, MTT etc. So I still need SNG's to support learning other styles...

Pudge714 · #14 06-23-2007, 11:43 PM

I will also add people are always leaving the forum to switch to cash, legislation didn't have that much to do with it.

Prodigy54321 · #15 06-24-2007, 01:14 AM

I think a major part of it is just that STTs are very comfortable for a lot of people

if you are grinding lower stakes STTs, they don't require as much in-game thought as other games (you generally know what you are going to do before the situation even occurs) it's no big deal getting sucked out on a bunch of times because, 1) you just open a new game and pretty much forget it happened and 2) you will surely be sucking out against someone else soon when you push J3, are called by 88 and hit your jack...

it's the same thing over and over again..the closest thing to a boring repetative job as you can really get in poker..probably not too appealing to many people (and not as true for higher stakes STT players than for low level grinders), but there's something very secure about it.

I've never been much of a gambler and I get stressed when I lose even a little bit of money or even when I have a breakeven stretch (which may be why I never really grew past a decent $20-$30 STT player)...but STTs are a good choice for someone like me in that you can rely on a pretty steady income.

although it is easy to see poker as one job description, choosing different games may be more like choosing between very different jobs with different salaries...you don't necessarily take the one that pays more.

Knight Vision · #16 06-24-2007, 01:20 AM

In defense of Al, I don't see where he made any reference to negativity toward sngs. Only pro-cash. Different.

microbet · #17 06-24-2007, 01:28 AM

I don't pay enough attention to this to do anything other than speculate, but it seem like the massive multitabling must be a huge factor in the lower ROIs of the lower buyins.

Prodigy54321 · #18 06-24-2007, 01:39 AM

we can settle this drama...someone coach me (for free obviously) to a winning NL cash player and I'll report back to STTF along the way [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Prodigy54321 · #19 06-24-2007, 01:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't pay enough attention to this to do anything other than speculate, but it seem like the massive multitabling must be a huge factor in the lower ROIs of the lower buyins.

[/ QUOTE ]

you mean that 12 tabling when I am only beating the $6.50s for an 8% ROI isn't the best decision?!?!? blasphemy...working towards becomeing a better player to make more money isntead of grinding to make a little more money in the short term is sooooo overrrated.

microbet · #20 06-24-2007, 01:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't pay enough attention to this to do anything other than speculate, but it seem like the massive multitabling must be a huge factor in the lower ROIs of the lower buyins.

[/ QUOTE ]

you mean that 12 tabling when I am only beating the $6.50s for an 8% ROI isn't the best decision?!?!? blasphemy...working towards becomeing a better player to make more money isntead of grinding to make a little more money in the short term is sooooo overrrated.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's one part of it, but what I meant, was that although there are a lot of fish at the lower buyins, there are a lot of seats taken by decent or better players when lots of people are playing 12 tables and some are playing 20 or more.