OT: The fallacy of the Lederer argument regarding sng's

[fluorescenthippo]

[ QUOTE ]

But won't many be inclined to take too small edges?

In a sng we are trained to push very small edges because we are used to a certain fold equity, given the prize structure.



[/ QUOTE ]

this isnt true. you actually are always taking more small edges in a FT. the reason is because everyone has less equity as people bust due to the payouts. once at the final table the payout is so flat, usually something like 33%/19%/13%/10%/8%/6%/4%/3%/1.5% of remaining money. (i rounded im sure that doesnt = 100%)

or do you mean people will call more liberally because they already cashed? maybe, but that is not the reason why you need to take smaller edges.


consider this senario. you have 10bb in the SB with 44. in a sng no matter what your ranges for the BB your pushing edge is at least .8% and around 1% against a normal range. but at a FT your edge ranges from .7% to -.6%. this has nothing to do with calling ranges and everything to do with the structure.

i never really understood the sng = FT arguement but they do help with ICM. they also help for single table sats which apparently everyone sucks at [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]. sngs and final tables are pretty different but as long as you are awesome with ICM you should do fine.

[AMT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would counter the OP's argument by suggesting what other form of poker could better adequately prepare a poker player for dealing with a final table scenario in an MTT.

I would sure as hell rather be bigjoe2003 than someone like aba20 or jason strasser if i were to be reaching a final table at the WSOP.

[/ QUOTE ]

id put my money on strasser, and if you knew what you were talking about, you would too.

strasser was one of the top sng players a few years ago, and has won $100K+ final tables.

im thinking you didnt know that, even though I would think you would. If you do know all that, than your statement makes little sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya, Lacky's right, Strassa is a vv easy pick here.


Oh, and he cashed ~300k alone (i think) at last years WCOOP.

[/ QUOTE ]


agreed strasser is a pretty sick pick among those 3, though id be hard pressed to not take a piece of aba and/or bigjoe either....

OP,

as has been touched on, youre looking at ICM pretty narrowly in the context that we apply it to the standard 9 man payout structure. There are people on this forum alone that apply ICM different with he 6 man 65/35 structure that use it differently because the 6 man sng dynamic is pretty different than the 9 man (beyond the payouts as well, the dynamic of mid stack shorthanded play is much different than in 9 mans). as with mtts, it simply applies differently with prize jump implications (coming down to reads as close as "how does THIS player value the next payout jump?" could be the decisiion to push ATC vs like 50% in a given situation), and yeah....very different games but ICM can be applied to both.

[Clayton]

[ QUOTE ]

id put my money on strasser, and if you knew what you were talking about, you would too.

strasser was one of the top sng players a few years ago, and has won $100K+ final tables.

im thinking you didnt know that, even though I would think you would. If you do know all that, than your statement makes little sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

ugh, poor example on my part. i was just thinking of some cash name players and had forgotten that strasser was actually pretty good @ tournaments

*shys away from thread

[darom03]

[ QUOTE ]
Darom, you seemed to be talking about the sng player that doesn't understand why a play is +$EV. They just know that SNGPT told them it's good to shove a certain range given certain circumstances.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that is basicly how I understand ICM. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

I know what I should push, given the range I put villain on, but I could not tell you what mechanics lie behind the decision. The math behind it are maybe too advanced for me, I dunno.

But that also means that when I am at a final table (and I am sure, I am not the only one who has this problem) my perception as to how I should play is distorted by my memorized knowledge of ICM in regards to sit'n'goes.

[ QUOTE ]
sngs and final tables are pretty different but as long as you are awesome with ICM you should do fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually think this pretty much sums up what I were trying to say = People that do not grasp the underlying mechanics of ICM will have difficulties on a final table, no matter how many sng's they have played.

But I can clearly see that I am on the deep end of the pool, and that you all are pretty much in agreement, making my original statement false. So much for me trying to out think everybody in SST [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

[citanul]

sigh.

[darom03]

[ QUOTE ]
sigh.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you sigh me, mister... [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
Howard Lederer have often said that playing sng's are a good way to practice for final tables. And I hear that all the time from regular sng players.

I believe that statement to be wrong.

In fact I believe that it is quite catastrophic to implement sng strategies to a final MTT table.

First of all you don't play to get in the top three. All the players have already made a healthy return of their investment. That means that there is no proper use for ICM.
(Maybe you can make the argument that the use of the chip equity model have something to do with sng's?)

Secondly all the players start with different stack sizes. That means that we in theory start the sng late. Many players have a low M, and that of course means that the normal passive approach that usually takes place early in a sng is wrong. But then again... you can't use the same "late" sng strategy either, as the fold equity amongst the remaining players a very different because of the burst bubble.

True, a sitngo does have the same basic similarity of a MTT in regards that you don't get replacements when someone gets knocked out.

But that is about it!

MTT players can't really use sng's as a mean to get better at final tables IMHO. Maybe it will even hurt their game.

In fact I dare to say, that if you try to play a final table using any form of generic sng strategy, you will put yourself at a huge disadvantage.

This is of course very basic knowledge for a lot of you guys. But then again, I hear the "Lederer argument" quite often, and just had an urge to put forth my own point of view.

I am also hoping that I'd stir up a discussion on how to rightly implement some concepts of sng strategy into final tables.

Hence the following question: What do you think a good sng player can take with him to a final MTT table?

[/ QUOTE ]


I think that what SnGs are actually good practice for is short stack play. I think they are also good at giving people a regular feel of bubble play and how to take advantage of the tightness surrounding it. I agree that final tables are a different animal, although there is definitely some coorelation.

[citanul]

ok, here goes: "sigh"

the best thing stt players are good at that they can make use of is understanding short stacked play, both their own stack, and playing against others who are playing short stacks, both well and poorly.

as for dealing with slightly deeper play, your random stt player is not going to hold an edge over anyone who has decent mtt experience, or is a reasonable cash player. both of these sorts of players will most likely know how to exploit being a large stack quite well, as well.

however, the pushing "requirements" in mtts are a lot different than the requirements in stts. so don't go in thinking they are the same thing.

meh.

additionally, i'd like to point out that while jason would be the obvious pick, going purely off of prior final table results isn't quite fair, since jason usually has a dominating chip lead. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

c

[vm1124]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would counter the OP's argument by suggesting what other form of poker could better adequately prepare a poker player for dealing with a final table scenario in an MTT.

I would sure as hell rather be bigjoe2003 than someone like aba20 or jason strasser if i were to be reaching a final table at the WSOP.

[/ QUOTE ]

id put my money on strasser, and if you knew what you were talking about, you would too.

strasser was one of the top sng players a few years ago, and has won $100K+ final tables.

im thinking you didnt know that, even though I would think you would. If you do know all that, than your statement makes little sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya, Lacky's right, Strassa is a vv easy pick here.


Oh, and he cashed ~300k alone (i think) at last years WCOOP.

[/ QUOTE ]

his win was over 440k

[suzzer99]

I don't think Lederer meant SNGs are 100% analagous to an MTT FT. But imagine you're a cash hero and you've very very rarely played short-handed or with a shortstack. Adjusting hand-ranges, shoving suited connectors, etc. are going to be pretty foreign to you and you're going to feel a little lost. I saw him make that quote and I pretty much think that's all he meant.

When I played a WSOP tourney last year I felt somewhat lost at times, until I got down to 20 BBs or so, then I knew EXACTLY what to do.