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

[darom03]

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?