Does This Make Sense?

[jburn812 0]

I am having this convo with a good friend of mine that is trying to convince me to stop playing sngs and start playing ring games.... I am a pretty well established sng player and not really patient enough to play ring games however this point does not matter in this argument... If we assume a player is equal at both games he is trying to convince me this is a smart thing to do... ravin: ok, lets say you play at the tables, and every time you win big, go to another table, or just stand up and sit back down so that you keep your stack at a comfortable amount, because you don't want to lose it. if you play it straight up, you will win. you obv make profitable plays, but get knocked out when they don't hold up, and they obv can't always hold up, so if you play at the tables, and the hand doesn't hold up, you lose some cash, but so what? you're still in the green because you set aside your winnings and played with that you started withravin: when you're playing at the tables, it's not wise to play with your entire stack - think about why. when you're playing a tourney, you're essentially play with your entire stack - those arguments for ring games hold up for tourneysravin: what i MEAN is, the reasons why you don't play with your entire stack in a ring game is because if you put your entire br on the line with a 60% chance to win, you're ahead sure, you're making a profitable move, but when you lose, you lose it all. that same reasoning is applied to a tourneyravin: if you keep putting your stack on the line in a tourney with a 60% chance to win, you're making the correct play, and you do it a lot, BUT you will lose at some point unless you're lucky enough for it to hold every timeburn: obvravin: ....................soooo my point is that you're going to bust out of a tourney when you have the best hand, and it's not really bad luck, it's just the way a tourney is designed. it's illogicalravin: so the money is at ring gamesravinator88: yes but you're not risking your winningsravinator88: if you just start fresh every time, you're going to make money easyravinator88: esp with the way you playWhere are the flaws?

[uncooper 1]

Your friend is making an argument as if the BUYIN for the tourney is your bankroll. Since good bankroll management tells you the number of BB to play with at limit, the number of buyins for NL, and the number of buyins for SNGs (or other tournament formats for that matter), his argument doesn't apply.The main different between cash and tourneys is that tourneys will have much more variance, and much bigger scrores. Cash games will have less variance and show slower, steadier bankroll growth.

[king1305 0]

TP/MM

[aedread 0]

I am having this convo with a good friend of mine that is trying to convince me to stop playing sngs and start playing ring games.... I am a pretty well established sng player and not really patient enough to play ring games however this point does not matter in this argument... If we assume a player is equal at both games he is trying to convince me this is a smart thing to do... ravin: ok, lets say you play at the tables, and every time you win big, go to another table, or just stand up and sit back down so that you keep your stack at a comfortable amount, because you don't want to lose it. if you play it straight up, you will win. you obv make profitable plays, but get knocked out when they don't hold up, and they obv can't always hold up, so if you play at the tables, and the hand doesn't hold up, you lose some cash, but so what? you're still in the green because you set aside your winnings and played with that you started withravin: when you're playing at the tables, it's not wise to play with your entire stack - think about why. when you're playing a tourney, you're essentially play with your entire stack - those arguments for ring games hold up for tourneysravin: what i MEAN is, the reasons why you don't play with your entire stack in a ring game is because if you put your entire br on the line with a 60% chance to win, you're ahead sure, you're making a profitable move, but when you lose, you lose it all. that same reasoning is applied to a tourneyravin: if you keep putting your stack on the line in a tourney with a 60% chance to win, you're making the correct play, and you do it a lot, BUT you will lose at some point unless you're lucky enough for it to hold every timeburn: obvravin: ....................soooo my point is that you're going to bust out of a tourney when you have the best hand, and it's not really bad luck, it's just the way a tourney is designed. it's illogicalravin: so the money is at ring gamesravinator88: yes but you're not risking your winningsravinator88: if you just start fresh every time, you're going to make money easyravinator88: esp with the way you playWhere are the flaws?

Prolly more, but thats def one, like you never risk you winnings ever, its called a cold streak and it WILL happen. The money is where you win it, its in different places for different winners.

[chgocubs99 0]

I don't get it.

[Veener Schnitz 0]

It makes dollars.

[king1305 0]

It makes dollars.

If it don't make dollars then it don't make sense.

[ravinator120 0]

ok let me defend myself a little here. first of all, "Your friend is making an argument as if the BUYIN for the tourney is your bankroll" is not my point at all. if you think that's my point, then i need to try to explain it better.obv i know that some people are going to be good at ring games and some will be good at sng's. if you make more money playing sng's then keep playing. however, i think sng's are illogical compared to ring games. to make a profit in ring games, i don't think you need luck on your side; the game can be beaten straight up with math. the same is not true for sng's. for instance: coinflips for your entire stack are normal in sng's. obv you'll need LUCK to STAY in the game at times, which is my point. let's say, for example, someone put you all in. you're getting good enough odds to call, but you're way behind in the hand. would you call? you're getting the odds you need, and so therefore it's the "correct" play to make. this is what i think is illogical. there's more than pot odds that should be taken into account - like the fact that all of your hard work would have been for nothing if you lose, and you're likely to do so. let's say now that you're in fact a favorite. you're 56% to win the hand, and someone has put you all in. it's an easy call right? i've seen jburn make this call over and over again, and no surprise, he sometimes gets knocked out of tourneys before cashing when he was sitting comfortably at say 2nd or 3rd place. So can you argue for folding there? or would that be illogical? this is the exact situation that he was in that sparked this debate (actually he has chip leader, but he became shortstack after the hand and lost shortly after on the bubble).but let me give a situation that everyone can agree on, and is my best attempt to make my point: you have AA and someone puts you all in (in an mtt). it's indisputable. you have the best hand in that situation, and so calling is correct. but lets say you're always covered in this situation and this same situation comes up say 4 more times (opponent has a pocket pair each time). each time you call it's "correct," but mathematically, YOU WILL LOSE one of the 5 hands. if each time someone has you covered in chips, you will get knocked out of the tourney because that bad beat WILL happen. so do you fold AA?! of course not. but will you get knocked out after this happens 4 more times? YES! mathematically , you will lose. so then i can hear sone of you, reading this, saying, "Why is this guy even playing poker if he's suggesting folding AA? What a donkey!" and that's where i remind you that i play ring games, not sng's. if this comes up in a ring game, you start with $100. you double up, and set that money aside, and just play with that $100. you double up and again, set that profit aside. so now you have $200 aside and you're just playing with $100. after 5 rounds of this situation, you will have won $400, and lost $100. there's no risk in ring games; the game is logical and can be won without any luck - which is my point

[king1305 0]

There's obv no luck in poker.

[sennin 0]

im still confusedi'll stop trying to understand

[mase_gotsem 0]

in sng and tourny you dont call depending on odds u call depending on if u think your ahead or fold if u think your beat . odds apply when u have huge stack or very low and your gambling to knock ppl out or stay alive then u can go by odds but i know what u mean about the luck factor in sng where most of the time u try to get it all in 60 40 and it will only hold so many times

[finztotheleft 0]

If you take your "profit" off the table each time you double up, you are limiting how much you can double up the next time. You also can't just sit down again at the same table unless you bring back the whole amount. So you need to find a new table and get reads on a whole new group of players. You also lose the ability to bully the smaller stacks with your big stack.A solid sng strategy does not translate directly to cash game skills.A major plus of cash games is that you can earn points/clear bonuses/accrue rakeback quicker.

[profxavier9 0]

do i not know how to read,or did that not make any sense?

[chrozzo 19]

If you take your "profit" off the table each time you double up, you are limiting how much you can double up the next time. You also can't just sit down again at the same table unless you bring back the whole amount. So you need to find a new table and get reads on a whole new group of players. You also lose the ability to bully the smaller stacks with your big stack.A solid sng strategy does not translate directly to cash game skills.A major plus of cash games is that you can earn points/clear bonuses/accrue rakeback quicker.

[Cappy37 0]

A major plus of cash games is that you can earn points/clear bonuses/accrue rakeback quicker.

This statement is completely legitimate in low stakes, and completely false in micro limits.

[jburn812 0]

bump

[DoinSublime 0]

bump

The answer is no.

[yeffy 0]

Let's convolude this more. To make $100 in a live game you need to risk $100 (by this method of going south with every win). To win $100 in a SNG you need to risk $20. SO I think that's where this theory goes way south. But obv SNG strat and Cash strat are way different. And a solid sng player may not win at cash and vice versa. I have an excellent ROI in SNG's and never play NL cash.

[Weaver 0]

but let me give a situation that everyone can agree on, and is my best attempt to make my point: you have AA and someone puts you all in (in an mtt). it's indisputable. you have the best hand in that situation, and so calling is correct. but lets say you're always covered in this situation and this same situation comes up say 4 more times (opponent has a pocket pair each time). each time you call it's "correct," but mathematically, YOU WILL LOSE one of the 5 hands.

gambler's fallacy

[jmbreslin 0]

there's no risk in ring games; the game is logical and can be won without any luck - which is my point

So why doesn't everyone make a ton of money playing NL cash games? Of course luck plays a role in cash games, the difference is that the construct of tourney play encourages risk-taking and forces people into situations where they can get sucked out on or have to put all their chips in the middle on a coinflip. These situations are much rarer in cash games but you're still going to run into situations where you get unlucky and lose money.

[ObeyTheDog 0]

So why doesn't everyone make a ton of money playing NL cash games? Of course luck plays a role in cash games, the difference is that the construct of tourney play encourages risk-taking and forces people into situations where they can get sucked out on or have to put all their chips in the middle on a coinflip. These situations are much rarer in cash games but you're still going to run into situations where you get unlucky and lose money.

And to take it one step further, getting really unlucky in a cash game will often lose you your entire buy-in or more. If you buy-in for $100 or even work it up to $300 and are covered and get in a big pot where you get unlucky like a set v. nut flush draw. You lose $100 or $300 or your whole roll if you have bad bankroll mgt skills. $500 is more than enough to play $10 SNG's...but is it really enough to be playing $1/$2 NL? Nope. .50/$1.00. Yeah, but he's still risking 1/5th his bankroll every time he plays, not very smart in the long run. Where as a $10 SNG is 1/50th.Getting unlucky in the variance of a SNG, you lose your buy-in, often very small in the grand scheme of a successful SNG player who is in it for the long haul.Your argument is full of holes, but I see what you're TRYING to say. It has some merit, but leaving out vital variables like how well does the SNG strategist's play translate into learning how to beat cash games (answer: Not very well) hurts your argument. These are two entirely different animals, requiring very different approaches, and both can be learned to be beaten successfully with high ROI. Some players natural poker abilities and tendencies (i.e., the aggressive willingness to gamble, fearless, mathematical bubble situations) will allow them to naturally be better SNG players without having to adapt or change their style to the nature of a slow/grind cash game. This is why there are different games/formats out there, and it's up to YOU/HIM to figure out what's best for him, what gives him the most enjoyment for his ROI.

[Potsie P 0]

Let's convolude this more. To make $100 in a live game you need to risk $100 (by this method of going south with every win). To win $100 in a SNG you need to risk $20. SO I think that's where this theory goes way south. But obv SNG strat and Cash strat are way different. And a solid sng player may not win at cash and vice versa. I have an excellent ROI in SNG's and never play NL cash.

I'm with yeffy on this one. Very good ROI in SNGs, never play NL cash and rarely play Limit cash. But honestly, I've gotten better at SNGs because I play them more, and I play them more because:1) I like finite buy-ins, because they help me practice good BR management--lose or win (when it's over, you HAVE to walk away...lol).2) I like the competitive nature and the quantifiable, concrete results of SNGs, because I am a total stat nerd and love rankings/standings/etc.3) I can't handle the grind of cash games, because I've had ADD since before it even had a name.

[jmbreslin 0]

And to take it one step further, getting really unlucky in a cash game will often lose you your entire buy-in or more. If you buy-in for $100 or even work it up to $300 and are covered and get in a big pot where you get unlucky like a set v. nut flush draw. You lose $100 or $300 or your whole roll if you have bad bankroll mgt skills.

True, however in cash games it is much easier to control your potential loss because you never have to go all-in in a cash game. If you're patient enough, you could be content to win smaller pots and fold every time you face an all-in (or just a very large bet) situation without the nuts and still be a winning player in the long run. Tourney play forces you to commit all your chips at least once (and often several times) in a session.

[Jeepster80125 0]

im still confusedi'll stop trying to understand