When Did Cashing Become More Important Than Winning Sngs?

[MikeR 0]

Honest question from a sng donk. I remember maybe a year or more ago the poker forums were filled with a "aim for first place" theory in sngs, with the thought being a bunch of first and seconds would make up for bubbling out in the longrun. Does anyone else remember this? I swear I used to see this all over poker forums a year or two ago.But now all the advice seems to be to make the money 1st, and worry about the win after that. When did this become the popular theory and does everyone aggree with this?

[No_Neck 0]

I dunno the answer, but it did change at some point.

[mused01 0]

the thing is, both types of plays are both right and wrong. you should be playing towards equity and pushing any +EV you have. well at least in the high levels you should. i guess in the $20+'s you shouldn't play too much towards small edges as your skill should give you better edges, but at 109+ and up, eveyrone basically knows what they're doing, so skills level out and the one that pushes the most edges win. that is why it's always best to play with equity always in mind and not "playing for first" or "making money".

[Actuary 3]

blame Copernicus?but it should be best EV decisionWhere the V is $$$, not Tourney chips."play for first, not too cash"..makes more sense for MTT's.

[iggymcfly 0]

Shhhhhh. It's a secret. As long as it stays "common knowledge", that you're supposed to play for 3rd, the higher limit SnGs will stay a lot easier to beat. Obviously, it's a small sample size, but here's my $109 SnG results showing how the strategy can work if done properly.SnGs played: 591st place finishes: 122nd place finishes: 93rd place finishes: 5ROI: 50.83%Net $ won: $3,269

[poker1.com 0]

That's not true, you should go for 3rd place, in, the, sit'n go, tournament's.It's just that simple, you go for third, place, then when you get third placeyou can play for first and second place. IT's just that, simple, when there, are, lot's of player's at the table, you want to be shooting for first, place, gathering chips, but when it get's down to 5, to, 4 player's you want to be playing for 3'rd place, It's just that simple. That's all you need to know about, no-limit, sit'n go tournaments.That's all you need to know,Your's Truly,Jonathan Kerr

[poker1.com 0]

What is this EV, ****, I don't understand that, at all, could someone, explain this to me please, so, I, can, understand, what, it, is?

[poker1.com 0]

What do you mean, your, not, supposed, to, play, for, "money", What does, that, mean.Your, alway's playing to make the most "money", in the game.JJ Kerr

[oceansize 0]

Might have something to do with higher dollar entry SNG's becoming more and more popular, frequent, and found just about everywhere. SNG's typically were in the 5 to 20 dollar range before, now upwards of 200 even some places get a regular crowd doing the 1000. If you can just regularly place, (some paying out to four places) I can see it being a winning strategy.Especially if you stay out of money games, tourneys with over 40 players and essentially play every and all SNG's tight as hell for the first 4 or 5 increases. Still plenty of playes that like the big action of the higher enters and play like they are playing a freeroll.

[gkunit20 1]

EV=Expected Value. In sng, First actually pays the best unless it's like a 90 man sng, where 6 and above pay the best. While it is important to make the money, 3 and 2 don't pay very well.

[hblask 1]

EV=Expected Value. In sng, First actually pays the best unless it's like a 90 man sng, where 6 and above pay the best. While it is important to make the money, 3 and 2 don't pay very well.

Third doubles your money back (minus the fee). If I could double my entry fee every hour at the $30 level, that would be $60K per year if I work 40 hour weeks. In other words, if I thought playing conservative would get me third most of the time with an occasional 2nd or 1st thrown in, I would definitely use that strategy.To answer the OP question, I think that doing whichever of those the other people are NOT doing will pay off the best. If everyone is playing safely to get ITM, you can steal a lot of pots and improve your chance of winning. If everyone is betting wildly trying to steal every pot hoping to claim first, a conservative strategy of betting solid hands will lead to more success. So I would expect this "accepted practice" to change on a regular basis. Of course, the really successful people will be the ones who can change up on a table-by-table and even hand-by-hand basis. Isn't that always the "expert" advice: change it up, read the table, be smart. That will always be the first and last good poker advice, and is why people who have a knack for that kind of thing will always be able to make money, no matter how many people play poker.

[rog 0]

At the levels I play at (very low), it seems pretty easy to move up from third to 2nd or first, even with a chip deficit. I can see making the money, and moving up as a profitable strategy. I guess I just think that the more shorthanded the table gets, the better my chances. I do play to win, but I try not to push small edges on the bubble.

[EmOEmU 0]

In a normal sit and go 3rd place pays 20% of the prizepool, 2nd is 30% and 1st is 50%.So as soon as the bubble bursts and its down to the last 3 people 60% of the prizepool is released (20% each). When the next person goes out only 20% extra is released and then another 20% to the eventual winner.So it makes sense to hang on until the final 3 when most of the money is awarded and then gamble for first. Second place pays 10% more of the money than third but first place pays 20% more than second.Check out the full tilt pro articles and the very first one is written by Howard Lederer about this.

[iggymcfly 0]

That's really the wrong way to think about it though. You get 20% for 3rd, 10% more for 2nd, and then 20% more for first. So while you do want to play relatively tight if you're the second or third stack with four remaining, the jump from second to first is just as significant as the jump from fourth to third. That means that when there are five or six spots left, you need to be playing really aggressively so that you'll be the high stack that can steal liberally when there are four left without fear of being eliminated. This leads to a much higher ratio of first place finishes which leads to better results in the long run.

[mk 11]

Howard says: "The payout structure rewards tight play. Most SNG's pay 50% to first, 30% to second, and 20% to third. This payout structure dictates that you play for third. Why? Looking at the payout structure another way might help. Basically, the payout means that 60% gets awarded once you are down to three players, 20% gets awarded when you get down to two players, and the final 20% gets awarded to the winner. If you can just get to third, you get at least one-third of 60% of the prize pool, or 20%. You've locked up a profit, and you have a chance to win up to 30% more. It's only now that you're in the top three that your strategy should take an abrupt turn. Now it pays to gamble for the win. Let's look at the numbers again: 60% of the prize pool is off the table, and moving up one spot is worth only another 10%. But move up just one more spot and it's worth a whopping 30% extra -- that's three times more for first than it is for second. And with the blinds going up, gambling for the win is even more clearly the correct play." http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/proLessons.php?lesson=1

[iggymcfly 0]

Yeah, I've read that before and I know that Lederer says that, but it really doesn't mean anything. More people get third place, so of course it pays more in that regard. And if there were no strategy adjustments, then it would always be +EV to play for third. This applies in low-limit SnGs where most people don't know what they're doing anyway.However, if you're playing against smart players, then so many will be focused on cashing that you'll find yourself in lots of huge +chip EV situations just by being the big stack. This allows you to make the jump from third to first just as easy as the jump from sixth to third. Since the jump from third to first pays more, this is very valuable.Lederer's just talking about the very basic strategy that when you're on the bubble, you can't afford to take a coin-flip or even a 60/40 favored situation against a stack that has you covered. However, if you put yourself in a situation where you have everyone else covered, you can greatly increase your chances of getting first without risking losing third. That's why it's so important to be aggressive early on.

[SapphireTiger 0]

Yeah, I've read that before and I know that Lederer says that, but it really doesn't mean anything. More people get third place, so of course it pays more in that regard. And if there were no strategy adjustments, then it would always be +EV to play for third. This applies in low-limit SnGs where most people don't know what they're doing anyway.However, if you're playing against smart players, then so many will be focused on cashing that you'll find yourself in lots of huge +chip EV situations just by being the big stack. This allows you to make the jump from third to first just as easy as the jump from sixth to third. Since the jump from third to first pays more, this is very valuable.Lederer's just talking about the very basic strategy that when you're on the bubble, you can't afford to take a coin-flip or even a 60/40 favored situation against a stack that has you covered. However, if you put yourself in a situation where you have everyone else covered, you can greatly increase your chances of getting first without risking losing third. That's why it's so important to be aggressive early on.

we're not.

[Actuary 3]

More people get third place

How many 3rd's are awarded each tourney? ***********************************Equivalence:4 no cash1 1st= - 5 Fees3 no cash1 2nd1 3rd= - 5 FeesSo 1 1st is worth a 2nd and a 3rd.Now, which is easier to do?For me, there is so much luck involved that taking excess risk to get to be CL makes little sense, when I'll have to gamble anyways. No way you can play to get such a huge lead as to sew up first.I think it just makes more sense to play to cash and then switch gears.Although, when looknig at per hour rates.... risking bubble for 1st has an advantage there, assuming equal total payouts per tourney.Fro naturally aggressive players, I see the temptation.

[iggymcfly 0]

I think that in low-limit the cashing strategy's probably right which is probably why I never made any money playing low-limit SnGs. You're right, I am an aggressive player and I hate dicking around and waiting for people to get eliminated.When I'm playing my game in the higher limit SnGs though, I almost always bust out fairly early or get over half the chips in play before the bubble bursts.

[XXEddie 0]

Honest question from a sng donk. I remember maybe a year or more ago the poker forums were filled with a "aim for first place" theory in sngs, with the thought being a bunch of first and seconds would make up for bubbling out in the longrun. Does anyone else remember this? I swear I used to see this all over poker forums a year or two ago.But now all the advice seems to be to make the money 1st, and worry about the win after that. When did this become the popular theory and does everyone aggree with this?

So if it comes to it, I should just fold my way down to 1.5xBB trying to cash. Then I can concentrate on winning with my ultra short stackTP/MM

[Canada 0]

But now all the advice seems to be to make the money 1st, and worry about the win after that. When did this become the popular theory and does everyone aggree with this?

This may of had something to do with it

[psujohn 0]

So if it comes to it, I should just fold my way down to 1.5xBB trying to cash. Then I can concentrate on winning with my ultra short stackTP/MM

If you could guarantee 3rd by folding every hand you'd be a fool not to do it.While the optimal strategy varies from table to table - it's funny how different the character of a table can be even at the same site/same level - the play to cash strat is most often going to be best for at least low buyin SNGs.Look at a PP 10-man, 2K starting stacks. How much advantage does a big stack have in a 10K - 6K - 4K kind of chip distribution? If shortie doubles through the chip leader just ONCE he's the new chip leader.

[reedmcneal 0]

To answer the OP question, I think that doing whichever of those the other people are NOT doing will pay off the best. If everyone is playing safely to get ITM, you can steal a lot of pots and improve your chance of winning. If everyone is betting wildly trying to steal every pot hoping to claim first, a conservative strategy of betting solid hands will lead to more success. So I would expect this "accepted practice" to change on a regular basis. Of course, the really successful people will be the ones who can change up on a table-by-table and even hand-by-hand basis. Isn't that always the "expert" advice: change it up, read the table, be smart. That will always be the first and last good poker advice, and is why people who have a knack for that kind of thing will always be able to make money, no matter how many people play poker.

I like this best.