Turbo SNGs at stars.

Chris

ScottyZ wrote?

The Turbo SNG's use the same blind levels, but the levels are half as long. That makes the blind structure a lot faster than the standard SNG's.

Your oppoents may very well play Turbo SNG's poorly, but a good player's edge is greatly cut down by the quicker blind structure. Of course, it's a trade-off, but my instincts suggest that the good player can gain a better edge with more "play" per tournament (i.e. in the regular SNG's).
ScottyZ

I think a lot of good players will tell you that the first 3 blind levels are of almost no consequence to the overall outcome. Its the later stages that really matter. Poor players fail to adjust their game and good players will have a HUGE edge in these situations.

Chris

BBC Z wroteBoy, I'm really getting tired of this crap... If you can't handle someone disagreeing with your viewpoint on a forum, then maybe you should consider not creating the thread in the first place.. I have no issue with you and all I did was post 2 critiques (given the information you posted) and warned you about the variance swings that you'll see when play is taken out of a SnG environment.

Quite a few people disagreed with me, but you are the only one who has managed to piss me off...

I'm glad to hear you're tired of it, hopefully now you will just stfu!

BBC Z

Good luck.

ScottyZ

Chris wroteI think a lot of good players will tell you that the first 3 blind levels are of almost no consequence to the overall outcome. Its the later stages that really matter. Poor players fail to adjust their game and good players will have a HUGE edge in these situations.

I disagree with the first part. I have seen many opponents make *significant* mistakes in the very early stages (even rounds 1 and 2) of low-limit SNG's.

Also, if your premise is that opponents make a lot of mistakes in specific rounds, say rounds 4-6 for example, wouldn't you rather play at these levels for 10 minutes each rather than 5?

ScottyZ

sweetjimmi

Really I am not trying to add fuel to the fire but you are wrong in your thinking. Variance will comeback to get you period and â€œYESâ€ there will be more variance in the Turboâ€™s than in the regular Sitâ€™Nâ€™Goes. When you have half the amount of time to play your game (and sounds like the right game â€œTight Aggressiveâ€) you will more often then not run out of time. I speak from experience on the issue of Turboâ€™s as I too had a very lucrative run playing them. But like all good things it came to a long (many times out of the money) miserable end. Simply put though you have gotten very lucky to be able to make blind steals and catch good cards when you got down to 4 players but normally at this point is when you will have to start playing marginal hands and â€œHopeâ€ (see current Cardplayer Magazineâ€™s Article: â€œWhat are you hoping for?â€ http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/showarticle.php?a_id=14227 ) to steal or win instead of being able to put your in when you know you have the best of it.

Oh, not to pick but in a No-Limit Tourney when you have $2,500 in chips and big blind is $400 you will be all-in or fold end of story. Any other play will more often then not cripple you and leave you in an even worse position than you are already in.

Jamie.

P.S. I am not very good play either but you must face reality that when blinds become large in comparison to chip stacks at any level it becomes more luck oriented.

Chris

Good arguments. I guess I'm wrong. But so far I've played 11 of these and only twice I've felt "rushed." All the others I've had more than enough chips to work with and was able to play my game. When the cold streak hits I guess I'll go back to regular sng's. I was profitable there too, but these seem like faster, easier money... for now.

AleoMagus

I'll say it again...

Turbo sngs ARE more profitable to the winning player

this is true for the same reason that sngs with poor structures like on party are also more profitable...

and this is true for the same reason that multitabling limit poker when you are winner is more profitable even if your expectation per table is less.

you make more $ in an equal period of time.

This is not to say that you will make more on the average tourney. You probably will not because some of your edge is taken away by the poor structure. But you will not have your expectation cut in half. The time it takes to play will be cut in half though and this results in more $ per hour.

This is to say nothing of the fact that you are paying a smaller vig on your buy-in ($10+1 vs $15+1).

and then there are the extra fish...

Regards
Brad S

ScottyZ

But you will not have your expectation cut in half.

This, of course, is the key point we're discussing. If merely stating this as a fact is enough of an argument, okay then...

Your expectation will be at least cut in half.

;)

ScottyZ

AleoMagus

Is that what you guys are arguing about? See I never got that. But in fairness, I will elaborate on why I think your expectation will be at least half of what you could usually expect.

Maybe most compelling, there is just the evidence. Over a significant sample, Turbo SNGs do produce a very similar ROI. There will no doubt be naysayers with evidence to the contrary, but I highly suspect if you polled SNG players at large, you would find that similar expectation is the case. Given the fact that Many do not play Turbo SNGs at all, lets just compare Stars to Partypoker. Party has a structure that is even worse than the Turbos on stars (less chips and still fewer hands per level, especially as players are eliminated). ROI results are very similar. Again, I am just stating this as though it is fact but I have huge sample sizes to back this up (over 1500 on Party and over 300 on stars). More importantly, I also have the sample sizes of about 100 other good players to back this up. If this were not the case, the upper echelon of SNG players would not be directing so much of their time at Stars Turbos and Party SNGs. These guys play on both sites and are often in Multis on Stars but play the SNGs on Party. Why? The fish and the avaliability of games plays a part but so does the similarity of expectation. In conversation with some of these guys I repeatedly hear that results are almost as good on Party despite the structure differences. As I said, my results are to this effect also.

There is an adjustment that needs to be made and this accounts for the fact that some experience vastly different results. When discussing good players or even players whose approach is more suited to the turbo structure however, good results are possible. Typically 35%-50% is seen as an upper limit of possible ROI in sng play. You are suggesting that this would be reduced to 15%-25%. I would think that any seasoned Party player would dispute this claim as I know about a hundred who are getting 30%+

Maybe this is an unfair comparison (Party to Stars turbos) but if you think the stars Turbos are still worse yet than party I'll throw it back to you to tell me why. I think less chips and (usually) less hands per blind level still makes Party the worst structure of the three. Anyone who has played a decent amount of 15+1 will not be convinced that the fish are just that much bigger on Party to make up for this. The smaller vig will also contribute to a higher ROI (not much, but I'd still rather play a $10+.66 than a $10+1 which is essentially what the small stakes turbos are charging if you make the buys in's comensurate)

If you personally find that your expecation on Party or in Turbos is less than Half of what it usually is in a regular stars SNG, I would think you are not making proper adjustments or more likely, you are making too many.

Regards
Brad S

sweetjimmi

Okay...maybe I mislead you on my first post. Variance is what will kill players in the Turbos on Stars much like it kills players at Party. When blinds become a fifth of everyoneâ€™s stack size (which will happen in most Turbos once down to 4-5 players) the tourney becomes much more of a crapshoot than a skill game. Not only will you often to be forced to play less then optimally but so will your opponents. The later point here often causes your big hands to be busted at a higher frequency due to the randomness of what hands you and your opponents are playing.

That being said a winning player will win. My logic though is that if you can handle the large variance of faster moving blinds structures at lower limits why not play in the normal (regular Sitâ€™Nâ€™Goes at Stars) at higher buy-ins. A winning player can more than handle themselves all the up to the $50 buy-in Sitâ€™Nâ€™Goes. Your bottom line will increase as your buy-in increases and your variance will be much smoother than at the Turbos. Meaning you wonâ€™t need as many buy-ins to survive a bad run. I think that it would be quite possible to hit a bad run that would require your bankroll to be 50 or more buy-ins where as the bankroll required for the normal Sitâ€™Nâ€™Goes are quite comfortable in the 15 - 20 buy-in range (again at Stars).

One other fact to take into account is the effect that a long losing streak can do to you. I for one can attest to what it did to me. You start questioning every decision you make and/or made which eventually caused me and probably many others as well to make bad decisions.

The other point that has been brought is that you can make more money faster at the Turbos. Well, that leads to what I have been saying all along ... you can lose more money faster, a lot more money (variance).

My opinion, which is based on education and experience, is that if you can handle the swing at the $15 Turbos you will make more money in the $30 reg. Sitâ€™Nâ€™Goes. If you donâ€™t believe me start at the $20 Sitâ€™Nâ€™Goes. In both $20 and $30 levels the average level of play is still quite terrible.

Anyway take it as you wish it is only my opinion.

Jamie.

ScottyZ

Over a significant sample, Turbo SNGs do produce a very similar ROI.

I know about a hundred [Party SNG players] who are getting 30%+ [ROI]

ROI per tournament, or per hour?

If you actually are talking about per tournament, then the Turbo (and/or Party) tournaments on the surface, at least for the particular players you've sampled, seem to be very clearly better (unless you care about variance).

However, I think we need some evidence along the lines of players who specifically have played *both* Turbo and regular SNG's and have generated some long term results in each format.

I know this kind of data is hard to find, but I'm just still wondering about things like saying that certain specific players can make 30% per tournament in Turbos, whereas typical players can make 25%-50% per tournament at regular tournaments. (I'm not too sure about these numbers myself, I'm just going by what has already been suggested.) This could easily be spun the other way by saying you've observed lots of good players who make 50% on regular SNG's, but the typical return on Turbos is in the 15%-20% range. (I'm just making up numbers to illustrate the point... I'm *not* saying I have any idea about these numbers. I really don't.)

I guess what I'm really trying to get my head around is what the per tournament expected win would be for a *specific* 30% Turbo player if he/she tried regular SNG's instead. Would it still be 30%? More like 50%? Higher still?

ScottyZ

ScottyZ

Over a significant sample, Turbo SNGs do produce a very similar ROI.

I know about a hundred [Party SNG players] who are getting 30%+ [ROI]

ROI per tournament, or per hour?

If you actually are talking about per tournament, the Turbo tournaments seem to be *very* clearly better.

ScottyZ

« Previous Page