Turbo SNGs at stars.
I am loving these! I've played four and I have three 1sts and one 8th. I think the strongest part of my game is my decision making when the blinds are high, and I've basically coasted to victory all three times. (Didn't have to sweat it out like I do in my regular sngs.)
The 8th place finish I had KK in EP, limped, was called by MP and a fairly big raise from the guy in LP. I decided to push all-in at that moment rather than let them see the flop... and to my suprise they both called. It was KK vs AK vs JTs. An A hit on the turn to cripple me, but even worse JTs made his flush on the river and eliminated both premium hands!
Also, in my last sng I was playing very tight. I think I played 4 pots and won 3 of them.. it was enough to sit me in first when we were down to 4 players. At that point I'd become the aggressor stealing blinds, although occasionally giving them up and folding the SB. My stack almost doubled and people were starting to get sick of me as the blinds were climbing and the other 3 were losing their stacks.... then *IT* happens. I get AA, put out my standard stealing raise, get re-raised all-in, call and win the pot. THE VERY NEXT HAND I get AA again, this time I'm raised all-in, and I quickly call, and again it holds up. The very next hand I get AK! Unfortunatley nothing flops and I have to fold to a big bet. At that point we were HU and I had 10k vs 2k.
AA, AA, AK. What are the odds of that?
Anyways, these games are really soft and seem to be mostly played by impatient people. I highly recommend them. Also the blind structure is decent. You have more than enough time to make some moves.
The 8th place finish I had KK in EP, limped, was called by MP and a fairly big raise from the guy in LP. I decided to push all-in at that moment rather than let them see the flop... and to my suprise they both called. It was KK vs AK vs JTs. An A hit on the turn to cripple me, but even worse JTs made his flush on the river and eliminated both premium hands!
Also, in my last sng I was playing very tight. I think I played 4 pots and won 3 of them.. it was enough to sit me in first when we were down to 4 players. At that point I'd become the aggressor stealing blinds, although occasionally giving them up and folding the SB. My stack almost doubled and people were starting to get sick of me as the blinds were climbing and the other 3 were losing their stacks.... then *IT* happens. I get AA, put out my standard stealing raise, get re-raised all-in, call and win the pot. THE VERY NEXT HAND I get AA again, this time I'm raised all-in, and I quickly call, and again it holds up. The very next hand I get AK! Unfortunatley nothing flops and I have to fold to a big bet. At that point we were HU and I had 10k vs 2k.
AA, AA, AK. What are the odds of that?
Anyways, these games are really soft and seem to be mostly played by impatient people. I highly recommend them. Also the blind structure is decent. You have more than enough time to make some moves.
Comments
What buyin were they anyways?
EDIT: I've played at least a thousand sng's. I realize that finishing ITM 60-65% is a good number and that four or five tourmanets is only a spec in the big picture. BUT, it's the feel of these games. I have yet to be tested. I'm not a even a great player. I just play fundamental poker and these people are horrible. I highly recommend trying it. Anyone on this board will fair well if you are experienced at blind stealing/the latter part of tournies.
PS: I hate partys blind structure. 800 chips doesnt give you enough to work with, and one bad hand/missed flop can cripple you. I didn't do well at all there. I own poker office but even that isnt enough to keep there. (for the sngs anyways.)
What does that mean, really? When the blinds are high, you really only have two decisions. All-in or fold..
Was there no preflop raising or something? Seems like you'd have everyone left at the table well covered from the previous hand that you'd have the proper odds to call someones smaller all-in on the flop..
I'd figure you'd have about half the time that a regular SnG would provide..
Anyway, Congrats on the success but from my personal experience I've found that the quicker the blind structure the more luck that gets involved and the more difficult it is to be a consistent winner. I mean, just reading your post and it seems like the deck was running you over.. Beware of sweet lady variance, she's a cruel mistress..
Once the losing streak starts you will lose your mind, and likely your bankroll.
Make sure you can afford a good losing skid for when it comes.
I'm talking about 200/400 blinds when your stack is 2.5k. Situations like that. It is definatey not all-in or fold.
As for question two, we were HU at that time. You should re-read the situation. I had AK and nothing flopped for me. I had A high. I had 10k, he had 2k. He bet 75% of his stack on the flop. I didn't want to double him up and put him back into it. Only the blinds were in the pot at that time.
ScottyZ
Am I that out to lunch? Feel free to tell me.... but that situation sure seems to me like an all-in preflop or fold.. Any hand that gets played is most likely going to end with someone moving all-in or worse, you limping and someone reraising you all-in..
The blind structure of a pokerstars SNG actually works out much slower than the regular sng at partypoker or the prima network
chugs
None the less, nice run.
?
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).
One of the primary reasons I don't play SNG tournaments at those sites.
Cross-site comparisons aren't really the issue here. Both Turbo and regular SNG's are available at PokerStars, so I would assume that if you're willing to play a Stars Turbo SNG, you would be able to just as easily play a Stars regular SNG.
ScottyZ
I don't know what your problem is with me, nor do i care. Play these sng's or don't. I was just posting my opinion on it and some people may give them a try and like them as much as I do.
Yes, I got hit with the deck in one of the games too. I shouldn't of mentioned it, but I thought It was interesting. That game in particular didn't influence my overall opinion of the softness of these sngs...
The vig is less, so that will increase your ROI (over the usual structure and buy-in) even if you do not get better results, and possibly even if you get worse results. This may not offset the edge taken away by the structure change, but at low stakes like 15+1, I think it does.
Your hourly rate will be higher, because each tourney takes about half as long to play. Even if you make less per tourney on average, you can make a lot more at low stakes turbo sngs.
Regards
Brad S
You cannot expect to make greater than 50% ITM in the long run at these tourneys. The 9 player structure does make 50% possible but not much more than this. This is true even for the best players in the world.
With 200/400 blinds and a 2.5K stack, you are in all-in or fold territory. A standard 3BB opener is about half of your stack already and if re-raised, you are pretty much pot committed at this point, especially in a turbo where you cannot always put your opponent on a big pair. Two possible exceptions to this are hands where you may want to try a stop and go move, or big pairs where you may want to try a limp-reraise.
Regards
Brad S
Boy, 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.
I'm glad to hear you're tired of it, hopefully now you will just stfu!
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
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.
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
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
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
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 Sit’N’Goes at Stars) at higher buy-ins. A winning player can more than handle themselves all the up to the $50 buy-in Sit’N’Goes. Your bottom line will increase as your buy-in increases and your variance will be much smoother than at the Turbos. Meaning you won’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 Sit’N’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. Sit’N’Goes. If you don’t believe me start at the $20 Sit’N’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.
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