Sit and Go Strategy Discussion?

[Bentheman87]

I think it's best to always play for first place. If I'm on the bubble and I know if I call a players all in and it will be a coinflip, I will still call, you have to get in there and gamble. It's much better to bust out on the bubble two or three games in a row but get first place in one of four games than to always place third. I always take risks in the middle to late stages of a sit and go to try to get a big stack, because you can really bully all the small stacks.

Say there are only four players left and you are the big stack on the button. No one want to be the next one out, so they will all be playing conservatively. If the blinds are very big, I will go all in with any two cards and 90% of the time both the blinds will fold, you'd be amazed at how rarely you will be called.​

 

[skd1337]

It's much better to bust out on the bubble two or three games in a row but get first place in one of four games than to always place third.​

No it isn't.

If you play 4 x $10 SnG.

If you win 1 and lose 3 then your net gain is $1 =

4 x ($10+$1) = $44 payed out
1 x win ($45) = $45 Payed In

If you come 3rd in all 4 your net gain is $30

4 x ($10 + $1) = $44 Payed Out
4 x 3rd ($18) = $74 Payed In

Even if you only came 3rd in 3 your net gain is $12

4 x ($10 + $1) = $44 Payed Out
3 x 3rd ($18) = $56 Payed In

Now re-think your argument.

 

[skd1337]

I took this to mean single-table sngs.

i meant 9 handed SnG's

 

[ChuckTs]

It's tough to put in numbers like that since you won't be making 3rd all the time playing your style, nor will you be making 1st every time playing aggro on the bubble.

Put very generally:

If you play 10 $10 games with an ITM of %30 with only 1st place finishes, you'd make $150 ignoring the fee.

If you played the same number of games, but only made 3rd every time you cashed, you'd need to cash %80 of the time to make $160.

While winning %30 of your games is unsustainable, it's much more possible than cashing ITM %80.

I'm not doing very good with explaining why it's better to shoot for first...if you really want some good info, search some of the posts from players who have played in the tens of thousands of STTs on the larger sites (2+2, p5s etc) to see why it is better.

 

[pantin007]

100 sngs = total of 1100$
10 wins = total of 450$
20 2nd places=total of 540$
30 3rd places=total of 540$
40 no cashs=0$
total = 450$+540$+540$-1100$=430$ profit
this is the highest pssible profit for 100sngs at 10+1$ in my opinion

 

[skd1337]

It's tough to put in numbers like that since you won't be making 3rd all the time playing your style, nor will you be making 1st every time playing aggro on the bubble.

Put very generally:

If you play 10 $10 games with an ITM of %30 with only 1st place finishes, you'd make $150 ignoring the fee.

If you played the same number of games, but only made 3rd every time you cashed, you'd need to cash %80 of the time to make $160.

While winning %30 of your games is unsustainable, it's much more possible than cashing ITM %80.

Ok, I can see that side of the argument but if you play for first you have a big chance of going bust on the bubble, which means no profit at all. But if you eek in to third you lock up 20% and there is an extra 30% to play for.
I dont think this argument is particularly going to be solved because it comes down to play styles, situations and personal goals. I agree the big stack should be putting the pressure on, I just think in either 2nd 3rd or 4th trying to eek in is probably the greatest +EV play in the long run.

still need to read that ICM article though