Learned something today...

[J_Verschueren]

As some of you might know (or not), my main online poker game are 6-handed, turbo, double-or-nothing sit&go's. Over my first 1k games (the equivalent of 70k hands) I posted an ROI of about 12%, so I figured I must be doing some things right, but, recently, results have been disappointing.
Ok, so I am running into a much stronger range of hands than could be expected short handed and, yes, I am being set up/coolered and people are hitting 5-outers on me like it's going out of style, but: for a downturn of results to be of this magnitude (17BI) and breath (200+ games), I must be doing some things wrong.

So, since Sit 'N Go Power Tools has folded and I can't use this software anymore, tonight I put some of my hands through the ICM/Nash calculator over at holdemresources.net and was amazed to find one of my "sit&go-assumptions" was wrong. Namely, I figured that the larger portion of one's stack the blinds and antes represented, the more justified one was to take a risk in order to pick them up. In particular, I thought "any two"-ships from the button or SB as the shorty on the bubble would be profitable if the blinds and antes represented between 1/3rd and half of my remaining stack. Not so, apparently. On two seperate occasions, I shipped any two from the button w/ < 10BBs (and I do mean "any two": 52o and 73o) where my actual shipping ranges, according to the calculator, were 24% and 26%... whoops!!!

Obviously, villain doesn't know this and I hardly play any hands through the early stages. So one would think one's ships would get some credit, but, at this site, most people seem to use a special version of the client software, where it takes navigating through 20 menus and doing a handstand to find the "Fold" option, so I have to make sure "profitable" shipping spots are actually profitable.

Lesson learned, no more assuming and making a habit of (manually) putting hands through a calculator to get a better feel for situations.

[J_Verschueren]

And I learned something else today: it's madness trying to go throught 700+ hands worth of DoN sit&go's manually, trying to find spots which are close from an ICM point of view. I need to get tracking software.

[Tim]

Out of interest.... why do you like DoN SNGs? What is it about them that you enjoy? I just don't get the attraction.

[J_Verschueren]

Out of interest.... why do you like DoN SNGs? What is it about them that you enjoy? I just don't get the attraction.

Tough one to answer correctly. The easy thing to say would be that I don't like them any more or less than any other sit&go format and that they're just the game I'm playing because of how the buy-ins are spread out(1) and the games are populated over on Everest. But, while it is the only decently populated STT game in the "up to $1"-range there, that wouldn't do them justice, because I really do like these 6-max Turbo DoNs on Everest.

It's difficult to explain. I like the fact they're a "fish" trap, clueless players and the Sammy Farha wannabees get eaten up alive in these. Even accomplished sit&go players can get chopped up if they don't adjust and stick to their "the big payouts are at the top"-strategy.
I like the fact the blind structure is deceptive, giving a false sense of urgency as the blinds go up (took me only 400 games to figure that one out, doh!! ). I like the fact I'm forced to make plays and folds which go against my nature.
In general, I mean: they're fairly brief (30-40 mins), they're usually pretty fun to play and they start like every 2 minutes or so, so I can easily 4-table them. What's not to like? -the only downside I can see is that it's harder to maintain a double digit ROI in these than in an equivalent, more top heavy pay-out structure, but, as fishy as the players are on Everest, that shouldn't be a problem, provided I find and plug my own leaks.

On the whole, there are some aspects I enjoy and others don't particularly enjoy to every poker game I play, but, by design or the fact I'm just pretty easy going as a person in general, with the exception of triple draw and crazy pineapple, I haven't played a poker game which turned me off completely.

(1): why is that? -why doesn't a particular game, let's say 45-man turbo sit&go's, run at a logical progression of buy-in levels? -even on Pokerstars this is not the case. Why isn't it, e.g., 1-2-5 all the way from a $0,10- buy-in (plus rake) to $0,20-, $0,50-, $1,- and so on to $500,-? Why are these unexplicable gaps there?

[Tim]

It's difficult to explain. I like the fact they're a "fish" trap, clueless players and the Sammy Farha wannabees get eaten up alive in these. Even accomplished sit&go players can get chopped up if they don't adjust and stick to their "the big payouts are at the top"-strategy.

If these are games with a buy-in of "up to $1" then I'd expect the same standard you'd find in a regular SNG. I mean, there aren't many accomplished SNG players to be found at such stakes, surely?

I just don't understand the appeal of DONs. The appeal of tournament poker in general is the thrill of winning, the competition, the glory, not to mention the lure of a big payout (if a MTT). Just finishing in the top half and doubling your money just doesn't seem very exciting. If you're going to grind then why not play satellites instead?

[J_Verschueren]

If these are games with a buy-in of "up to $1" then I'd expect the same standard you'd find in a regular SNG. I mean, there aren't many accomplished SNG players to be found at such stakes, surely?

I regularly Sharkscope players who have positive ROIs @ higher buy-in levels, but are -10% or more at the $0,55 DoNs. Remember Everest is a small site, there isn't a lot of action at the higher buy-ins, so I guess these players use these to kill time or "flesh out" a set of games. Some of them do make effective, dangerous opponents because they go after the chips instead of (as intended) survival. Obviously good regs are scarce, but there are few who are just as good or better than me. And, when there's only 12 games going, you do tend to meet them quite often.

I just don't understand the appeal of DONs. The appeal of tournament poker in general is the thrill of winning, the competition, the glory, not to mention the lure of a big payout (if a MTT). Just finishing in the top half and doubling your money just doesn't seem very exciting. If you're going to grind then why not play satellites instead?

It's more about the schadenfreude of watching your opponents make big mistakes, than the thrill of winning, that's for sure. Like I said, different formats have different plus points.

Play satellites for like the Sunday Million and sell the tournament$ you mean? -I haven't looked into that.

[Tim]

Play satellites for like the Sunday Million and sell the tournament$ you mean? -I haven't looked into that.

Well, not just the Sunday Million. There are loads of satellites and I'm just guessing that this might be something you'd enjoy.

I'm not really a fan of Everest Poker - what with their crappy software and low player volume. Granted, I've not played there for a couple of years so things might be different now. But one thing I do remember they used to be good at was satellites to live events. I'm not sure if this is still the case, but perhaps it's worth investigating.

[J_Verschueren]

To further this a little: while reviewing hands I've noticed something. The range of hands certain positions and stacksizes can call ships with, are pretty much the hands most players will instinctively call with, so unlike 10-handed DoNs, its harder to create an edge in this respect.
People still don't ship often and wide enough, but, then again, neither do I, because, it's a DoN: you don't want to be the one taking most of the risks on the bubble.

In other words, while most of the players who play these regularly(*) play really bad poker, this doesn't nescessarily mean I'm going to make a lot of money off them in this format, because of the chipEv/$Ev disparity.

Right, so two more changes: first, shipping more often in spots where my stack is still somewhat comfortable and I would previously just fold the bottom half of my range, just because I could and I felt it wasn't my sole responsibility to keep shorty short. Second, more dilligent table selection (as far as Everest's laggy lobby allows), so I don't end up having to rely on small mathematical edges. We'll see how things progress over the next couple hundred games.

All this to consistently win at $0,55- SNGs?? -sheesh!!

(*) Rem.: I like to reserve the term "regulars" for people who actually somewhat know what they're doing.