One Table Sng's vs. 2 or 3 tables?

[BreakfastMan]

I am wondering if anyone has opinions between 1, 2 or 3 table SnG’s. I play $10 SnG’s mostly to practice playing in tournaments. I am currently a cash game player, trying to increase my skills for MTT’s.

I usually have a choice between an 1 table $10 SnG and a 2 table SnG. I have been favoring 2 table ones lately for a few reasons:

I find my ITM% is about the same with two tables as it is with one. I know this must be a statistical anomaly due to a small sample size, but so far so good. So I win more for the same level investment.

I find it a more efficient use of time. I find 1 table usually takes 1 hour to finish, where 2 tables run just a bit over 1 ½ hours. That makes for a greater return per hour.

I also find that since I need to play through a slightly large field, I learn a bit more about MTT play, which is my overall goal.

Anyone with an opinion or preference please let me know what you think.

PS: I made this a poll since they seem to get more responses!

[r8ed]

If you can do it and make money, then go for two. I'm not good at playing multiple tables even in ring games. When you get down to 3 people though, it's fast and furious. That could cause problems.

I see why you want to do it. It sucks to play for an hour to win nothing.

[UG]

I don't think he means two SNGs at one time. I think he means do you play a one table (9 player) or a two table (18 player) SNG?

I myself play one table SNGs, but am thinking about trying a two table tonight.

[BreakfastMan]

Yes, I was talking about playing 10(9) person SnG vs a 20(18) person SnG. But playing more than one table at once in SnG's is another intresting question.

[UG]

I know one guy that playls two SNGs at a time. I don't think I'll ever try it, but the guy who does it says he usually always places ITM in one of them.

[ilikeaces86]

My buddy does 8 sngs at once!

[aokrongly]

I won't play 2 table SnG's. It doesn't feel like there's great value in it - based on nothing but my own pecularities. I would rather play 2 single tables. Of course that begs the question, why pay 2 entry fees???

Now you've got me thinking.

I did play 3 table 30/3 SnG's for a while and with decent success. As a training ground for MTT, I think they have value. They pay top 5 instead of just top 3, and the top 3 pays better - so they have value there. I agree that they don't take 3x longer to play, so there's value there as well. 90 minutes is about what I experienced, as opposed to a single table that runs 45-55 minutes.

Thanks for asking the question, I'm going to play more 3 table 30/3 SnG's now!!

[r8ed]

I don't think he means two SNGs at one time. I think he means do you play a one table (9 player) or a two table (18 player) SNG?

You are right. Me dumb.

8 at a time is insane. In reality, you don't need to read each player depending on your style. They are gone before you figure them out anyway.

[Aces]

Never had much luck w/2 or 3 table SNGs, so I'm sticking to the 1tables. I also haven't played too many MTTs, so that may be part of it. Also I usually only have short blocks of time, so 1-tables work better.

[Penneywize]

I prefer MTTs nowadays. I need to hone my skills at large-scale tournaments. At first I would play SnGs exclusively and I found a method that works for me; I'm able to place ITM 50% or more of the time with some real consistency.

I just find MTTs to be a much greater challenge. I make a lot less money this way, since the swings are way higher, but if I make a final table (and I have) I cash out big-time and am able to pay for tournament entry fees for quite a while.

[LeFou]

I consider 1-table SNGs a good training ground for NL hold 'em in general -- you play NL without jeopardizing a lot of yr bankroll at a session.

To train for MTTs, you should play real MTTs -- they go down to $1 buyin at stars. It's a whole different animal.

The only 2/3-table SNGs I've played are Gauntlets and a local home tourney, both of which I kicked ass on. But I'd have to do 100 more before I could say why.