SNG - Play for first, or play to place?

[TylerK]

In the past couple of weeks I've found that I've started to win consistently at ring games again, but unfortunately my success in SNG tournaments has gone WAY downhill. One aspect of my play that I've been questioning is that I don't play to finish in the money. If I get down to the final 4 or 5, I find that I play the same with an average stack as I would with a short stack. My thoughts on this are that when play gets to heads-up, generally if one player has a significantly larger stack, he is MUCH more likely to win, and that's the position I want to be in, even if I have to sacrifice a potential 3rd or 2nd place finish.

An example of this is playing on PS last night, I went out in 5th place with JJ vs AQ when I had the 3rd-largest stack. I raised about half my stack UTG, and the big stack raised me all-in. In a ring game, I would have folded without question, but in this case, folding would have reduced my stack enough to put me in a pretty desperate "push or fold" situation.

My question is this: over time, is it more profitable to be willing to go out in 5th if it puts you in a better postion to take 1st, or is it more profitable to hang on and try to scrape by into 3rd, even if it means that 1st will be close to unattainable?

[Humphrind]

My question is this: over time, is it more profitable to be willing to go out in 5th if it puts you in a better postion to take 1st, or is it more profitable to hang on and try to scrape by into 3rd, even if it means that 1st will be close to unattainable?

I don't think it's a profit question. I think it's an opinion question.

Ripptyde and I are are different in that point right there.

Rippy says he wants to get 1st. And he's willing to sacrafice being out of the money, to put himself in a position to making 1st.

I say that I want to get ITM. If I can do that, I will be profitable.

It's all a matter of what you want. There are probably numbers to support both sides.

[BoondockSaint]

In 1 tables I go for the money. 2 tables I go for 4th or better cause 5th you actually lose the rake and you make 3x just going from 5th to 4th. So if I think I'm gonna make 5th then be so short stacked and get screwed I will make some moves instead of camping for the money.

[Krapp]

I have mixed feelings on this... I just had a great month playing a bit more aggressively (45% itm, 33% 1st if ITM) but the current week isnt doing well... JJ vs AQ and 3rd chiplead? Depends on the blinds... If the current pot is 10% or less, I would prefer to min-raise (2x-2.5x). If the pot is more, I would push all-in. Also depends on the other number of opps left.

From my experience, if you can manage top-3 and arent terribly short-stacked, you chances at 1st are the same as someone who got their aggressively. Again depends on your stack, blinds, opp play style, etc. One note on finishing 3rd. Assuming your ITM 50% (which is very hard or impossible long-term) and you average 3rd place, you have negative ROI. 3rd place finishes will not win you money however will stop you from losing money and is bascially a free ticket to the next SnG...

[DrNoChance]

It always depends on the situation for me. I never sit on a big stack to try to slide into the money...I play for first even though it might mean that my previously big stack bubbles out. However, there are times when I am short stacked where I feel it is greater EV to try to just limp into the money since doubling up might not give me that much greater of a chance to win.

So, overall I play for 1st but there are times I'll settle for just placing.

[HeavyP]

It depends how my bankroll is doing, if I have 10x the buy in, then I want to place ITM. If I have 15x the buy in, then I want to take first, I'm more willing to take risks.

[elanto]

IMO I always want to finish ITM, i am willing to play more conservitively if i have the 3rd largest stack with two to go, just to finish ITM. Later on if i get lucky ill hopefully double up on the chip leader to put myself into a better position to win it all.


-anto

[Manomanman]

I think it depends on the table. If you don't feel like you could get first place (i.e. there's a phenomenal player at the table who you just can't seem to get the better of) then taking a few short-term risks may or may not help you. 1) If the good player recognizes that you are all weak and waiting to get ITM, then he will simply demolish the table anyway and if you have a smaller stack, it's not going to do you any good waiting because the bigger small stacks can wait you out. However, if you put up a fight and rekindle your stack, then you just might put yourself back in the running and guarantee yourself a second-place finish. 2) If all the players are weak, then play the role of super-poker dude from example 1.

Most of the time, making a marginal play when there are 5 players left and the blinds are low is a mistake unless you need those chips to put another player at bay. If you know that your table is going to burn itself away and you're going to get heads up, then just camp. However, if the table is going to "rock up" then it's better to burn out than fade away.

Also, you need to polish up on your heads-up skills.

I go for the money, period. Any return from a SnG for me is good enough. It's amazing how many times I bubble out but that's just unlucky, see my Latest SnG Results, every one of them I am going for 3rd in. And I always come close. Whereas, if you go for first you will be getting some 7ths and 8ths etc. It is a very risky business going for 1st, much more so than merely going for 3rd.

[melinda27]

i always play for first. I'd rather take a few risks and leave early so i can start again than hang around for an hour only to take 3rd and very little return on my time.

[DavSimon]

My attitude is a little different. If I am at 5 out of 5 ITM for my last five SnG's - I always play more aggressively shooting for first. If I am 0-5 or 1-5 ITM I will play more conservatively to just get one under the belt - then play the next one more agressively. I suppose it is about setting up confidence and a good mental attitude. There really is no one correct way to view it, play the way you feel comfortable and you will acheive your goal (which is incidentally the same as all of our) To be a winning player.

[zilch]

I play for 1st because I find it helps to put me in the right frame of mind for the latter stages. I'm naturally not an agressive player, so gunning for 1st helps me to step up the gears in the latter stages of a SnG.

[dalecooper]

I switch gears. Basically I start off playing as if to get in the money (ultra-tight), and when I'm just out of the money (for example, in our local tourneys only top two get cash, so I'm talking about maybe four or five people remaining) I ramp up my aggression significantly. I particularly look for opportunities to bully the players I know are being more conservative to get to the money, and I'll raise anybody with any decent hand unless I know the player to be very aggressive also. The point is, I feel like players tighten up at a certain point in the game where a few bad moves could make the difference between profitability or losing your buy-in. I want to exploit those players during that window of opportunity. More often than not, I'll knock one or two of them out just by consistently stealing their blinds and their weak bets, and I'll make myself healthier for the stretch run.

It helps if you can kick off a run like this with a couple of good hands. You want to intimidate if you're going to kick into this gear. So if you pre-flop raise with kings or aces and everyone folds, show 'em. If you hit a monster right at the start, try to keep at least one player in the hand so you can show it down and give that impression of luck turning your way. Even if it's a false impression, you need to cultivate it for as long as possible to make players fold those mediocre hands they've got.

[ShadySully]

My thoughts on this are that when play gets to heads-up, generally if one player has a significantly larger stack, he is MUCH more likely to win, and that's the position I want to be in, even if I have to sacrifice a potential 3rd or 2nd place finish.

I play to make it into the money everytime. First place is nice but its an ego thing. If I can consistently make it ITM then those 1st places will come eventually. Playing this way many times I find myself shortstacked when it gets to heads up. I disagree that the larger stack is MUCH more likely to win in this situation.

The common thought that when shortstacked you have to make a stand is exactly the reason why I manage to make it to the money so often. I'll be sitting there with a shortstack and watch all the other guys who think "they" are shortstacked make their stands. They get busted and many times I'll scrape into the money with hardly any chips. Hahahahahahahahahaha

[drmcboy]

if one player has a significantly larger stack, he is MUCH more likely to win

Don't agree here unless the chip lead is something crazy - I've come back and had people come back on me with 5 to 1, even 10 to 1 leads. As long as you have a few chips one double up will give you enough chips to scare the CL with an AI, and two double ups will usually even things up.

I think it's a bad idea to plan on doing one or the other. If you have the cards to get aggresive with 4-5 left, go for it. If everyone else is folding, go for it. If not, why would you challenge with bad cards because your 'strategy' is to finish first?