pretty sure higher variance compared to cash-games is something experienced by most of players who have played both..
kinda illustrated by why you need 50-100 buy-ins for sngs and 20-30 buy-ins for cash...
Notifications
Clear all
Sit and Go Tournaments
24
Posts
8
Users
0
Reactions
4,682
Views
Originally posted by roshe40
This greater variance you experience in SNGs as opposed to cash games must have something to do with you possessing well above average postflop skills. This would give you a greater opportunity to exploit cash games for profit as opposed to SNGs.Since SNGs have a constant stucture that precludes the variables that are involved in cash game play (players coming and going, table pace changing suddenly), they are theoretically by nature less variant a game type than cash games. So less variance in the structure of the SNG game should naturally lead to less variance in bankroll swings. Your experience would appear to be an exception to this.
When talking about variance, the cards are enough definition. I don't think differing players make that much difference. I do understand where you're coming from though.
My thoughts are along the same lines as chennys. And I would guess that the extra variance in sngs/mtt comes from the fact that the blinds are rising constantly, inducing a push or fold mode for the player at least at some point. In a cash game, a big stack has 100 BBs all the time, his actions are therefore much more coherent and much less pressured imo. And I think this is the reason for the apparent less swingyness in cash games.
I am not sure where you read or heard that you need 50 - 100 for SNGs and only 20 - 30 buyins for cash. I have read the exact opposite in mulitiple books I have on each game type. For SNGs, 50 buyins max is considered the standard, and 100 buyin min as the standard for cash games.
I am interested to hear in greater detail the reason(s) why more experienced and skilled players such as I would have such contrasting views on this subject as compared to the books I have read about it. Reading anything in a book certainly does not make it a fact by any means, but it seems to be a consistent opinion held by several authours.