Cash Tables or Sit n Go's?

Question

Which do you prefer more and why?

Answer 1

I prefer S'n'G's.  I usually play single table games, where 33% of the players get paid (1-3 on a 9 person table).  This means I only have to outlast 6 players to make a profit.  Online, where bluffs are almost comically overused, tight play will place you in the money a good majority of the time.  I track my play, and at low limit ($5) games I finish in the money 72% of the time.  And that's a profit.  By comparison my cash game success is substantially lower.  If you play limit then you have to take into account the chasers who will call a raised pot and then keep the bet at a minimum level until they hit.  Nothing's worse than raising with aces and getting 5 callers!  No limit cash games are just madness, with everybody trying to play like they see on "High Stakes Poker".  I'm a naturally tight player, so the single table S'n'G's are a good return on investment for a game well suited to my personality.

Answer 2

Well, if I have my ruthers, I love to play stud 8ob in a ring game, then PLO in a ring game, then omaha 8ob in a ring game or a mixed game such as horse, or hose.  Only then does holdem come into play.  If it is nlhe, I prefer playing cash as opposed to sit n gos, simply because you aren't forced to play as loose.  Unfortunately, finding games other than nlhe as ring games is getting harder and harder everyday.  In the card rooms where I play, the list is long as my leg to get into a non-holdem ring game if I am not there early or when the MTT of the day is called.  There is more opportunity to play creative in ring games, and quiet frankly, the money is better.

Answer 3

It all depends on the venue, but overall, I prefer cash games.

In a homegame situation, cash games allow the game to start once you have a minimum amount of players instead of waiting for everyone to arrive. Since you can rebuy into a cash game, it also eliminates waiting around for the second tourney if you bust quick.

In a casino, the SNG structures are usually very fast and have very little play in them. You can lose the entire buy-in in no time, since you'll inevitably have to push with any two cards if you don't get lucky early.

Online, I prefer SNGs, because it caps losses and the SNGs start often enough so that waiting is not an issue.

Strategically, I prefer SNGs, since there is a definite winner at the end. But when it comes to convenience, I'm all about the cash games.

Answer 4

Depends on how much time I have - if I have a lot of time to commit, I like multi table sit-n-go's, but if I have say an hour, I might play cash ring games or turbo heads up sit-n-go.

Answer 5

From my experience, I have two thoughts:

1. Some people's personalities are better suited to one or the other. If you have success in one, that doesn't necessarily mean success in the other...usually, the opposite will occur. So, if do have success in one, there's no real reason to go to the other.

2. Sng's are much safer. You know exactly how much you are getting in for, and how much you will lose if you get eliminated. On the flip side, you can win more faster in ring games, but you can also get busted faster.

So, in summary: you can make more faster in ring games, but the risk is too high. Sng's are safer, but very slow.

Answer 6

Cash tables are more stable with much less variance; however, online I stick exclusive to sit n go's and multitable tourneys, swings are just too fierce with cash games online, and the potential for collusion is just way too high.

Answer 7

i prefer tourney style (or sit and go) just because I usually play with a group of friends and we like to find out who wins, not who knows when to quit!