Quote Originally Posted by jameseyb
Quoting Jiggus: With ring, on average, you spend an hour and will always make money.

Jesus, I wish! I have a losing habit when it comes to ring, something that SNGs just does not seem to be. Hell, my last two attempts at STTs ended with me hitting 3rd and 2nd, whilst my last couple of attemtps at ring were three hour sessions each on three tables and saw me down about half a buyin overall and down a buyin and a half overall!

There's something about SNGs that suits my style of play more, maybe it's the aggression in the later parts of the game, but I like the way that ring takes up my time in a more sustained way. SNGs are the equivilent of jumping off a cliff - All the excitement at once. Ring's like doing a long mountain bike ride... The excitement's still there, it's just spread out over a longer period.

J

I think what he meant was that ring is generally a lower variance game than sngs or mtts.

Theres a greater edge to exploit in ring because the stacks are deep. In sngs the skill edge dissipates as the blinds increase. By the time M's are <8, going all in with AQ become the best play, and its the play that everyone, even fish, know to make. Thats not to say that there isn't any skill involved in playing a short stack; quite contrary. However, the edge isn't as exploitable as M=75 ring games.