Zynga Poker: How to Stop a Bad Streak on SitnGo

[Sunny_DBoya]

Sponsored Links

I was on a roll for a few weeks in SitnGo tournaments and raised my tournament win% from 9% to 21%, and my percentage in the top 3 was even higher, probably above 50%. But lately, I don't know why, but I consistently finish 4th-6th and haven't placed in the top 3 in forever, pushing my win % down to 16%, and losing all of my chips. Can anyone explain what is going on? I don't feel like I am playing any differently; any tips for helping to stop a long SitnGo skid?

[Nimos]

Well, I had a pretty good reply typed out for you here, but I lost it thanks to my browser randomly refreshing the page. Now, you'll get the crappy version instead. Sitngos are rather high variance. One bad beat or one lost pot can cripple you or bust you altogether. (Note that even at the smallest blind level, you only start out with 50 blinds which is about half the typical buy in amount for your average cash game.) You've had a hot streak and now a cold streak and to be honest that's pretty normal. I recently just snapped a 13 or 14 game win streaks on these things and it may be 13 or 14 games before I ever win another. As blinds start to get high it's the luckiest players that usually prevail. If you're frequently busting out early though, it's more than luck that's responsible. Also, these games, particularly here, can be much easier/harder than other games at the same stakes depending on who happens to sit in with you. So this time I'm going to spare you the tactics and strategies for increasing your ROI... lest I lose everything I type again. My only tip will be not to trust anything said on the Zynga forums here in regard to strategy. These are plenty of solid SNG strategy out there on the web for those who are willing to hunt it out and separate it from the bad advice. Keep in mind you can't play these as you would play a typical ring game. The differences in strategy are critical. For those who at all care about the win percentage in their profile, it seems that simply placing in the money is good enough for a win as far as this state is concerned. I confirmed this just yesterday when I watched my percentage drop one point after busting in 4th or 5th. I played another one after this update, ended up 2nd (to a horrible player no less but that's sitngos for you), and saw the percentage rise to where it was before.

[Jung]

Yeah I was wondering that too if you have to get 1st in order to increase your win%. About luck playing a big part when the blinds get bigger, I usually get 1st if I get to the final 3, so I wouldn't put it all on luck when the blinds get bigger. I believe in SitnGo there is a huge skill factor, much more so than in normal ring games. That is why I've seen win% range from 4% to 26%. When I was sitting at 9% I changed my strategy significantly and saw a huge difference in results, rising to 21%. Basically, I use what I call "Check & Counter" at the beginning, where I only play strong hands and minimize bleeding of chips. I don't initiate any bets, and if I know I have the best hand, I will re-raise, but never initiate. I'll also never go all in unless I know I have the best hand. This strategy also lets me stay in the game long enough to get a decent read on opponents at the table. As players start to get eliminated, I transition either to table control or continued Check & Counter. If it comes down to the final 2, I have found that most Zynga players don't have a good grasp on head to head poker, so I can usually roll over them even if I'm down 8000 to 1000. Why I was losing: Bleeding too many chips by playing too many hands, betting on straight/flush draws too early in the game, trying to take table control too early.

[VazV]

There is a substantial skill factor to playing sitngos. It is however much less than in ring games. It's not close. Shorthanded or heads up cash poker is the purest form of the game IMO. Sitngos, with constantly increasing blinds to artificially force a conclusion to the game one way or the other, are fun an' all but winning or losing any one particular SitnGo is meaningless. It's your return on investment measured over a very large number of these games where your edge starts to show itself. As for your strategy and the made up terms you associate with it, it's going to help your win rate and you certainly have the right idea. Due to the nature of the game, gambling early on is a big mistake. Your chips actually increase in value as the tournament progresses and other players bust out... and 500 chips won doesn't help you as much as 500 chips lost would hurt you. So yes, playing tight early on is going to help you. This also depends on your edge (if any) over the table. It basically just comes down to being really picky about when to get your stack in the middle i.e. risking your tournament life. Sometimes simply having the best hand isn't enough. It looks like you might be coming out of your slump now. Best of luck with the sitngos and let us know how you progress.

[Orochimaru]

By ring games do you mean play money ring games or real money? I would agree that any real money poker game requires more skill than a SitnGo, but I would say play money ring games require the least skill. This is because I started out playing only play money ring games, then started focusing on Sitngos, then when I got good at Sitngos I went back to play money ring games and it was much easier to read people and understand what was going on.

[Mollyi7]

Either play or real. A ring game is a ring game. I got into this a bit in the topic below that you just replied in. Poker is poker whether or not you can cash out the chips. The rules are the same. The fact that you found it much easier to play ring games once you gained experience playing poker actually supports my point pretty well. The better a player is, the more they are able to exploit the competition in a cash game situation. Poor play in a ring game is a lot more costly than poor play in a SitnGo. It's recommended that beginner players actually start out by playing sitngos instead of the more dangerous cash games because they know their buy in they pay to begin the tournament is the most they can possibly lose. They can also play for a good while with that money, particularly if they play as you recommend in this topic. A cash game is a different beast of course.

[AlisaDsa]

Interesting point, but I tend to disagree. Poor play in a SitnGo is more or less costly depending on how much of your money you spend on the entry fee. If you tend to spend a large chunk of your bankroll on the entry fee, then poor play can result in you losing all of your money. Of course, same goes for ring games. I don't think either are more dangerous than the other, they both have substantial risk involved. Over the long run, I think win% in SitnGo and shootout is a better measure of skill than the amount of chips you have from ring games. If you are not very skilled, you can get lucky on one hand in ring games and double up your bankroll. In a SitnGo, you would have to get lucky over an entire SitnGo game. Therefore I think it's less likely that an unskilled player will rack up chips through SitnGo, so there is a good chance an unskilled player with a lot of bankroll got it from ring games. Also, it is possible for an unskilled player to get lucky over a course of a game and win a SitnGo. But over the long run an unskilled player will not have a good win%, same goes for shootout win%. SitnGo and shootout are not the ultimate measure of how skilled a player is, but chances are someone with a good win% over 15% has a decent understanding of the game, while someone with a bad % under 10% does not.

[LotusN]

The fact that you can win a SitnGo while winning only 3 hands is a testament to your good understanding of the game, an understanding that most Zynga poker players don't have. So yes, sitngos are very high variance, but the fact that you understand that shows that you are skilled enough to know this. To clarify, when I say an unskilled player has to get lucky over the course of a SitnGo, it is because unskilled players tend to play too many hands and over bet early in the Sitngos. For example, I just played a game where a 3 people went all in the first hand, and the guy who won ended up with 3030 chips. He ended up broke 3 hands later. And about a good win& for sitngos, if you take skill out of the equation everyone has an 11% chance of winning. I based my standard of 15% just based on experience, because most people I play are generally between 8% and 14%, a 3% variance from 11%. Generally I've noticed that someone that is more than plus or minus 3% of 11% either has a decent understanding of poker strategy or is just plain dumb. So I agree, in any 1 SitnGo there are not enough hands for skill to always overcome variance, but if you play 100 sitngos, it becomes obvious that certain players are just more skilled than others. Sure, you can play an indefinite amount of hands at a ring table, but you can also play an indefinite amount of sitngos.

[mbangali]

I agree with you when it comes to real cash games. But when it comes to Zynga ring games, I disagree. My friend who had never played a SitnGo before played a SitnGo for the first time today and commented that it requires a lot more skill and helps a lot for Zynga ring tables because you have to think and analyze each hand a lot more because of added pressure. What it comes down to is people in Zynga ring tables are significantly more stupid than people in real cash games, and people in SitnGos.

[Enos]

When playing in a cash game I make a lot of calculations, but in a tournament there are more variables so that applying all the mathematics needed would require too much time, so I'll finish by using only some simple calculations here and there, and mainly using intuition to take account of the other variables. That's why I think intuition grows in value and mathematics loses value in SitnGo. This to say that I know that there is a lot of mathematics involved in sitngos, but it isn't enough handy to apply it hand after hand so you'll need more intuition.