Is Sit and Go Turbo micro stakes lucrative in 2024?

What do you recommend for micro stakes, play sit and go or tournaments?

SnGs are good for learning the game, and for when you dont have time for MTTs. You will not get rich from playing microstakes SnGs, but they are still beatable and can be a good way to build up your first bankroll. And then you can always progress to MTTs later.

Proper play in Sit & Go depends on the number of chips you have compared to the size of the blinds - forced bets made by two players on each hand.In 2024, non-standard SNG formats are more popular: for 6 people, multi-table, turbo and hyper-turbo, knockout, with late registration.Low variance and little influence of luck are a consequence of simple game schemes.The simplicity of the strategy means the ability to efficiently play several events at the same time.

PokerStars had a lot of players a while ago, but today it's difficult to form sng tables, there's no way to make volume anymore.

Do you know if there are any rooms nowadays where you can make volume playing micro sng?

Broz said:

PokerStars had a lot of players a while ago, but today it's difficult to form sng tables, there's no way to make volume anymore.

Do you know if there are any rooms nowadays where you can make volume playing micro sng?

Click to expand...

I think PokerStars still has the most.

But one table SnGs are almost extinct everywhere.

It's multi-table SnGs or Spin & Go's to choose between if you don't want to play MTTs or Cash.

In my opinion, the answer depends on how much time you have available, if I have less playing time I choose sit and go, but if the playing time is longer, I play tournaments which for me are more profitable. Good luck !!!

Broz said:

PokerStars had a lot of players a while ago, but today it's difficult to form sng tables, there's no way to make volume anymore.

Click to expand...

pentazepam said:

But one table SnGs are almost extinct everywhere.

Click to expand...

That is definitely not true. There is action in SnGs on Pokerstars 24 hours a day up to the 5-10$ games, which is already considered low stakes rather than micros. Action might be less than in the past, but its still easy to get 4-5 tables running, especially if you are willing to play different formats. And for someone, who is new to the game, thats the most, they should play anyway.

Just to confirm this, I set the lobby to show only 2$ games, which are the highest stakes still considered micros. I began the experiment 7:15am (CET), and ten minutes later three games had fired up: a 9-45 man On demand, a 9-man turbo and a Fifty/50. After this it took another 15 minutes, before two more games fired up: another 9-man turbo and another Fifty/50.

So had I wanted to play 2$ SnGs, there would have been some waiting, but I could still have gotten a reasonable SnG session going. And 7-8 am (CET) is literally the slowest time of day. Most europeans play after work, and at this time of day there is way more action in the SnG lobby and larger MTT fields as well. Even earlier in the morning like 4-6 am CET there is more action, since many canadians and brasilians are still playing.

fundiver199 said:

ten minutes later three games had fired up: a 9-45 man On demand, a 9-man turbo and a Fifty/50. After this it took another 15 minutes, before two more games fired up: another 9-man turbo and another Fifty/50.

Click to expand...

I think the "disagreement" is a matter of a combination of semantics and the fact that I was the most active 10-20 years earlier than you.

When I wrote one table SnG the only one that qualifies - by my definition - of the ones you mention above is the 9-man turbo.

And by one table SnGs I mean single table SnGs not that you only can find one table.

To wait up to 25 min to play less than 10-12 tables of normal single NLH SnGs under 10 dollars buy-in used to be considered extremely slow and low traffic.

But I think we can agree on that PokerStars are probably the only place left for SnGs of almost any format if you want anything resembling multi-tabling.

pentazepam said:

I think the "disagreement" is a matter of a combination of semantics and the fact that I was the most active 10-20 years earlier than you.

Click to expand...

Yes its certainly not like, what it was in the "good old days", when there were SnG pros like Collin Moshman playing from western countries. Today most SnG regs play from areas like Eastern Europe, South America og South East Asia, and apart from some heads-up specialists, the people topping the sharkscope leaderboard mostly play 5-10$ games, since there is little action above this.

However that does not matter, if you are completely new to poker and asking, if you should begin with SnGs or MTTs. Even though SnGs are very capped, for me it still make a lot of sense to begin with them and then gradually transition more and more towards MTTs, as your bankroll grow. With a 100$ bankroll you certainly cant get volume in MTTs, because you are only bankrolled for 1,1$ games or lower, and they dont run that often.

pentazepam said:

When I wrote one table SnG the only one that qualifies - by my definition - of the ones you mention above is the 9-man turbo.

Click to expand...

Fair enough but in todays environment I think, you need to be prepared to play pretty much all the formats, that are offered. This is, what most of the regs do anyway. Also its not like, a Fifty/50 is a totally different game from a 9-man. And the On Demand game, which ran this morning, likely did not reach more than 18 players, which mean only 3 places paid. Which makes the final table pretty much the same as a 4$ 9-man.

pentazepam said:

And by one table SnGs I mean single table SnGs not that you only can find one table.

Click to expand...

pentazepam said:

To wait up to 25 min to play less than 10-12 tables of normal single NLH SnGs under 10 dollars buy-in used to be considered extremely slow and low traffic.

Click to expand...

Sure. However I did the test at the absolute worst time of day. Also if I actually wanted to play and had a 100-200$ bankroll, I might also have jumped on some 1$ games rather than wait for 2$ games to start. And with volume this low me registering for a number of games would have helped them fill faster. So maybe it would then have taken 20 minutes rather than 25 minutes.

I also think, there is actually more activity in 5$ games, since more regs play them. And not considering a 5$ SnG "micros" is actually kind of silly, if you ask me. If 10NL and 16NL (when they excisted) cash tables are "micros", then for sure 5$ and maybe even 10$ SnGs should also be classified as "micros". But this is of course just semantics.

pentazepam said:

But I think we can agree on that PokerStars are probably the only place left for SnGs of almost any format if you want anything resembling multi-tabling.

Click to expand...

Totally agree. And I will also add, that the end goal should not be to become a SnG grinder. They are for learning the game, for having fun, or for when you dont have time for MTTs. Attempting to play SnGs professionally makes no sense, when action basically caps out at the 10$ level with some 25-50$ games occationally running.

fundiver199 said:

That is definitely not true. There is action in SnGs on Pokerstars 24 hours a day up to the 5-10$ games, which is already considered low stakes rather than micros. Action might be less than in the past, but its still easy to get 4-5 tables running, especially if you are willing to play different formats. And for someone, who is new to the game, thats the most, they should play anyway.

Just to confirm this, I set the lobby to show only 2$ games, which are the highest stakes still considered micros. I began the experiment 7:15am (CET), and ten minutes later three games had fired up: a 9-45 man On demand, a 9-man turbo and a Fifty/50. After this it took another 15 minutes, before two more games fired up: another 9-man turbo and another Fifty/50.

Click to expand...

I took a look at the Pokerstars lobby today and saw (at least at the time I looked, I don't know if it's the whole day like that) that there were
Plenty of open tables.

It's just that the last time I saw it, a few months ago, it was much worse, I thought it was still the same way.

But when it comes to the other rooms, it seems that only Pokerstars keeps the sng, right?

Broz said:

But when it comes to the other rooms, it seems that only Pokerstars keeps the sng, right?

Click to expand...

888 Poker has cancelled their SnGs, and GG Poker never had any. ACR and PartyPoker still offer a variety of SnGs, but games mainly run during peak hours. PokerStars is likely the only site, where there is at least some SnG action 24 hours a day.

I think you can play SnG and tournament for get more experience and this experience help you to play more better quality

It really depends on your available time. If you can afford spending at least 6 and a half hours in a single tournament you could play MTT's. SnG are better for learning the game.
If you're starting, I would strongly recommend SnG, smaller fields, easier to go deep and less varience.
Then after you start improving go play micro Mtt's ($1.10-$2.20).
Don't play buy-ins higher then 2% of your bankroll. For MTT's they recommend no more then 1%.

Good luck!

I built my first online bankroll playing single table SNG's on Stars sadly they are becoming extinct probably from lack of interest

Ron112355 said:

I built my first online bankroll playing single table SNG's on Stars sadly they are becoming extinct probably from lack of interest

Click to expand...

As I said already, action caps out much lower than in the past, but if you are building up your first bankroll and want to transfer to MTTs later anyway, why does that even matter? I play SnGs on Stars almost every day, and in the european evening hours it takes me like 2-5 minutes to get 4 tables of 5-10$ games going. And usually I even do some table selection avoiding games, where only regs have registered. Just for fun I might actually repeat my 2$ game test from earlier in the thread tonight and report back. And then maybe / hopefully this debate can be settled once and for all