The Way

[Jason Strasser]

Here's how I think a good sng player should operate. This is basic for anyone with experience.

Step 1) Establish the aggression level early. If your table raises a lot preflop in the early levels, adjust. If your table is passive, adjust. And when I say adjust--customize a set of hands you will play under certain circumstances. For instance, I will tend to limp all pocket pairs because the 200s on party seem to often be quite passive early. I can also often get away with limping Axs and Kxs from position/and or behind people. Your starting hand requirements (duh) depend on position.

When you get a hand worth reraising, reraise 2.5-3x the initial bet (early on). Later you will be just shoving.

2) Write down fishy things. All my notes on players go like this, "blah blah raised with 24o and called an all in". I report things that are extreme, and are worthy of me knowing. Very slight details don't help me too much. I like to know who really stinks, and how they stink.

3) When you are playing more tables, play tighter early. A lot of your edge limping with speculative hands is diminished if you dont have a direct feel for players in your game.

4) Have no fear. If you are ever scared of losing money, you are playing way over your head. Never, ever be scared. And never be afraid to pull the trigger. This game is not easy, and your edge will come when you outplay people.

5) SHIFT GEARS. This is the most important thing about a SNG. You must gradually shift into a more aggressive mode as the game continues. Tight early. Middle--steal some blinds when you are in the right spot with the right hand. Late--make the people at the table think "where has this guy been all along?!"

6) When you are HU, have a plan. Know which hands you will push against what type of opponents. Do NOT be afraid to come over the top for all your chips.

This was random and disjointed.
-Jason

[Gramps]

7. Be good at sucking out when all your chips are in the middle and you have the worst hand... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Tosh]

[ QUOTE ]

This was random and disjointed.


[/ QUOTE ]

But good.

[Lori]

Write down fishy things. All my notes on players go like this, "blah blah raised with 24o and called an all in". I report things that are extreme, and are worthy of me knowing. Very slight details don't help me too much. I like to know who really stinks, and how they stink.



At the small limits, it is also valuable to note who the few decent players are.

Lori

[chill888]

[ QUOTE ]


At the small limits, it is also valuable to note who the few decent players are.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

On the same vein:

At the medium limits like $100 (for me at least), it's worth not sitting down if you recognize too many very good players. Currently at Stars I know very well the first 2 seated in the $100 - so I'm passing 'til the phish arrive.

gl

[PrayingMantis]

Jason,

I like your post, definitely good points.

However,
A few days ago I saw Aleo's reply to a post, where he cited Moneymakers' guide for SNGs (10 points maybe?), and also wrote about another site that had basic SNG strategy points. And I've also spent some time thinking about Aleo's original guide about winning at the 10's, which is very nice by itself.

And my thinking is:

Does it look reasonable at all, to summarize SNG strategy in a few points? or a page or two? If someone would have done the same in regard to limit (ring), or NL, or multis, well, you know it will, by definition, make people smile or even laugh. How can you summarize in a few points the strategy for winning at multi-table tournaments, for instance?

There's a somewhat strange tendency, to believe that SNGs, for some unknown reason, is a poker-format that the "correct" strategy for it could be summarized in a page. Why?

I think that playing great (and even good, or somewhat good) at SNGs, generally requires *much much much* more than this, especially when climbing up limits. It's a rather new format, so there's almost no written (in books) theory about it, but this forum is a live proof that this format is as complicated and challenging as any other format in poker, especially if your goal is to master it.

What do you think? And others?

[CrisBrown]

Hi Jason,

I agree with both Tosh and P.M. on this. Yes, the points you made are valid. And yes, it's impossible to summarize SNG poker in a one-page post.

Jason's points are on-target because they're general: adjust to the table, adjust starting hand values based on position, keep notes on exceptions rather than trying to record everything, play tighter when multi-tabling, don't play scared money, change gears as the situation changes, have a plan for heads-up play....

Of course, Jason noted that these points apply for players "who have experience," meaning they would know how to put these general guidelines into action. The problem is, if you already know that, the post is redundant. And if you don't, you're still just as lost as you were before you read it.

And thus arises P.M.'s point. In order for such a list to be educationally useful, a writer would need to expand on each of the points, with more detail, examples, etc. And, at that point ... you're writing a book. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Cris

[chill888]

Yes,
I read all of those guides recently and thought yep, I generally agree with most points, I guesss I'm on the right track. But I already knew I was on the right track because I've been winning for a large data sample.

Net, I think they are a great starting point for losing or new players. So I thought the original post was very sensible but FAR from complete.


What I really struggle with is how to improve my game without wrecking it. Sort of like messing with your golf swing.

At the medium and low S&G levels I think a lot of us have proven that you can beat the games in your sleep. But crushing them or winning significantly at the higher levels requires solid thinking on thousands of unique situations.

The main reason I post here is to try and get my thinking clear and hard wired in my brain for these unique situations - and to (occasionally) listen when people point out I may be way off track.

I'm still not going to push 10 10 early on though /images/graemlins/wink.gif


gl

[eastbay]

I think these little guides are more about what you should know about SnG strategy _beyond_ everything you have to know about poker in the first place, which is a lot.

This is why these guides can be fairly concise and also helpful to people who haven't played them much, but do have some basic poker skills.

Gaining the basic poker skills is (maybe) a much broader topic.

eastbay

[PrayingMantis]

chill,

[ QUOTE ]
At the medium and low S&G levels I think a lot of us have proven that you can beat the games in your sleep.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen too many posts here, by players who really struggle to win at low and mid-level buy-ins. I honestly believe that for *crushing* the low level SNGs, you need to be a rather good player. Of course, making some money in them is very easy, but it's not the same as crushing them.(remember Ed Miller's post about "Why you're not crushing the low-limit ring games?", I'd say it's quite similar. Winning constantly at low-limit ring games is very basic, as opposed to killing them).

About high-limits, we agree of course.

I don't want to hijack this thread, so only some more thoughts.

[CrisBrown]

Hi chili,

[ QUOTE ]
What I really struggle with is how to improve my game without wrecking it. Sort of like messing with your golf swing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wrote about this some in the thread "Where are....?"

When you think you're starting to wreck your game in the process of trying to improve it, that's the time to take a good, long break. Don't play. Don't read or post here. Don't even think about poker for a week or two or three. Then go back and read your core resources, whatever those might be. (For me, they're Sklansky's The Theory of Poker, Ciaffone & Ruben's Pot-Limit and No-Limit Poker, and Brunson's Super System Poker.)

Although this might sound like going back to where you were as a newbie, it's not. You'll be reading those resources with "new eyes," bringing all of the experience you've gained since the last time you read them. Passages that didn't make sense before -- or perhaps made sense in that nodding-along-yeah-I-guess-that's-true sort of way -- will resonate more clearly in light of specific situations that you've experienced. New doors will open. Many leaks, and how to fix them, will become obvious.

When Tiger Woods needed to work on his golf swing, shortly after his first Masters win, he disappeared for the entire autumn golf season. He wrote that he took a couple off -- away from golf entirely -- and thought about other things. Then he went to work on fundamentals, rebuilding his swing from the ground up. When he returned, his game was at a far higher level than it had ever been before, and he set golf history by winning four straight major championships. Now, it looks like he may need to do the same thing again, as some leaks have crept into his swing. So this isn't a one-time fix, in golf or in poker.

Yes, there will be times when, in trying to improve your game, you're going to start to wreck it. And then you are left with that sense of "Gee, I used to think I knew how to play this, but maybe I was just getting lucky...." That's when it's time to go into "Tiger" mode: disappear, take the time away to clear your head, return to your basic sources, and rebuild your game.

Cris

[chill888]

[ QUOTE ]
chill,

[ QUOTE ]
At the medium and low S&G levels I think a lot of us have proven that you can beat the games in your sleep.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I've seen too many posts here, by players who really struggle to win at low and mid-level buy-ins. I honestly believe that for *crushing* the low level SNGs, you need to be a rather good player. Of course, making some money in them is very easy, but it's not the same as crushing them.(remember Ed Miller's post about "Why you're not crushing the low-limit ring games?", I'd say it's quite similar. Winning constantly at low-limit ring games is very basic, as opposed to killing them).

[/ QUOTE ]


HMM Mr. Mantis you didn't read my VERY NEXT sentence /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]


But CRUSHING them or winning significantly at the higher levels requires solid thinking on thousands of unique situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

[PrayingMantis]

Sorry chill, I see your point and we agree. I did read the next sentence, but thought it was all in regard to higher buy-ins, and obviously I was wrong.

Sometimes I read English too fast, and "decipher" it by using the grammar (actually: syntax, in this case) of another language, I'm better at.

Sorry... /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[chill888]

c'est pas grave, la prochaine fois je parlerai en francais


No big deal, next time I'll post in French /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
c'est pas grave, la prochaine fois je parlerai en francais


No big deal, next time I'll post in French

[/ QUOTE ]

Do it, and I'll understand even less... /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Hebrew, and then Japanese, will probably be better for me... /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's how I think a good sng player should operate. This is basic for anyone with experience.

Step 1) Establish the aggression level early. If your table raises a lot preflop in the early levels, adjust. If your table is passive, adjust. And when I say adjust--customize a set of hands you will play under certain circumstances. For instance, I will tend to limp all pocket pairs because the 200s on party seem to often be quite passive early. I can also often get away with limping Axs and Kxs from position/and or behind people. Your starting hand requirements (duh) depend on position.



[/ QUOTE ]

I used to play pretty weak-tight and fold decent (but not great) hands with position after a raiser during the 1st level. Now, I realize that even if a raise comes from a good player, I'll play with Axs or low pocket pairs. I still figure that the good player has a better hand than I, but I have the implied odds to hit a flush or a set. If I miss out, then it's just as good as limping and folding at a higher level anyways. I've learned that if I don't overplay my Top pair, crap kicker, then I can call raises with these decent hands in hopes of taking the other player's entire stack.

[Gator]

What I think a lot of play (raising) comes down to is:

When you raise, you when the pot X% of the time cause others fold and Y% when you end up with the best hand.

We tend to underrate X and overrate Y. When the blinds are big enough, I don't want others to see the flop with me. I want to take down the pot right there cause generally the biggest advantage one will have is 65/35 (i.e. AQs v 9Toffsuit - AA vs. 66 is rare).

This is just another way of stating/understanding the gap concept. But don't feel bad taking down the blinds (i.e. at 50/100) with a hand like JJ vs. milking more from your opponents.

You must make your opponent make difficult decisions.

[Irieguy]

Jason,
I agree with all of your general points, but had a question about one of the specific points you mentioned:

You said you can often get away with limping from later positions with Axs and Kxs. I had found that I could often "get away with it," but dropped it from my play a few months ago because I found that people at the $55 level and up are much less likely to pay off a flush, and that playing TPWK after the flop is difficult to do for a profit, even if you are a solid post-flop player. The reason for this seems to be the fact that so many SNG players get married to their hands for so many different reasons, that it's very hard to tell whether somebody is outkicking you, or just in love with their underpair. The bottom line is that you are probably correct to be laying down TPWK with Ax if you are getting heat. But if you are laying down your top pair with Ax, and not getting paid off well with your flushes... I don't think those are hands you want to limp with.

Anyway, that's what I came up with, and it seems as though my results improved after I made that adjustment. Obviously, I want to know if it was an incorrect adjustment.

Irieguy

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
I still figure that the good player has a better hand than I, but I have the implied odds to hit a flush or a set.

[/ QUOTE ]

Implied odds are very much dependant on how loose (as aggressor, AND/OR caller), your opponent (who raised here) is post-flop, and for some extent, how bad he is. And also, hitting your flush (and certainly a flush draw), is not so great in terms of implied odds. I'd say that generally, in SNGs, calling raises made by good players is problematic. Against poorer opposition, you might take down pots on the flop (if they are weak), and others will pay you big time with their weaker hands, if YOU hit. The whole thing is very dynamic, I think.

[rybones]

This is a great thread! my only addition is that while I agree time off might be a good idea, I also think retooling you golf swing or poker game should perhaps cost you some money. While I am just growing myself and do not pretend to know nearly as much as those who have posted in this thread, I do think there is something to be said for setting aside some $ (you decide the amount) and playing differently (again what different means is up to you) with that money. Decide that it is ok to win or loose, but you will stick to your predetermined strategy. I have found this to be a really great way to investigate my game. both strengths and weeknesses. Alas, hope this is useful to someone.

Ryan

[Desdia72]

[At the medium and low S&G levels I think a lot of us have proven that you can beat the games in your sleep.]

maybe my opinion is flawed due to the high amount of bad beats that i'ved accumulated to inferior hands, especially on the river. i find it facisnating how people can say these can be beat in their sleep or with your eyes closed. i think low limit SNGs are a special breed all their own, precisely because of the crazy play at those levels. imagine you're at a table with 5 or more wannabe Gus Hansen's at your table who will raise or call with anything.
beating these SNGs, IMO, are a feat in themself. you can play ABC poker at these levels and still get creamed. you can play an aggressive game at these levels and still get creamed. you can play a loose-calling game at these levels and still get creamed. i think low SNG strategy and being a winning profitable player over the long run to where you can confidently move up is just as crucial as the strategy at higher levels. leaks and mistakes in ones game start at the low levels. if you're winning at the low levels playing like a brainless zombie, you're gonna take that strategy and attitude with you when you move up.

one of the main reasons i start threads like, "Can Higher Limit SNG Players Beat The Lower Levels" is because i'm trying to find out the "HOW". anybody can say, "Yeah, I can do it". then you get into all the reasons why a bigger limit player would'nt prove their words right like, "it's -$EV for them to do that", blah-blah-blah. then that leaves a player like me to read posts by guys who are in the same boat, players who oftentimes, have an exaggerated opinion to the positive in their play.

[AleoMagus]

[ QUOTE ]
If someone would have done the same in regard to limit (ring), or NL, or multis, well, you know it will, by definition, make people smile or even laugh.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here, watch me do it for the Party $25NL game

***
Raise only AA,KK,QQ and AK (from any position). Open raise should be 3XBB. Call all raises up to about 5-6XBB with AK and QQ and reraise with AA or KK.

Limp with all pairs and call up to 3BB if raised after you have limped. Otherwise only call up to 3XBB with TT, JJ

other than in a checked Blind, the only hands which should be played are pairs and AK

Play on the flop should only continue with:

Top Pair, top kicker on non-uniform flop
Overpair on non-uniform flop
Two Pair (without a pair on board)
Set
Four flush with overcards (this will only apply with AK)

Flop should always be either bet or folded. Bets on flop should be pot sized or raised 3x initial bet (whichever is bigger). If bet or raise commits 50% of your or a single opponents stack, push
***

I really think at the Party $25 NL, you can win this way. In fact, I might have just put "Play only AA, KK and push with it. Check big blind and push with it if you hit trips or two pair on flop". It wouldn't surprise me if even this strategy would be profitable in that game.

So What did I accomplish here? Did I just summarize 'correct' play at a NL ring game. If by correct, you mean theoretically optimal (that's what I usually mean when I say it) then the answer is obviously a big NO.

So is a ridiculously small guideline for play like this worth anything? I'm inclined to lean towards 'not really', but then I remember that there are so, so, so many losers out there who would be better off just following a plan like this one in the right game.

More importantly, these players might decide after a while that they are going to start adding AQs in late position. If that starts to seem profitable too, they might try AQ also and even KQs. Slowly their game might develop into something complicated and they will not have had to lose a bundle while learning.

Even small wins might make them love the intricacies of the game more and they might go out and pick up a book or two to further develop their game. This would inevitably result in even more drastic changes to the kinds of hands they choose to play and would start to influence the kinds of plays they make after the flop.

And so on. Another loser becomes a winner because rather than guessing away one deposit after another, they will be attacking the game with a clear plan, and will be developing that strategy in a logical fashion.

So I agree. It is crazy to think that correct SNG play can be summarized in two or three pages. Just as it is crazy to think that NL play can be, or limit, or multis or whatever. What a summary can do however, is point the struggling players in a positive direction. At times this seems like it couldn't possibly have that much value but then I remember that most of the players out there are losers.

...

For all the players out there who have stumbled onto this forum and read my guide, other guides, or a great post like the one Jason has made here, remember what these posts are about. They are not giving the magic formula for an upper echelon SNG game. They are giving you guidelines that your game should be roughly congruent with. They are also providing the tip of an iceberg for you (and me) to discover.

Regards
Brad S

[chill888]

[ QUOTE ]


maybe my opinion is flawed due to the high amount of bad beats that i'ved accumulated to inferior hands, especially on the river. i find it facisnating how people can say these can be beat in their sleep or with your eyes closed. Yyou can play ABC poker at these levels and still get creamed. you can play an aggressive game at these levels and still get creamed. you can play a loose-calling game at these levels and still get creamed. i think low SNG strategy and being a winning profitable player over the long run to where you can confidently move up is just as crucial as the strategy at higher levels. leaks and mistakes in ones game start at the low levels.

then that leaves a player like me to read posts by guys who are in the same boat, players who oftentimes, have an exaggerated opinion to the positive in their play.

[/ QUOTE ]


First, the point i was making is that these games can be beaten in their sleep - but can't be crushed without paying close attention and a high level of skill.

Second, you are just plain wrong if you don't think these games can be beaten with good, very tight play and gear changing in later levels. And a very low level of paying attention (ie in one's sleep).

Maybe I should rephrase and say that enough of us have proved that good players can beat these games in their sleep.

It takes a lot of work, study, and discipline to become a good players .

Low limit games are mainly profitable because of the number of people with no clue. Mid limit games are profitable - due in large part - to people that can play and have a clue but just have too many leaks. Like they throw away their remaining chips after losing a big pot. Or they push with medium pairs early in games, or they can't release hands when they are clearly beat etc etc etc etc.

What they usually can do is criticize and blame the terrible players due to their lack of understanding as to why they themselves are not winners.

gl

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


maybe my opinion is flawed due to the high amount of bad beats that i'ved accumulated to inferior hands, especially on the river. i find it facisnating how people can say these can be beat in their sleep or with your eyes closed. Yyou can play ABC poker at these levels and still get creamed. you can play an aggressive game at these levels and still get creamed. you can play a loose-calling game at these levels and still get creamed. i think low SNG strategy and being a winning profitable player over the long run to where you can confidently move up is just as crucial as the strategy at higher levels. leaks and mistakes in ones game start at the low levels.

then that leaves a player like me to read posts by guys who are in the same boat, players who oftentimes, have an exaggerated opinion to the positive in their play.

[/ QUOTE ]


First, the point i was making is that these games can be beaten in their sleep - but can't be crushed without paying close attention and a high level of skill.

Second, you are just plain wrong if you don't think these games can be beaten with good, very tight play and gear changing in later levels. And a very low level of paying attention (ie in one's sleep).

Maybe I should rephrase and say that enough of us have proved that good players can beat these games in their sleep.

It takes a lot of work, study, and discipline to become a good players .

Low limit games are mainly profitable because of the number of people with no clue. Mid limit games are profitable - due in large part - to people that can play and have a clue but just have too many leaks. Like they throw away their remaining chips after losing a big pot. Or they push with medium pairs early in games, or they can't release hands when they are clearly beat etc etc etc etc.

What they usually can do is criticize and blame the terrible players due to their lack of understanding as to why they themselves are not winners.

gl

[/ QUOTE ]

too testy about my post. i never implied that you could'nt beat these levels with good, tight play and gear changing but i think, with that being said, that response is a little overrated. good, tight play early and gear changing later at these levels does'nt guarantee anything. however, since you brought it up, let's define gear changing...case in point, a $5 + $.50 SNG on Stars.

let's say you make it to the blind level of 75/150 with 2000
in chips. nothing too spectacular, was able to win with a TPTK hand, a raise pf hand and a bet at the pot, and a checked hand to the river with a marginal hand like A 7 that held up as Ace-high. let's say it's gear changing time with 6 people still left and you're barley 4th in chip standing. the table has two LAG deep stacks who will play any hand. two other players are also LAG, but they've gotten caught up in the calling and raising frenzy only to be on the shortend of the stick in chips. then, the last player is a shortstack of about 800. you get hands like J 3, Q 4, K 5, 9 2, 7 3, Ad 2d (limped but now facing a raise by one of the four LAGs), etc.

being that you're a bigger limit player who feels good, solid play early and changing gears later leads to success at these levels, then where do you start the gear changing? it's easy to layout a basic guidelines, it's more complex to impliment them and have them succeed.

[chill888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


i find it facisnating how people can say these can be beat in their sleep or with your eyes closed. You can play ABC poker at these levels and still get creamed. you can play an aggressive game at these levels and still get creamed. you can play a loose-calling game at these levels and still get creamed.
gl

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
with that being said, that response is a little overrated. good, tight play early and gear changing later at these levels does'nt guarantee anything.being that you're a bigger limit player who feels good, solid play early and changing gears later leads to success at these levels, then where do you start the gear changing? it's easy to layout a basic guidelines, it's more complex to impliment them and have them succeed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not trying to be being testy - just responding to your fascination about people saying they can beat the game in their sleep.

And of course I know that I didn't lay out a winning framework in this post. That wasn't the point of the post. I was just trying to say that people that can't beat the low limits in their sleep are not yet (with all due respect) very good players. And becoming a good player takes hard work, study, and discipline among other important qualities.

gl

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


i find it facisnating how people can say these can be beat in their sleep or with your eyes closed. You can play ABC poker at these levels and still get creamed. you can play an aggressive game at these levels and still get creamed. you can play a loose-calling game at these levels and still get creamed. be crushed without paying close attention and a high level of skill.

gl

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
with that being said, that response is a little overrated. good, tight play early and gear changing later at these levels does'nt guarantee anything.being that you're a bigger limit player who feels good, solid play early and changing gears later leads to success at these levels, then where do you start the gear changing? it's easy to layout a basic guidelines, it's more complex to impliment them and have them succeed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not trying to be being testy - just responding to your fascination about people saying they can beat the game in their sleep.

And of course I know that I didn't lay out a winning framework in this post. That wasn't the point of the post. I was just trying to say that people that can't beat the low limits in their sleep are not yet (with all due respect) very good players. And becoming a good player takes hard work, study, and discipline among other important qualities.

gl

[/ QUOTE ]

their sleep, then what do you call these kinds of players , if as you say, their not yet good players? i would say they must possess some discipline, hard work ethic, and the ability to study if their beating them in their sleep. it's either that or their extremely lucky and fortunate. i don't know anybody playing those limits who beating them in their sleep. maybe you, Daliman, Jason, PM, Prickly Pete, Frozen,
and some of the experienced MTT 2+2ers can. i beg to differ that a regular $5 + $.50 player is. maybe you either give them too much credit or have'nt played at that level in awhile. most don't stay at the $5 level long enough to know if they could consistently beat them in their sleep.

[chill888]

HUH? please reread my last post and then your last post - you are confused.

I said people that CANNOT beat low limit games in their sleep are not good players (with all due respect)

gl

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
HUH? please reread my last post and then your last post - you are confused.

I said people that CANNOT beat low limit games in their sleep are not good players (with all due respect)

gl

[/ QUOTE ]

good players saying that these levels can be beaten in your sleep (which is an overgeneralization) and not saying "HOW".
like i said before, anybody can say, "you should be beating these in your sleep", including bad players.

there was a guy who started a post maybe about a week or so ago where he asked (did Greg Raymer have Hand Histories?) when you take time out to really think about why a novice or beginning player with some experience would ask such a thing, think back to when you were a struggling, new player who did'nt understand certain things about the game. if a successful, experienced player gave access to their HHs (in both SNGs and MTTs) and provided insight in why they played the way they played, why the bluffed in this spot, how they adjusted to maniac or solid play at the table, who they calculated the odds to call on a hand, how they handled dry spells of cards, why they decided to change gears (and with which hands), etc. these are the type of examples that newbie players can get way more out of instead of one hand analysis here, another there. one hand does'nt make up a SNG or wins you a SNG, but one hand can lose you one.

[Eder]

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



i find it facisnating how people can say these can be beat in their sleep or with your eyes closed. You can play ABC poker at these levels and still get creamed. you can play an aggressive game at these levels and still get creamed. you can play a loose-calling game at these levels and still get creamed.
gl


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Quote:


Well I went AFK at $5 SnG bout a month ago....returned 3 hours later and found I finished in 2nd place...after reading the hand history I was suprised the winner didnt find a way to lose to me as well /images/graemlins/grin.gif...tight is right in these,wait for good hands...people will pay you off no matter what the situation....

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



i find it facisnating how people can say these can be beat in their sleep or with your eyes closed. You can play ABC poker at these levels and still get creamed. you can play an aggressive game at these levels and still get creamed. you can play a loose-calling game at these levels and still get creamed.
gl


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Quote:


Well I went AFK at $5 SnG bout a month ago....returned 3 hours later and found I finished in 2nd place...after reading the hand history I was suprised the winner didnt find a way to lose to me as well /images/graemlins/grin.gif...tight is right in these,wait for good hands...people will pay you off no matter what the situation....

[/ QUOTE ]

i've actually PLAYED a two table SNG where i sat back and watched all the crazies kill themselves off without having to play many hands at all. i ended up going out in 2nd out of 18 when my AsKs lost all-in with about equal chips to a guy who reraise me all-in with 8 3o and caught an 8. i've also played tight in SNGs where i ended up out in 4th-7th place waiting for the promise land that never came. results in one SNG from a specific way of play does'nt validate anything. in-depth analysis of full game SNGs from better players is more valuable than discussing one hand here or saying, "tight early is the way to go, then change gears".
to some new players with bad habits, "changing gears" could mean riding in a car with a stickshift for all they care.

[Jason Strasser]

I agree. Read Aleo's post on why this wasn't a magic formula, just a guideline and a way to get your mind in the right universe when playing sngs.

I'm in no way saying you can read one page of info and be a great SNG player, but you certainly can read one page of info and get a feel for how you should be thinking.

So I agree with what you say. This is not a "How To" type of post, but more of "You should be..." type of post.

-Jason

[Jason Strasser]

Cris,

[ QUOTE ]
In order for such a list to be educationally useful, a writer would need to expand on each of the points, with more detail, examples, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the type of post that I made can be educationally useful. It's obviously not comprehensive or anything, but it's useful to a player who is interested in learning the game.

-Jason

[Jason Strasser]

Ireguy,

Sounds like your decision to fold Axs and Kxs is a function of the game you are in, which I would judge as adjusting to your opponents. Sounds great, you should be doing this constantly. If something doesn't work, don't do it. I play the hands because I can make them work in my game.

-Jason

[Jason Strasser]

Desdia,

I've never taken a bad beat, so I understand your point.

-Jason

[PrayingMantis]

Great post, Brad.

And so was Jason's, as I've mentioned.

There's nothing wrong, of course, with those little guides about playing SNGs. I was just wandering why these particular guides are relatively popular in regard to SNGs, more than any other format.

I know that neither you or Jason, (or MM, for that matter, or anybody who tries to summarize SNG play in a few points), believe that these guides are enough to even start winning in this game (maybe winning a little, yes). I'm really not criticizing you.

My point is, that the SNG area is very lacking in any written, methodic, deep, theoretical material. Your guide was certainly a great start, and so are many posts and threads around here. But I think this lacking in theoretical material, leads people to believe that SNGs are quite basic and easy format of poker, in comparison to other formats, and these little guids are a kind of a proof for this ("SNGs? Oh, You can beat them if you follow these few points. No need to think so hard").

I'm not fighting for the honour of SNGs or anything. I just truely believe that summarizing how to beat (really beat)SNGs in a few points, is not very far from doing it in regard to multis, NL ring, limit-ring, or PLO super-satellites... /images/graemlins/grin.gif. And I think you agree.

And now for my little guide (I'll publish a full version in the future):

Praying Mantis' guide for killing SNGs without much trouble.

1) pay your buy-in.

2) look at your cards.

3) decide whether you want to raise, call or fold, according to your cards, position, and the nature of the table.

4) do what you have decided in 3.

5) other people have acted and now it's time for the flop cards to be dealt. PRAY.

6) decide whether you want to bet, call, raise or fold, according to your cards, the flop, the stacks, and other people's behaviour.

7) do what you have decided to do in 6.

8) after all the people have acted, it's time for the turn card to be dealt. PRAY.

9) Decide what you want to do now. Basically you need to push, if you haven't done so in 7. Otherwise, check-fold. Actually, this is true for 7 too. I'm sorry about the mess. Future versions will be more tidy.

10) if you are still in the hand, and all other people have acted, now it's time for the river card to be dealt. PRAY, PRAY, PRAY.

11) if you haven't busted, repeat the process until you bust.

Important note: as you climb up in buy-ins, you'll usualy not go far beyond points 4 and 6. So you should do most of your praying pre-flop, and even before your cards are dealt. Adjust.

Good luck!! /images/graemlins/wink.gif

PM /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[ddubois]

[ QUOTE ]
I was just wandering why these particular guides are relatively popular in regard to SNGs, more than any other format.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the SNG area is very lacking in any written, methodic, deep, theoretical material.

[/ QUOTE ]

[PrayingMantis]

Thank you for putting two sentences that I wrote, side by side. They are really beautiful together.

Anyway, if you're trying to show that I contradict myself, well, I'm not sure you fully understood what I meant, as these nice little guides are very far from being "methodic, deep, theoretical material", in my book.

Jason and Aleo clearly understood what I meant, and so as others. It wasn't a criticism, only something that bothered me in general.

If you mean something else, please be kind enough to explain.

[ddubois]

You answered your own question. Guides like AleoM's are so popular because there's nothing else. I can go to Border's and buy a dozen poker books, but none of them directly discuss the nuances of SNGs.

[PrayingMantis]

I completely agree with you, then. But I think there's something more to it, and that's why I made my original reply. I think that SNGs are regarded a rather "basic" poker format, something that people can learn, beat and be "good" at, quite easily (a post by William, something like "the kindergarten of poker", comes to mind. Aleo will remember it, I believe /images/graemlins/grin.gif). And for such a format, small guides are pretty much all you need.

And of course, there's probably not enough demand for an SNG book. But we have this board. I wonder if it will ever change, and if there will ever be a book (even in some on-line format), about SNGs. Aleo was actually speaking about writing one, IIRC.

[AleoMagus]

[ QUOTE ]
the SNG area is very lacking in any written, methodic, deep, theoretical material.

[/ QUOTE ]

I used to think this too until recently. I started to visit, read and post at some other forums for a fresh look at SNG poker. Well, let me tell you... I no longer wonder about some of the bad play I see online. Some of those forums (I won't mention any names) are so full of bad advice that I couldn't even bring myself to start getting involved in their discussions. I would inevitably have looked like a jerk who was picking fights with guys who were obviously regulars. This place seems bad at times (bad beats and stubborn silly arguments), but trust me... it really isn't anywhere close to as bad as some sites I've seen. I guess what I'm saying is that there is a growing body of deep SNG theory. It is this forum. Nothing on the net comes close.

I imagine it doesn't always look like it to some newbies who have a hard time keeping up with conversations that move and change over different threads and in different topics but those of us who have paid attention over the past year have really been privy to some deep insights. There are days when I will be reading posts on here and I pull my hair asking "why do I even come here anymore?". Then I come back another day and a thread has sprung up that has me reeling with thought and a desire to get the the bottom of something. You all probably know the threads I am talking about. Then again, maybe they are different for all of us. Some are great hand history analyses and some are completely absract theoretical conversations. What they all are though is better than any other contributions I've seem on any other forum.

Maybe if I ever finish my book it will be more of what some would like to see. The way things are going though, it'll probably just get posted on my site as a 40 page "how to beat low stakes sngs" guide. Lets just say that after last month I questioned a LOT of what I was writing and after a lot of reworking, I'm pretty much back to where I was a few months ago. That's still 35 pages more than the next biggest single document I've even seen dealing with SNGs but it sure isn't a book.

Oh well. If I can't get to 100 pages of good material by the years end, I will share it with you all anyways and forget about the book idea. If it's any good at all, a lot of you have more than earned it. If it's not, I'm sure you will all tell me /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Regards
Brad S

[Irieguy]

"imagine you're at a table with 5 or more wannabe Gus Hansen's at your table who will raise or call with anything"

I dream about it every night.

"beating these SNGs, IMO, are a feat in themself. you can play ABC poker at these levels and still get creamed"

Absolutely not true.

I think there is a very important, and very prevalent misconception held by many of the lower limit SNG players on this forum. It was addressed ad nauseum in a thread from hell a few days ago with linus vs. PM et al. Here's the misconception:

"loose, crazy players and the low limit SNGs they occupy are more difficult to beat than more solid players at the higher limits."

This concept is completely wrong. It seems to be corrupting the reasoning abilities of enthusiastic SNG players who are interested in improving their games. I implore any of you out there who believe this nonsense to just let it go. Its really, really hurting your progress. I know... I used to believe it too.

The reason behind it has nothing to do with complicated theories, simulations of consecutive heads-up favorite vs. underdog matchups, or any of the other shoddy justifications for why these games should be hard to beat. The answer lies in very straight-forward zero-sum game theory:

If an opponent plays suboptimally, solid play will extract his or her money to the extent that their play is suboptimal.

The worse they play, the more money there is to be made. The more opponents play this way, the more money there is to be made. It is absolutely impossible for it to be otherwise. Therefore, if you argue that crazy play hurts you; what you are actually arguing is that you believe that type of play is closer to optimal than what you are capable of playing. If calling all-in too much and overbetting small pots too often is better than what you can do... it should be clear that you should listen to the people on this forum who have been beating these games for a long time, because they don't agree with the premise.

My game started to improve markedly when I accepted the following universal SNG truths:
1. ABC poker beats the low limits as long as you know your ABCs.
2. Bad players are easy to beat if you don't play badly.

I hope I don't sound like as ass... I'm just trying to emphasize some points that I think are very important and commonly misunderstood.

Play the right way,
Irieguy

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
"imagine you're at a table with 5 or more wannabe Gus Hansen's at your table who will raise or call with anything"

I dream about it every night.

"beating these SNGs, IMO, are a feat in themself. you can play ABC poker at these levels and still get creamed"

Absolutely not true.

I think there is a very important, and very prevalent misconception held by many of the lower limit SNG players on this forum. It was addressed ad nauseum in a thread from hell a few days ago with linus vs. PM et al. Here's the misconception:

"loose, crazy players and the low limit SNGs they occupy are more difficult to beat than more solid players at the higher limits."

This concept is completely wrong. It seems to be corrupting the reasoning abilities of enthusiastic SNG players who are interested in improving their games. I implore any of you out there who believe this nonsense to just let it go. Its really, really hurting your progress. I know... I used to believe it too.

The reason behind it has nothing to do with complicated theories, simulations of consecutive heads-up favorite vs. underdog matchups, or any of the other shoddy justifications for why these games should be hard to beat. The answer lies in very straight-forward zero-sum game theory:

If an opponent plays suboptimally, solid play will extract his or her money to the extent that their play is suboptimal.

The worse they play, the more money there is to be made. The more opponents play this way, the more money there is to be made. It is absolutely impossible for it to be otherwise. Therefore, if you argue that crazy play hurts you; what you are actually arguing is that you believe that type of play is closer to optimal than what you are capable of playing. If calling all-in too much and overbetting small pots too often is better than what you can do... it should be clear that you should listen to the people on this forum who have been beating these games for a long time, because they don't agree with the premise.

My game started to improve markedly when I accepted the following universal SNG truths:
1. ABC poker beats the low limits as long as you know your ABCs.
2. Bad players are easy to beat if you don't play badly.

I hope I don't sound like as ass... I'm just trying to emphasize some points that I think are very important and commonly misunderstood.

Play the right way,
Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

1. i never said that crazy/loose/maniac players are harder to beat than good/solid ones at these low levels. you may have been paying too much attention to PM and Linus's back and forth on the all-in theory.
2. yes, you can lose playing ABC poker at low levels, without playing badly. i had A A, K K, and Q Q cracked in quick succession before in a SNG, all to inferior hands, in the same SNG. you can't get more ABC than the three biggest starting hands in Holdem. #2-A: i said you can LOSE playing ABC poker, i never said you could'nt win playing it.
3. optimal play does'nt always win out against sub-optimal play.
4. you're saying alot of basic truths that many people already know; however, once again, new players need better examples of so-called optimal play against bad players and how to achieve it. anybody can say, "well, based of the zero sum game theory if you play this way and your opponents play that way you'll make money brouhaha-blah". i could care less about some game theory. you don't need to spout or believe some game theory rhetoric to know, "if you play well and your opponents don't- then you win". that's commonsense. word to the wise: give new players less talking
and more examples.

*sidenote: one of the reason why i found Middle Limit Holdem Poker by Bob Ciafonne and Jim Brier more vauable to me in NL SNGs than Malmuth and Sklansky's is because they TALKED then SHOWED lots of examples. i don't need some game theorem about bluffing as a new player, give me examples of bluffing and show me how they are or can be applied in certain situations. alot of what i read in TOP just sounded like commonsense worded in a way to sound academic. i'm a SHOW- N -PROVE, hands on kinda guy. show me examples, explain them, then show me HOW the examples are executed in different situations and why. other than that, everything just comes off as something you read out of somebody else's book being regurgitated in your own words.*

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
I was just wandering why these particular guides are relatively popular in regard to SNGs, more than any other format.


[/ QUOTE ]

Probably because the $5 SNG is where most cash strapped newbies can get the the most hands played per $ invested.
It caps how much you can lose, which is a nice benefit when starting out.

-g

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]

the reason why i found Middle Limit Holdem Poker by Bob Ciafonne and Jim Brier more vauable to me in NL SNGs than Malmuth and Sklansky's is because they TALKED then SHOWED lots of examples.

[/ QUOTE ]

Middle Limit Holdem has helped my NL game more than any other book I think. Reading thru 400 examples of different situations was extraordinarily helpful, and really helps you understand what to be thinking about in common postflop situations. Almost all the other books i've read focus more on preflop or higher level strategic concepts. This is the only very practical, postflop-focused book.

--Greg
(ok, TOP was good too /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Irieguy]

Your closing points about showing, rather than just telling are certainly fair enough. I will give a "show me" example to illustrate my point at the end of this reply.

First, though, I have to address your example of how ABC poker can lose against crazy play. I think the main problem may be how people define winning and losing. Giving me an example of how 3 big hands lost in a single SNG is not proof of how ABC poker loses. Losing and winning are endpoints only arrived at after hundreds or thousands of SNGs. You must realize that it is worhtless to say "I lost with aces a few times... so ABC poker loses." ABC poker beats crazy play over a significant number of trials, and beats it soundly: that much must be understood. I'll explain why it's important to understand this and give a practical example of how it matters next.

Ok, so here's what happens when you let your mind play tricks on you. Let's say you are plugging along at the $10 or $20 SNG level, improving, understanding, etc. You read all of the posts here, and start to believe that you should beat the low limit SNGs for an ITM% of 45% and an ROI of 30% or so. But you are only finishing ITM 36% of the time and your ROI is only 12%. Then you start running really cold, getting pocket pairs cracked by smaller pairs several times in a row, losing all of your coin flips, and finsishing 4th when your TPTK gets rivered for bottom trips 11 times in a row. Then you start believing all this nonsense about it being too difficult to beat these nutcases at the low limits and that ABC poker is overrated. Then this hand comes up-

You are playing in your 14th SNG and haven't cashed in your last 13 when you get AKs in late position and there's a raise and an all-in re-raise in front of you on the second hand of the tournament. You think to yourself "oh, great... I'm going to get a huge hand cracked again... oh, well, nothing I can do against these maniacs" and you call. The hands are revealed, and your opponents have AQs and pocket 3's. Pocket 3's make quads, and AQs makes a royal flush to eliminate you both. You curse your bad luck and vent by agreeing with Linus that it's impossible to beat 2 opponents willing to go broke with these hands.

Here's the problem: you made a very bad preflop call with AKs. The reason why you made the bad call is because you had psyched yourself out of understanding that it's very easy to beat a SNG where 2 players are willing to go all-in on the second hand with marginal holdings.

Then, the next SNG, you make it down to 5 players with a middle chip stack and your opponents are inappropriately tight. The 2 blinds are chip leading and obviously protecting their stacks. The CO is in 3rd place and you are the button with 11 big blinds. UTG folds, the CO calls and you have 7-5. You curse your bad luck for getting cold-decked at this stage and fail to realize that you have a 90%+ chance of stealing the blinds with a push here.

This is what happens when you stop believing that solid-aggressive poker wins. You stop playing solid aggressive poker and start playing tight-passive losing poker. This is why it matters.

Irieguy

[chill888]

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

good players saying that these levels can be beaten in your sleep (which is an overgeneralization) and not saying "HOW".
like i said before, anybody can say, "you should be beating these in your sleep", including bad players.

there was a guy who started a post maybe about a week or so ago where he asked (did Greg Raymer have Hand Histories?) when you take time out to really think about why a novice or beginning player with some experience would ask such a thing, think back to when you were a struggling, new player who did'nt understand certain things about the game. if a successful, experienced player gave access to their HHs (in both SNGs and MTTs) and provided insight in why they played the way they played, why the bluffed in this spot, how they adjusted to maniac or solid play at the table, who they calculated the odds to call on a hand, how they handled dry spells of cards, why they decided to change gears (and with which hands), etc. these are the type of examples that newbie players can get way more out of instead of one hand analysis here, another there. one hand does'nt make up a SNG or wins you a SNG, but one hand can lose you one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, we are just not on the same page. Yesterday I must have posted 30 times on detailed situations on how individual things should be played - at least in my opinion.
I agree with Jason that there are lots of great insights on this board - jumbled in with some very questionable advice.

But our little disagreement was solely on the subject of whether these games are easily beatable - while playing in a a mechanical fashion (ie in your sleep).

Hear me, there are lots of good players at this very board trying to give you detailed examples of how these games are very beatable. But you need to get past the initial step of understanding that if - over the long run - you are losing at low limit S&Gs, you have some serious room for improvement. Just cause you are a good guy, and have read 3 Sklansky books doesn't mean you have a divine right to win.

I was just trying to make a few of fundamental points in this particular thread:

1. Yes, the low limits are clearly easily beatable if you play good poker. Dozens of us have proven this over huge data samples. As an aside, I would give an example of playing in your sleep as someone who is playing 8 tables or even 4.

2. Yes, though, you would do even better (per table) if you played very close attention to each game and player style. And were a great not just good player.

3. However, winning in your sleep requires that you are a good player. And this is not something you wake up with cause you are a good guy. It takes LOTS of hardwork and LOTS of discipline. But when you get there it has it's rewards. Most of us are at this board to get better. Nice one to all of us.

4. I will say again: there are soooo many players out there that are pretty good but just have too many leaks to consistently win. They (very often) don't quite get it and blame bad results on bad players and bad luck.

Sure I've had AA lose to garbage several times in a row - who hasn't. But over the long term bad players are FANTASTIC for a good players bank roll. A true sign of an experienced player is one that lets these beats just roll of him. And in S&Gs this SHOULD be far easier than other formats because a bad beat (or a beat by a fool) doesn't cost much. Just sit at a new table chanting "bring it on"

gl

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
[At the medium and low S&G levels I think a lot of us have proven that you can beat the games in your sleep.]

maybe my opinion is flawed due to the high amount of bad beats that i'ved accumulated to inferior hands, especially on the river. i find it facisnating how people can say these can be beat in their sleep or with your eyes closed. i think low limit SNGs are a special breed all their own, precisely because of the crazy play at those levels. imagine you're at a table with 5 or more wannabe Gus Hansen's at your table who will raise or call with anything.
beating these SNGs, IMO, are a feat in themself. you can play ABC poker at these levels and still get creamed. you can play an aggressive game at these levels and still get creamed. you can play a loose-calling game at these levels and still get creamed. i think low SNG strategy and being a winning profitable player over the long run to where you can confidently move up is just as crucial as the strategy at higher levels. leaks and mistakes in ones game start at the low levels. if you're winning at the low levels playing like a brainless zombie, you're gonna take that strategy and attitude with you when you move up.

one of the main reasons i start threads like, "Can Higher Limit SNG Players Beat The Lower Levels" is because i'm trying to find out the "HOW". anybody can say, "Yeah, I can do it". then you get into all the reasons why a bigger limit player would'nt prove their words right like, "it's -$EV for them to do that", blah-blah-blah. then that leaves a player like me to read posts by guys who are in the same boat, players who oftentimes, have an exaggerated opinion to the positive in their play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Low buy-in Party games can be beaten with a relatively simple strategy, but they also have a high variance.

It's easy to think you're "crushing" the game, after a good run of 100- 200- or 300- games, only to find the game "crushing" you over the next two or three hundred game sample.

Over the long run - if you're patient and disciplined - you'll have a +Ev.

The long run, unfortunately, is pretty long.

[chill888]

No No No

Lower limit do not have a higher variance. Variance is dictated by ITM percentage and this will be higher in lower limits. (For good players)


What you will have is more games decided by luck and more games lost by bad beats --- BUT THIS IS NOT higher variance.

gl

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
Your closing points about showing, rather than just telling are certainly fair enough. I will give a "show me" example to illustrate my point at the end of this reply.

First, though, I have to address your example of how ABC poker can lose against crazy play. I think the main problem may be how people define winning and losing. Giving me an example of how 3 big hands lost in a single SNG is not proof of how ABC poker loses. Losing and winning are endpoints only arrived at after hundreds or thousands of SNGs. You must realize that it is worhtless to say "I lost with aces a few times... so ABC poker loses." ABC poker beats crazy play over a significant number of trials, and beats it soundly: that much must be understood. I'll explain why it's important to understand this and give a practical example of how it matters next.

Ok, so here's what happens when you let your mind play tricks on you. Let's say you are plugging along at the $10 or $20 SNG level, improving, understanding, etc. You read all of the posts here, and start to believe that you should beat the low limit SNGs for an ITM% of 45% and an ROI of 30% or so. But you are only finishing ITM 36% of the time and your ROI is only 12%. Then you start running really cold, getting pocket pairs cracked by smaller pairs several times in a row, losing all of your coin flips, and finsishing 4th when your TPTK gets rivered for bottom trips 11 times in a row. Then you start believing all this nonsense about it being too difficult to beat these nutcases at the low limits and that ABC poker is overrated. Then this hand comes up-

You are playing in your 14th SNG and haven't cashed in your last 13 when you get AKs in late position and there's a raise and an all-in re-raise in front of you on the second hand of the tournament. You think to yourself "oh, great... I'm going to get a huge hand cracked again... oh, well, nothing I can do against these maniacs" and you call. The hands are revealed, and your opponents have AQs and pocket 3's. Pocket 3's make quads, and AQs makes a royal flush to eliminate you both. You curse your bad luck and vent by agreeing with Linus that it's impossible to beat 2 opponents willing to go broke with these hands.

Here's the problem: you made a very bad preflop call with AKs. The reason why you made the bad call is because you had psyched yourself out of understanding that it's very easy to beat a SNG where 2 players are willing to go all-in on the second hand with marginal holdings.

Then, the next SNG, you make it down to 5 players with a middle chip stack and your opponents are inappropriately tight. The 2 blinds are chip leading and obviously protecting their stacks. The CO is in 3rd place and you are the button with 11 big blinds. UTG folds, the CO calls and you have 7-5. You curse your bad luck for getting cold-decked at this stage and fail to realize that you have a 90%+ chance of stealing the blinds with a push here.

This is what happens when you stop believing that solid-aggressive poker wins. You stop playing solid aggressive poker and start playing tight-passive losing poker. This is why it matters.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

never call a raise and then a reraise all-in with A K. there are too many holdings that i could be beaten by. i'm a huge dog to A A, i am deadmeat when a King hits the flop to someone with K K, any suited A K has better flush odds, and then you have all the pocket pairs. calling a raise and a reraise all-in to me with A Ko is simply bad poker. one of the things that sets me apart from most $5 + $.50 SNG players is that i pay close attention to little things such as your example, which if you're paying close attention, are really a BIG THING. i learned early to think along the lines of how a better player would think when playing at my present level. i'm just experiencing a bad spell right now along with the typical angst and frustration of a serious, low level player that's going through the hard knocks of learning winning poker.

in your second example, i've pushed with less than favorable hands in situations close to the bubble where i noticed players willing to limp to see a flop. once i pushed with J 3o all-in with 5 players left with about 1100 in chips (blinds about 75/150 or 100/200) and got called by a LAG limper who had A Ko. i flopped trip 3s and doubled up.
was it a fortunate and lucky hand? yes, but i was willing to push with a low stack with high blinds when i noticed players willing to play weak in order to win a pot. i have played this way in many other situations when i felt the situation warranted it. sometimes it works out, sometimes it does'nt. i just try my best to put myself in a position to compete for a cash spot and ultimately the win. over my last 70 or so (current batch of SNGs), i went from being up $100 and a high of 75% ITM to getting killed by river after river, beat after beat by inferior hands, lost coinflip after lost coinflipto where i'm currently -$(time to reinforce bankroll). you start to question whether the Poker GODS have it out for you.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[At the medium and low S&G levels I think a lot of us have proven that you can beat the games in your sleep.]

maybe my opinion is flawed due to the high amount of bad beats that i'ved accumulated to inferior hands, especially on the river. i find it facisnating how people can say these can be beat in their sleep or with your eyes closed. i think low limit SNGs are a special breed all their own, precisely because of the crazy play at those levels. imagine you're at a table with 5 or more wannabe Gus Hansen's at your table who will raise or call with anything.
beating these SNGs, IMO, are a feat in themself. you can play ABC poker at these levels and still get creamed. you can play an aggressive game at these levels and still get creamed. you can play a loose-calling game at these levels and still get creamed. i think low SNG strategy and being a winning profitable player over the long run to where you can confidently move up is just as crucial as the strategy at higher levels. leaks and mistakes in ones game start at the low levels. if you're winning at the low levels playing like a brainless zombie, you're gonna take that strategy and attitude with you when you move up.

one of the main reasons i start threads like, "Can Higher Limit SNG Players Beat The Lower Levels" is because i'm trying to find out the "HOW". anybody can say, "Yeah, I can do it". then you get into all the reasons why a bigger limit player would'nt prove their words right like, "it's -$EV for them to do that", blah-blah-blah. then that leaves a player like me to read posts by guys who are in the same boat, players who oftentimes, have an exaggerated opinion to the positive in their play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Low buy-in Party games can be beaten with a relatively simple strategy, but they also have a high variance.

It's easy to think you're "crushing" the game, after a good run of 100- 200- or 300- games, only to find the game "crushing" you over the next two or three hundred game sample.

Over the long run - if you're patient and disciplined - you'll have a +Ev.

The long run, unfortunately, is pretty long.

[/ QUOTE ]

it sure is. i had a pretty successful first 200-250 SNGs, including a final table of a 500 FPP satellite to the $250,000 event on Stars. the last 100 or so have been very frustrating, to say the least.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
No No No

Lower limit do not have a higher variance. Variance is dictated by ITM percentage and this will be higher in lower limits. (For good players)


What you will have is more games decided by luck and more games lost by bad beats --- BUT THIS IS NOT higher variance.

gl

[/ QUOTE ]

good point about games being decided by luck and bad beats.

[chill888]

As i just posted elsewhere NO NO NO NO

Low limits DO NOT HAVE HIGHER VARIANCE.

Variance is dictated by your ITM%. And ITM% should be higher at the lower levels - and thus lead to lower vraiance.

But at the lower levels you will win more with luck and lose more with bad luck - that is you will feel like you have less control. But this does (or at least should) not lead to higher variance in the long run.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
As i just posted elsewhere NO NO NO NO

Low limits DO NOT HAVE HIGHER VARIANCE.

Variance is dictated by your ITM%. And ITM% should be higher at the lower levels - and thus lead to lower vraiance.

But at the lower levels you will win more with luck and lose more with bad luck - that is you will feel like you have less control. But this does (or at least should) not lead to higher variance in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

actually, i win LESS with luck and lose MORE with bad luck.
i know you and alot of other higher level SNG players don't particuliarly consider $5 players good, but i try to play a game based on skill, position, selective aggression, etc. i'm still learning and have a ways to go. i heard somewhere that Phil Hellmuth hates LUCK, as opposed to skill. i feel the same way, i've just been on the bad end of luck for awhile trying to play with some semblance of skill.

[chill888]

Fair enough but hear my point: Low limits DO NOT (or should not) HAVE HIGHER VARIANCE. You just have less control over results. Variance is dicated by ITM% not crazy beats.

[Irieguy]

Lower limit SNGs do not have higher variance. Chill said it 3 times already, but it bears repeating.

The higher your ITM (for a given ROI), the lower your variance will be. No theory can dispute that, because it is a statistical fact.

Linus, you really must stop saying that because it just confuses people. Then somebody like ChrisB, PrayingM, JassonS, etc. will give a concise explanation for why this is nonsense and you disregard it. Please stop.

Irieguy

[LinusKS]

Thanks for telling me what to say and what not to say, Irie, but unless or until you obtain administrative control over the site, I'll say exactly what I want.

Btw, TYPING IN ALL CAPS does not make your point more valid.