First three SNGs

[fujowpai]

I'm completely new to tournament play of any kind. To dip my toe in, I've played three 5/1 single-table games at Party. In two of the three games, there was an early all-in suicide pact (not including me, of course) and the guy with the empty chamber had a huge stack advantage until sometime in level 4 or 5. Is this common in most tourney structures and levels?

I noticed that if you make a play sometime early on, but end up having to lay it down, you're in bad shape going into level 4 as the blinds will now eat up 1/4-1/3 of your stack, not leaving much wiggle room. Paying for levels 1-4 costs 37% of your starting stack as it is. Is this what encourages the kamikazee plays in the early levels?

Eric

[Baked67]

I'd say it would have more to do with the total lack of skill that alot of players possess at this level...Going all in w/out AA or KK early on in a 5 dollar tournament is not well advised. Play tight early on and switch gears and get aggressive at level 4 or 5...I recomend you check out the FAQ at the top of this forum for some good strategy on Sit N Go's...Also, check out MJ's Party Poker Strategy Guide (http://teamfu.freeshell.org/tournament/no_limit_sng.html) site for another excelent strategy guide.

Follow these guides and you will be profitting in no time...

[fujowpai]

Thanks for the response. I'm not worried about my play. I'm merely interesting in the influence of structure on playing decisions, particularly those of other players. What should I expect to vary in typical play in various structures and levels?

[top6]

Why wouldn't you go all-in with AA or KK if you thought you were going to get callers? At a $5, $10 or $10,000 SNG?

[lastchance]

I think that people are stupid enough at this level for an argument to be made for going in with QQ and AKs as well, especially QQ.

[top6]

I agree; I'm not sure it's a winning case, but it's a case. I've certainly gone all-in w/ QQ early on in the $10 and $20 SNGs at Party.

[lastchance]

He's not saying that, just that he doesn't want to be all in without AA or KK.

And yeah, those Party fish are really something else.

[top6]

i see that now - i misread it. apologies.

[fujowpai]

This is as good a jumping off point for what I'm wondering as anything. If it's still level 1, we can assume the stacks are between 600 and 1000. Let's say you are holding QQ. Assume you initiate the suicide pact and get two callers, both of whom hold only one overcard to your queens, you are only a teeny bit more than even money against the two of them. If you get the empty chamber, you expect to triple up. Is this a reasonable gamble at this point in the tournament?

[lastchance]

Yes. 2:1 odds on a coinflip is always good. You can't pass it up, ever.

[smoore]

[ QUOTE ]
If you get the empty chamber, you expect to triple up. Is this a reasonable gamble at this point in the tournament?

[/ QUOTE ]

for $5? I can't turn that gamble down. QQ and triple up then just don't play a hand until level 5 if you don't have one. bust out? go register for another one.

P.S. try not to play a tournament with 20% vig. 10+1 is the way to go

[fujowpai]

But my example is too specific. In reality, with Queens, you are likely a small dog against two to prevail and probably only have a moderate equity edge over these callers (given no other considerations). As far as I can tell, anyone entering one of these "pacts" knowingly is making a mistake.

But as an innocent bystander, I'm now up against the one still alive, who has a substantial chip lead with only two complete orbits to go before I've paid out almost 40% of my starting stack to see cards. If I have position on this guy for only a couple of deals every orbit, I have a big problem.

The other thing that stands out in my extrememly limited sample are the ones who avoid any early confrontations. If you have a "live" one on your left, followed by a row of these tight guys, do you think it's sensible to steal from the cut-off in the early rounds?

[BradleyT]

[ QUOTE ]
In reality, with Queens, you are likely a small dog against two to prevail and probably only have a moderate equity edge over these callers (given no other considerations).

[/ QUOTE ]

Um? wrong.

[fujowpai]

Don't think so, huh?

I assuming players will put their tournament at risk on AA-QQ, AK-AJ, KQ. Given this assumption, I'm correct.

But that's kind of a side issue. Bottom line, I think going all-in early if not heads-up is a mistake.

The main point I'm trying to get at is the need for possible need for selective aggression early, rather than folding everything other than top five or six holdings in a structure of this type.

[rjb03]

As someone already mentioned, you should take 2:1 on a coinflip every time. There are also times where you will get called by two people who share the same overcard, one dominating the other, thus decreasing their odds of winning.

[lorinda]

Whilst it is worth it for a short time when honing your skills, you should either get to a site like stars and play $5+0.5 or move up to $10+1 as soon as you feel even remotely comfortable.

Nothing to add to what has already been said otherwise.

Lori

[fujowpai]

Thanks for the tip Lori. I am aware of the vig. These Party 5/1 games are simply my baseline for evaluating tournament behaviours. Up to this point, I've been strictly a cash guy. So far, I like it. It's kind of like a big cage fight.

Having played some more of these, I have no doubt that the strategy of waiting for premium hands in the 1st three levels is not suitable for this structure or level. As far as I can tell, you need to identify players to beat up on as soon as you can. These include the players who are itching to see cards as well as the guys waiting for the nuts. They seem to be pretty easy to spot. The live wires will pay most any price, and don't seem to mind sending good money after bad, and the tight guys will lay it down.

What's also interesting is the demoralizing effect on players of getting their stacks decimated, and how if they get low enough they'll make desperation plays. It seems a bit more extreme than in the cash games.

I'll be interested to see how things change with different structures and levels.

[AleoMagus]

[ QUOTE ]
I assuming players will put their tournament at risk on AA-QQ, AK-AJ, KQ. Given this assumption, I'm correct.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you are correct. QQ vs two players playing cards in that range will win 42% of the time.

so, 42% of the time you triple up.

In terms of expectation, that means this call is worth about +208 chips in the long run. This early in the tourney, I think $EV calculations don't change that much.

I'd be calling here. Especially because in truth, you should be adding some underpairs to your list of possible all-in hands. Play a few more low limit SNGs on Party and you will agree. They've watched too much WPT and think 77 is a monster.

[ QUOTE ]
But that's kind of a side issue. Bottom line, I think going all-in early if not heads-up is a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but not in this case.

Regards
Brad S

[fujowpai]

[ QUOTE ]

so, 42% of the time you triple up.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for your reply Brad.

42% is your probability of winning. You lose over half the time. This is as I said.

Your EV is a different matter. You have an equity advantage over your opponent, as I said and you reiterated. Is it big enough to justify going all-in against two certain callers? You say yes, I disagree. Note that in this case, you are initiating the suicide pact. If would be different if you could add in some probability of them folding or you were the one put to the decision.

Eric

[fujowpai]

Also, it should be obvious that in a tournament you haven't actually won anything if you win this battle. But if you lose, which is the probable outcome, you have given up your opportunity the win the war.

You may be right about the WPT-wannabes, but I still think it is a mistake, and I suspect that a more in-depth analysis would bear this out.

[leykis]

Regarding all-in preflop with QQ early. I have seen way to many times that these players will go all in pre flop with AXs Kxs and also absolute garbage. I believe that at the 20+2 and below level on party you have to make this play. Will you lose some, of course but if you lay it down you are usually folding the best hand.

[fujowpai]

Well, getting back to my original point of early tournament behavior in this structure and level, I'm starting to get a glimpse of why I see these suicide pacts. The 2+2 players see it as a good play; the WPT-wannabes see it as a good play, and I imagine there are some other rational players who intuitively feel it is a good play, but can't explain why.

Then there's me.

Let's say you start in the big blind, and sitting at your table are Heckel in UTG and Jeckel with the button. You've played Heckel and Jeckel before so you know there modus operandi is to come out swinging, hoping to intimidate the 2+2 players. What's more, Heckel writes in the chat box "I'm taking someone out on the first play" and Jeckel writes back "Oh yeah, you're going down, fool".

The cards are dealt and you hold QQ. Heckel bets 200. Jeckel responds by putting in half his stack (400 chips). So you know you have two certain callers. You push it in.

Then someone puts a curse on you that dooms you to start every SNG in this exact way. You will lose over half of your SNGs on the opening play. How many depends on Heckel and Jeckel, and not getting another 2+2 player with AA, KK. Although you will continue the remainder of the SNGs with 2x as many chips as the other players, that doesn't guarantee you a spot in the money. You would have to now modify your ROI to include the automatic >50% hit. That's some powerful damage to make up for.

[DownLow]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say you start in the big blind, and sitting at your table are Heckel in UTG and Jeckel with the button. You've played Heckel and Jeckel before so you know there modus operandi is to come out swinging, hoping to intimidate the 2+2 players. What's more, Heckel writes in the chat box "I'm taking someone out on the first play" and Jeckel writes back "Oh yeah, you're going down, fool".

The cards are dealt and you hold QQ. Heckel bets 200. Jeckel responds by putting in half his stack (400 chips). So you know you have two certain callers. You push it in.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the table talk came before the cards, I would push here every time, no question. In this situation I think these jokers could have any 2 cards. I'll happily take queens against 2 random hands.

[ QUOTE ]

Then someone puts a curse on you that dooms you to start every SNG in this exact way. You will lose over half of your SNGs on the opening play.


[/ QUOTE ]

I thought the "lose over half" calculation was for a very limited subset of push hands. I think you are probably better than 50% against 2 random hands.

[ QUOTE ]

How many depends on Heckel and Jeckel, and not getting another 2+2 player with AA, KK. Although you will continue the remainder of the SNGs with 2x as many chips as the other players, that doesn't guarantee you a spot in the money. You would have to now modify your ROI to include the automatic >50% hit. That's some powerful damage to make up for.

[/ QUOTE ]
On Party, it almost does guarantee you a spot if you are skilled. With 3x more chips than any other player at the moment, you can probably post and fold into the money. There have been plenty of anecdotal reports of diconnected players moneying and with the aggressive blind structure at Party I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that a skilled player can money given 30% of the chips in play early.

[AleoMagus]

[ QUOTE ]
The 2+2 players see it as a good play; the WPT-wannabes see it as a good play, and I imagine there are some other rational players who intuitively feel it is a good play, but can't explain why.

Then there's me.


[/ QUOTE ]

To be honest, I like the tone of your posts (argumentative, which is good, yet still polite) so I hate to have to disagree with you so much, but I have to re-iterate how wrong I think this is.

[ QUOTE ]
You would have to now modify your ROI to include the automatic >50% hit. That's some powerful damage to make up for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, put like that it might seem so, but I'll attempt to explain why you will, in fact make up for that damage. You seem to understand the idea of an equity edge, but see the tourney structure as the factor which makes the equity edge no longer important. This is correct, the tourney does make a difference, but not so much as you are suggesting, especially this early, and far from the money.

You are not going to be doubling up those times that you win, you will be tripling up. You will hold 30% of the chips at the table plus maybe the blinds.

so, assuming all players are equally skilled this brings your tournament equity to about 25.5% from the 10% it was formerly.

To see how I got this you might want to search a bit about the ICM. THIS (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=singletable&Number=112 2239&Forum=,All_Forums,&Words=ICM&Searchpage=1&Lim it=25&Main=1122239&Search=true&where=bodysub&Name= &daterange=1&newerval=1&newertype=m&olderval=&olde rtype=&bodyprev=#Post1122239) is a good recent thread, with a link to an ICM calculator.

what this means is that despite busting 58% of the time in this spot straight away (that's assuming the earlier solid range of hands that you might be up against), you will increase your equity.

42%*25.5%=10.71
58%*-10%=-5.8

so, this move is worth about $10.71-$5.8 or $4.91 in a tourney with a $100 prize pool (10+1).

I know what you are thinking here and you are right. But that's with players of equal skills! I'm better than these guys! Why am I going to let them bust me 58% of the time straight away?

Well, because even though you are better, your skill advantage is still going to be present once you have tripled up, and with that big stack, you might find that you are presented with more opportunities to exercise it.

I tend to think that these types of moves are exactly why a good player can claim a skill edge. You need to take advantage of these opportunities early.

Will a move like this lower your ITM? Sure it will, but that doesn't mean it won't help your ROI as you can expect to take 1st more often with this large boost of chips. Also there is another very important factor to consider - hourly rate.

You will be busting on the first hand 58% of the time, but making a move which has an overall +$EV result. This means that you will be improving your ROI while at the same time reducing the time it takes to play your average tourney. Even if you were lowering your ROI slightly (which you aren't) this result would increase your $/hr.

[ QUOTE ]
Then someone puts a curse on you that dooms you to start every SNG in this exact way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish this doomed curse would befall me

I suppose if it was possible that you were so much better than your opponents, that you could easily guarantee a much better finish by avoiding this gamble, then it might be incorrect, but many people overestimate their advantage in this respect (IMO). Your advantage often comes from these types of calls.

This all disregards what is perhaps the most important aspect of this whole discussion. On the early rounds of a low stakes SNG on party, you cannot count on your opponents having hands this good. You will often be a strong favorite to win the hand, when they turn over two underpairs or even worse hands.

In higher stakes or under different conditions, all-ins like this might almost certainly mean AK, KK or AA and under those conditions, of course a fold is in order. That is the 'it depends' of this conversation.

On up to a 30+3 party SNG, I'm calling these all-ins almost every time. I don't play enough higher than that to comment with any real credibility but I really think you have to make the call at these levels.

Regards
Brad S

[fujowpai]

That is an outstanding presentation of your case. I don't have enough SNG experience to evaluate its merits, but I very much appreciate a thought-out argument.

Eric

[fujowpai]

Having played some more at this same level/structure, I'm still of the opinion that initiating the suicide pact is a mistake. (I even had this exact scenario occur, which was good for a laugh when I pushed in honor of this thread. I lost to short-stacked kings, but beat the 3rd guy so I wasn't eliminated)

Yet my reasoning is now based more on the skill difference than mathematics. I end up with at least two fewer opponents (when others do this), and the one still alive has revealed himself a fair amount. It's apparently not uncommon to see this behavior several times in the first or second levels. It turns out that their resulting big stacks seem to be irrelevant to their chance of success.

However, I think it is already time to move up as the competition is too weak to be very useful. Any suggestions for what is just above Party's 5/1 in terms of competence of participants? Preferably I'd have only slightly better players (or somewhat more of them) because I want to compare. I'm interested in more challenging tournament-specific scenarios. Any suggestions are appreciated. Eric