Lee Jones article on SNG strategy

[River2Pair]

This article in Card Player was interesting, and I was wondering what some of you thought about it.

from Card Player. (http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/showarticle.php?a_id=14356)

[stupidsucker]

Good news for the SnG people with +roi already.

Its going to get better.

His advice isnt a terrible way to start learning the game, but the lathargic slide ITM thing isnt going to work on most bubbles from the 30s and up. You will have a string of 4th and 5th place so long it will kill you.

I think this artical could bring a lot of people to try SnGs, and because of the small BR needed to play SnGs the extra people should stick around for a while. Perhaps the player pool is big enough not even to notice an influx.

I have played several 50+5 SnGs that go very much like the one he talked about, but most of them are much tighter. The strategy he talks about for the first few levels is pretty close to perfect though.

[Unarmed]

Horrible late stage advice.
Holding ITM% constant and playing around with ITM finish order illustates just how important it is NOT to settle for 2nd and 3rd.

[River2Pair]

Well, I don't play many tournaments anymore. I'm sticking to limit hold 'em almost exclusively lately.

Yeah, it does seem smart to let the maniacs knock each other out. But usually this would lead me to the bubble with a tiny stack unless I was able to double through early with aces or kings or whatever.

The small stack survival thing usually involved a lot of well-timed blind steals for me.

[Irieguy]

Silly article. Using a single example to prove a point in a mathematical paradigm is not really the way to go about it, right?

By the way, the chip leader, AK and AQ played their hands correctly 4-handed in his example. He just happened to benefit from it. But folding AK 4-handed is a pretty clear mistake, even if one opponent is very short. There are lots of ways to play bad SNG poker, but being tight-passive on the bubble is the worst. I hope when the inevitable SNG book comes out, it will espouse similar advice.

Irieguy

[Gramps]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, the other point is this: When you get down toward the bubble, it is crazy to risk busting out when you can almost certainly ease into the money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really hope all the Party SNG players take this to heart... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

It's a valid point that when you're on the bubble as the short stack, and the other three players have reckless/loose/crazy tendencies, that you play more conservatively than normal given the higher chance that someone else will simply bust out...but normally that's just the wrong way to play...which is why this SNG player hopes people take his "unique facts-specific rule" and apply it generally across the board... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

And he may be overstating things even in the facts he presented - I doubt it was an "almost certainty" that he and his 500 chips could fold his way into the money at the 100/200 level. Even against a group of crazies, he got lucky (pair/AQ/AK on same hand 4-handed).

[morgan180]

I had this exact thing happen last night. I had a woeful 520 chip stack on the bubble. I had played 1 voluntary hand all tourney. I slid all the way in to second place by folding and i picked off one BB of 200 when i was in the SB by folding the BB with a PF push.

Needless to say I think that suckers point that you are going to end up with a pile of 4ths and 5ths is dead on.

The bubble is very read and stack dependant. Obviously if you are well positioned to be in the money you don't do anything that is going to get you killed on a speculative play. (Get in the money, play for 1st, settle for 3rd) If people (primarily the medium stacks) are tightening up you apply the GAP concept and take down some blinds. If you are on the short stack you try to leverage some folding equity, etc.

I think that the article makes a good point that you can't play an SNG blind. There is a lot of strategy involved at every step of the way. This is nothing earth shattering to this group, but if you play an SNG the same way through out that article might make you think some more about playing in the context of the situation.

And I agree - anyone who takes this article and says "oh, that's how you play an SNG" can come sit at my table any time. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[eastbay]

It sounds like he played a half dozen SnGs and decided he should write an article about it.

eastbay

[wjmooner]

I suppose my letter to the editor would go something like this:

Dear Mr. Jones,

Thank you for advocating that 2 medium stacks should consider folding AK and AQ against a lag who has shown a propensity to put all of his chips in with dominated hands. I am sure this will lead to an insane number of blind steals on my part.

WJ

[ilya]

I think his late-stage advice is bad, but why is everyone coming to the defense of the AQ & AK guys? Sure, one of them probably played correctly...but the other probably made a mistake.

[pshreck]

His example is of the optimal SNG, with your opponents cluelessly eliminating eachother, with you having almost a guarantee on atleast making the money.

These SNG's dont exist unless there is an increased number of significantly bad opponents, getting their "good enough" cards at the same time and knocking eachother out. The game he describes happens I would say about 1 time in 100 at the 50 dollar buy in.

Overall, surprisingly bad advice, especially since it purely has to do with bubble play, which is really the most important aspect of the SNG. Newbies.... don't use his advice.

[River2Pair]

I had a feeling that this was bad strategy, although as I said I play very few SnG's myself.

It seems that many winning players strongly disagree with Jones' recommendations in the SS forum too.

I assume Jones is a winning player, because he gets his material published.

So is this an example of there being a good way and a better way, or does he actually not play the way he recommends, just trying to help out newbies?

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]

So is this an example of there being a good way and a better way, or does he actually not play the way he recommends, just trying to help out newbies?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll repeat my guess: I think he just hasn't played that many SnGs, and made some snap conclusions about them that are easy to make from a small sample, but are ultimately wrong.

eastbay

[slickterp]

i think he's just making the point that it happens, and if you find yourself at a table where people charge in constantly, keep it in mind. i've seen it many times.

[wjmooner]

Well, Lee doesn't really explain how the money got in, which would make a huge difference. For instance, calling with AQ two all-ins would've been insane, but I can see how they both played it right.

For instance: AK raises to 3xbb UTG, Big stack calls in SB w/ 33. BB figures his hand AQ is good and there's lots of dead money out there, so he pushes. UTG calls w/ AK and the 33 overcalls.

WJ

[Klak]

why does everyone think that calling 2 allins with AK on the bubble is correct??? this is just silly. he clearly should have folded and had a very good chance at 3rd. calling 2 all ins with AK at any point usually isnt right. getting all you chips in preflop with more than one other player usually isnt right either (unless you have aces). everyone is trying to say that this article is wrong becuase the "being aggressive on the bubble" thing is the mantra around here. in this situation, folding is definatly correct. if the lag shows aggression and someone else is biting, why play there? why not wait for a better chance to skin the lag?

he doesnt actually say how the chips all got in the middle, but one of the middle stacks should have wised up and folded before they became pot committed.

[wjmooner]

I wouldn't have called 2 all-ins w/ AK, but I would've reraised all in w/ AK and I especially would've been happy to go heads up with the laggy big stack.

Assuming AK didn't call two all-ins then the play is fine. I think that's the main point most posters are trying to make.

WJ