How bad would it be to fold every hand on levels 1-3 in a 10+1?

[jeffraider]

Just like the title says, folding every single hand including monsters for levels 1-3 of your typical Party 10+1? How much would you be costing yourself in the long run, do you think?

[Mons]

First I'm really not sure how much it would 'cost' you. Frequently I am dealt cold cards for most of levels 1-3 and I can usually do fine as long as at least am able to get a hand to double up with.

However I think the reason you may be asking this question is that you have had some bad experiences with monsters against the loose $10+1 players. If this is the case, avoid such results oriented thinking. Be happy that you are getting your money in with the best of it w/ AA-QQ and AK. If you run into a bigger hand or get sucked out on, so be it.

Just my thoughts, flawed as they may be.

---
Mons

[stanky]

I've finished ITM several times without winning a hand till round 4 so I imagine it wouldn't hurt me much since I play extremely tight in the first couple of rounds. Don't ask me to do an experiment though since I don't make it a habit to fold monsters.

-Pete

[jeffraider]

[ QUOTE ]
First I'm really not sure how much it would 'cost' you. Frequently I am dealt cold cards for most of levels 1-3 and I can usually do fine as long as at least am able to get a hand to double up with.

However I think the reason you may be asking this question is that you have had some bad experiences with monsters against the loose $10+1 players. If this is the case, avoid such results oriented thinking. Be happy that you are getting your money in with the best of it w/ AA-QQ and AK. If you run into a bigger hand or get sucked out on, so be it.

Just my thoughts, flawed as they may be.

---
Mons

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not out of frustration or anything. It just seems like 10+1s would be just about as beatable if you folded levels 1-3 without regard for your cards, and I was just curious if I was very far off the mark.

[David100]

not sure about 10, but was playing in a $200 sng the other day, and 3rd place did not enter into one hand! so he won $400.

David

[floppy]

Phil Van Sexton was recommending raising to 100-125 PF for this very reason. You'll either pick up the blinds (an improvement over folding) or have a very good chance of winning a good sized pot. There's still some risk, but it seems better than tangling with maniacs post-flop when they're getting implied odds on a 3xBB bet at BB=T$10

[Mons]

[ QUOTE ]
Phil Van Sexton was recommending raising to 100-125 PF for this very reason. You'll either pick up the blinds (an improvement over folding) or have a very good chance of winning a good sized pot. There's still some risk, but it seems better than tangling with maniacs post-flop when they're getting implied odds on a 3xBB bet at BB=T$10

[/ QUOTE ]

I usually do something similar to this. It works well considering most of the $10+1 players can't get away from AQ and AJ.

[wadea]

I basically play nothing but AA, KK, QQ or AK in the first three rounds anyway. I sometimes limp in with PPs. Even when I make a hand with those cards, I usually make sure to shut out all the cheesy draws and end up not winning much with them. Most of the time, though, I probably don't enter a pot in the first three rounds anyway, so you probably wouldn't be giving up much...

If you multi-table, you could actually "Sit Out" for the first three rounds (or so) and thus play more tables/hour. Thus, in this case, you could actually GET something for not playing hands early.

-wadea

[The Yugoslavian]

You'd be fine. I'd imagine for many players it could actually improve their ITM and ROI.

Feel free to start up some SNGs, click the away button and go take a shower/bang a hot chick/make some food/etc -- it'll still be all good when you show up in time for level 4.


Hmmm, now this has me thinking. This could be a viable way to increase one's $/hr rate when multitabling tons of table. Instead of even having to click 'fold' one could simply stagger waves of ~4 SNGs and only play them when it gets to level 4.

Thoughts anyone?

Yugoslav

[illab]

I disagree with this idea, and I'm usually the one plays the least amount of hands on my tables. But that's usually because the $20+2s are pretty loose. Why not play a few hands like AJ,KQs, or pocket pairs if you can limp in and have position. If no one raises (on a typical table where some people raise with A7, level 1) then your AJ or KQ will probably hold up against calling stations who play like they don't know what a kicker is. Just make sure to bet away the people on draws or make them pay for them. I guess its about having the confidence that you can outplay people after the flop.

Sometimes I cant get a hand for the 1st three levels and only five or six people are left by level 3. I'm missed my chance to double up on one of the idiots and now I'm probably going to have to go allin in and get lucky in a overcards vs. pocket pair matchup to have a chance to place. Even if you miss the flop on the two or three extra hands you play its not going kill you. It not that different have 720 or 660 chips.

[The Yugoslavian]

I agree with everything you said except I don't understand what in my post you disagree with.

Obviously one is giving up $EV by automatically folding in the first 3 levels. However, I'm interested in what people think about the possibility recouping that $EV and more by doing it to allow more SNGs/hr.

Do you think that every winning player generates +$EV on levels 1-3? IMO many winning players may be leaking $EV due to too many mistakes playing hands in the early levels (I remember a very interesting Irie post that alluded to this point). It's hard to significantly increase one's $EV too much that early in an SNG but it is very easy to significantly decrease one's $EV in the early stages of a SNG.

Yugoslav

[lastchance]

I think a better tack would be to fold every hand but AA, KK, QQ, or AK if you want to increase your EV by playing more SNGs per hour.

I agree that you don't make a lot of EV by playing marginal hands in levels 1-3, but doubling up with a hand like AA or KK is huge when you get it.

[The Yugoslavian]

Watching for and playing those 4 hands will take attention away from the other tables (on level 4 or higher) that you could be playing. But it would seem that most massive multitablers do more or less exactly what you suggest.

Doubling up with AA or KK early is significant when it happens but not as 'huge' as most people think. To be fair, though, you don't double up every time with those hands (far from it) and even when you do your $EV doesn't necessarily double. Doubling through AA or KK is relatively rare though and one has to be paying *some* attention each and every hand in order to see them come up and then play them when they do come up. One is sacrificing a lot of time for these rare double ups, don't you think?

Yugoslav

[Mr_J]

Well over 61 tournies (my current 43 at $33s and the rest before at $50s), AA-QQ and AK have been worth around 250 chips to me in Lvl 1-3. 34-15, and some of those 15 have been pretty ugly.

If I include every hand I've played, Lvl 1-3 are worth around 30 chips more. This is obviously a small sample, and also consider the fact that my game has considerably improved during this period. Also had more suckouts than I should've.

Say you make it to the end of the 6th level on average, you are missing out on 1/2 of your monster hands. I know sngs aren't really about early play, but it should still make a difference. Folding doesn't take much effort, so why pass up on these hands?

*since I started playing again (35 sngs this year), the first 3 levels have actually been worth 377 chips each sng.

** 130 of those chips come from non AA-QQ&AK.

[Mr_J]

"fold every hand but AA, KK, QQ, or AK"

I agree, for my skill level anyway. The amount I gain from playing other hands is worthless (about 30 chips or so each sng). Also, playing only monsters gives you a tighter image and makes it easier to steal blinds and pots in the mid stage.

Don't mind hearing the value that other players here get out of lvls 1-3 (for me, about $250 for powerhouses and $30 for other cards).

*the worth of first 3 lvls is actually $247 for AA-QQ &AK, and $377 for all my lvl 1-3 play.

[AleoMagus]

I think you would be costing yourself and it'd be foolish to do so considering how profitable and easy it would be to at least play a few hands.

This is something that I have thought about quite a bit though, but not quite the same. I have thought about straightforward ways to simplify those first few rounds with sub-optimal plays which should still be +EV, and which are almost foolproof.

For instance, I have considered the effect of just pushing every AA, KK, QQ and AK during the first three rounds. AA, KK, QQ could also call any pushes (QQ can only call one) and AK will fold to any all-in and even any big raise.

The reason why a strategy like this seems appealing at times, especially for beginners is because of a particular type of situation which is a little troublesome at times.

The situation that I am speaking of is when there are reverse implied odds because you probably have the best hand on the flop and even charge any draw enough to make it a bad pot odds call, but do not have the judgement required to let go of the hand after that, even if the draw should come.

I have many times found myself falling victim to my own stubborness this way. For example:

Level 1. I am on the button with A /images/graemlins/spade.gifA /images/graemlins/club.gif and there are three limpers. I raise to 100 and get one caller.

Flop comes 9 /images/graemlins/heart.gif8 /images/graemlins/heart.gifk /images/graemlins/spade.gif

checked to me. Pot is now a little over 200 and I want to charge the potential straight/flush draw. I bet 250 from my stack of 700. I get a call

Turn brings 6 /images/graemlins/heart.gif

Crap. checked to me. Pot is now 700ish and I have only 450 in my stack. What on earth called that flop and is now checking to me. Probably a king. I push

He turns over T /images/graemlins/heart.gifQ /images/graemlins/heart.gif

He has the flush. River doesn't matter. I lose.

I get frustrated by his fishy call on the flop. Why would he call when he doesn't have odds? Stupid fish.

Then I realize that I am kinda fishy too and his call was not so bad considering he (apparently) had implied odds because my AA was worth another 450 to him when the heart came. Not to mention he also had 12 outs. It WAS a fishy call preflop, but I might have been just as big a fish after that.

Now, this is something that a really good player will deal with effectively, but when you are quad tabling or just plain weak at poker, it's really easy to get sucked into this kind of reverse implied odds trap.

So, I wonder how much it would cost us to just push all AA, KK, QQ, and AK?

Or, if I wanted to get a little more advanced but still keep things really mindlessly foolproof. Play our usual hands (AA, KK, QQ, AK, Limped pairs), but only ever push or fold the flop with TPTK, overpairs, and sets.

Here I go trying to turn poker into a strategy card again...

Oh well. Any thoughts?

Regards
Brad S

[Scuba Chuck]

Jeffraider, why not just play only the following 4 hands:
AA, KK, QQ, & AK

Besides these four hands, fold all the rest for the first 3 rounds. Would that accomplish the same goal?

Oh, and that's just tight poker...

[jeffraider]

That's actually pretty much what I do now, except I'll limp PPs for 15 or 30 chips purely for set value. Reviewing my last 10 ITM finishes, only 2 of them had me playing a hand before level 4. That's what got me thinking.

[ThorGoT]

Aleo --

How is your idea different (in broad outline) fromm the "System" described by Sklansky in HPFAP? I realize that you're limiting it to the first few rounds, but in reality strategy in the last few rounds -- given blind sizes, etc. -- is often also very much all about pushing, just with a broader range of hands. So isn't your strategy, really, to push with a very small group of hands early, and a much broader array later?

Intuitively this doesn't seem right, and I think one of the posters previously has described why. The "System" is excellent to avoid getting called unless you'll have a reasonable chance of doubling up. But it is -- of course -- useless at taking chips away from others in small quantities. Now, in a tough game, I'm more concerned about being outplayed; in a weaker game, i want my chance to outplay others. Tough game - system. Weak game -- it's a second best option.

ThorGoT

[AleoMagus]

You are right in the sense that weaker players are much more likely to make bad plays than me. It's not me who should be worried about reverse implied odds traps, it's them. So in this sense, I know that play as systematic as what I have described is sub-optimal.

But, what if I'm just a new player? (or rather, a new player who I am trying to teach)

How much is play this systematic really costing? Can one be a winner with a strictly push/fold SNG game. You actually describe what I am suggesting very well with:

[ QUOTE ]
to push with a very small group of hands early, and a much broader array later

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize that this sounds a little like the sklansky system, though I would point out that I do not think the as-is Sklansky system has any hope of making money in a typical SNG. I am describing something more attuned to the environment of a typical SNG.

Regards
Brad S

[lacky]

if it is profitable at the lowest level ( I can't imagine it working more than 5 games at $109's before everyone adjusted) you just described the easiest poker bot program ever. Since the $11's aren't flooded with non talking players use that stratagy it probably doesn't work. I'm sure somebody has pluged sklanski's system into a program and tried it by now.

Steve

[Ezcheeze]

For anyone who is beating the game for a significant amount it would be absolutely horrible to fold all hands for the first 3 levels. Level 3 is a 50 big blind thats pretty large to be folding everytime. The players at a 10+1 sng make so many many mistakes during the entire tournament its just ludicrous to not allow yourself to take full advantage of them during every level.

-Ezcheeze

[Mammux]

Only slightly related story:

I played in an mtt today where one of the players would always push preflop with AA, KK, QQ. Even when he wasn't called, he would show the cards every time. I asked him in chat if he would push JJ, and he said no. Anyway, this is a great image to have into the late mid- and endgame. He loosened up slightly, but his pushes still got lots of respect. In the end he came third or fourth, I knocked him out on a hand where I hit my set and he went all-in on the flop with his TPTK.

-Magnus

[Ozzzz]

I laugh at all of you who only play premium "trash" hands in the first 3 rounds. I will call your all-in raise with AA when I hold 72o and laugh mightily when the board ends up being AQ222, knocking you out and putting you on tilt for at least a year.

[PE101]

I agree! The number of 10+1s that lose a few players in the 1st couple of hands amazes me. I play very, very tight (but fairly aggressive) in the first couple of rounds, but I like to have ~1000 or so at the end of round 2. (I often have <500 though).

[Scuba Chuck]

So I played 4 $55s yesterday where in rounds 1-3 I folded everything except the top 4 hands: AA, KK, QQ, AK. And later followed some general Aleo principles. Here were my results:

2nd
8th
2nd
1st

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
if it is profitable at the lowest level ( I can't imagine it working more than 5 games at $109's before everyone adjusted) you just described the easiest poker bot program ever. Since the $11's aren't flooded with non talking players use that stratagy it probably doesn't work. I'm sure somebody has pluged sklanski's system into a program and tried it by now.

Steve

[/ QUOTE ]

According to some guys I know at MIT, Party bot detection is annoyingly good.

[KingOtter]

I wonder how different it would be in limit.

I played one this morning in which I played 2 hands before level 3. A KK and an AK. Won them both to get up to around 1K before level 3, and played tight for a while. Ended up being 5th after an all-in hit 2 pair against my TP made me short-stacked.

In limit it is pretty rare for someone to get out before level 3. Probably not as rare in NL.

KO

[Iceman]

[ QUOTE ]
Can one be a winner with a strictly push/fold SNG game.

[/ QUOTE ]

In 10+1 and 20+2, against bad opponents, you would probably win money, but not nearly as much as you could win from a strategy involving some pushes and some actual playing of hands. From the 50/100 level onward you can basically play a push/fold game except when you have a deep stack, but there are times when you would gain value by deviating from it. High pairs preflop and sets on the flop aren't common on the first three levels, but when they do occur you gain a huge amount of value from them. There are times when you get no cards for the first 30 hands or so and it is correct to just fold everything, but to have a general policy of folding all hands on the first three levels would be a major mistake for anyone other than a terrible player (who would be better off folding everything until the 50/100 level and then playing push or fold).

[ QUOTE ]
I realize that this sounds a little like the sklansky system, though I would point out that I do not think the as-is Sklansky system has any hope of making money in a typical SNG. I am describing something more attuned to the environment of a typical SNG.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Sklansky System is not an ideal push/fold system for SNGs. The hands in the System are selected because they don't do that badly against premium hands (that will call you in a real deep money B&M tournament when you massively overbet a small pot), not because they do well against the much broader range of hands that will call you in an SNG. The set of hands you would choose to not get totally destroyed against the best 2% of hands is a lot different than what you would choose when it's likely that you will face the best 20% when called. In Sklansky's System, you keep racking up blinds while people are scared of your massive raises. In a Party SNG, you are much more likely to get called even in the early levels than Sklansky's System assumes.

[lacky]

unfortunatly any bot detection can be gotten around very simply. You can hire labor in India etc. for about $1 a day. All u need is two seperate systems with a human interface that pushes the button the program tells them to push. Fortunately Poker is complex enough that a simple system doesn't work, and if it did work players would adapt and take advantage of the simple play.

[ddubois]

[ QUOTE ]
reverse implied odds because you probably have the best hand on the flop and even charge any draw enough to make it a bad pot odds call, but do not have the judgement required to let go of the hand after that, even if the draw should come.


[/ QUOTE ]
I read somewhere once "The joy of NL is being able to crush implied odds". To do this, bet an amount larger than:(size_of_pot + minimum(my_stack, his_stack)) * his_odds_of_sucking_out. If you do this, it's not possible for your opponent to make a correct call, and mathematically, it doesn't matter if you pay him off after his draw has hit, because you've already charged him too high a price.

(The exception is his draw has a large number of outs or the pot is sufficently large, then it might be that there is no anount you can bet. Logically, if he's actually a favorite to win because he has something like an open-ended straight flush, you can't push him off it.)

[AleoMagus]

[ QUOTE ]
I read somewhere once "The joy of NL is being able to crush implied odds". To do this, bet an amount larger than:(size_of_pot + minimum(my_stack, his_stack)) * his_odds_of_sucking_out. If you do this, it's not possible for your opponent to make a correct call, and mathematically, it doesn't matter if you pay him off after his draw has hit, because you've already charged him too high a price.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's just the thing though. With the stack sizes in a SNG, this almost always means a flop all-in if you have raised preflop.

Regards
Brad S

[byronkincaid]

[ QUOTE ]
Can one be a winner with a strictly push/fold SNG game

[/ QUOTE ]

Seem to remember bringing up this point about a year ago and you laughing at the idea. I shall expect an autographed copy of the book in recompence /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ddubois]

[ QUOTE ]
That's just the thing though. With the stack sizes in a SNG, this almost always means a flop all-in if you have raised preflop.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not really true. It probably means overbetting the pot, but it doesn't necessarily mean all-in. Lets say you raise 100 with AA and get one caller for 225 in the pot. Your stacks are now 700. The flop comes up two-toned so if you guess he might have a flush draw versus your AA, he has a likelihood of getting his 9-outter by the river 35% of the time. Betting anything higher than 324 will kill his implied odds. Win or lose, you've won your Sklansky dollars when he calls.

I'm not saying this is the correct way to play (althought it might be if your opponent is a fish who will call any price on any draw without odds). I am only claiming that if your own play lacks no self control and if you play so poorly that you always give stack-sized implied odds to any draw, then it is possible to make bet sized in a way as to combat this flaw.

You can do the same with pre-flop bets: If you have a big pair, and can't let go of it post-flop, then bet enough pre-flop so that no one has implied odds to look for a set versus you. I.e. bet over 1/7th of your stack. If you have KK and can't let go when an ace flops, bet 1/3rd of your stack. And so on.

Naturally with this system you will get yourself in a situation where your bets are too large and are only called by better hands, but hey, poker isn't easy. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[citanul]

It would be bad.
Very bad.

Playing the first couple of levels properly is profitable. Not playing any hands is not profitable.

Therefor...

Some stats,

just from a random, smallish set, I know, but the point is that you're going to double up oftenish when you *do* play a hand, that you shouldn't throw away those hands.

from my 179 10s:

level 1: hands: 1744, BB/hand .07, Chips won: 7060
level 2: hands: 1674, BB/hand .06, Chips won: 12,721
level 3: hands: 1584, BB/hand .02, Chips won: 5,231

Not remarkable results or anything, but they "prove" the point.
I don't play well, didn't play those tournaments espeically well, but was noticably up on all 3 of the first 3 levels. So there's very likely something to be gained by not folding.

This is a question often arisen by players who have the problem "i wind up with a short stack too often while playing as recommended in the FAQ."

citanul

[Mr_J]

Showing how small the sample is, my winnings in lvl 1-3 had now jumped 45 to $422 thanks to a few morons early in my last set of 4.

[betgo]

I agree with this. If you fold every hand in levels 1-3, you lose 20% of your stack. Now if you were going to lose more than that by playing hands, this may be a good strategy.

With people willing to bet and call a lot of chips with any kind of hand on any street, these rounds can be tricky to play. It is possible to get in trouble , but also possible to pick up a lot of chips.

With a lot of lose callers, I will value bet strong hands and call or limp with speculative hands that play well with 4-way action or more,