Thoughts on 6-person tourneys

[Laughingboy]

I never play them. Is it me or are these just a bad deal?

1) I can't remember the last time I made worse than 6th in a 9 or 10 person SNG. Sure, it happens from time to time, but usually on a terrible bad beat.

2) The rake is reduced 14% (8.6% vs. 10%), but the total prize pool is reduced 30-40%.

3) Judging from how quickly a 9-handed table goes down to 6 most of the time (at least as far as I can recall), I doubt the reduced time helps your HR enough to make up for the difference. (Of course I'd need real data to verify this.)

Comments?

[boxedIn]

I play 6-person tournies pretty much solely. The reason I do is because there's much more emphasis on heads-up play, as with a 9-person tourny when you get to the HU portion, generally speaking there's a significant disparity of chips and the blinds are high. In a 6-person tourny, when you get heads up, you're usually at worst at a 2:1 chip disadvantage but blinds are only 5% of your stack, so it's a very profitable situation, even if you're behind.

Second of all, I find the shorter time period to be significant. The longest a 6-person tourny will take is about an hour, though I would say my average is 40 minutes. This is compared to an hour average and 80 minutes at the top end of the spectrum for a 9-person tourny.

Thirdly, the reduced rake is nice, though that's only a small factor.

Mostly, however, it's due to the extreme importance of 3-handed play. That tends to be my speciality, especially with low blinds (I generally get 3-handed at 25/50 or 50/100). I can generally move from last to first easily, whereas in 9-person tournies I find that by the time I get to 3-handed battle, the blinds are generally 100/200 A25 and room for manuevering is significantly decreased.

That's my reasoning ... figured I'd share since I play the 38s on Stars as my primary game.

[pacman544]

I play 100 6 handed on ub. I completely agree with the previous poster in that heads up and 3-4 four handed play, with relatively low blinds, is very important on these. Shorthanded play with low blinds favors my more flop orientated style.The payout structure greatly favors winning the sng as opposed to cashing in it. Also, people tend to overvalue hands that the wouldnt be as likely to at a full table, ax for example. The other main reason i play is the players. You have more time and hands to get a good read on their style; the same people play these frequently on ub as well. It also tends to attract more overly aggressive players who end up all in with absolute trash early.

[Grisgra]

What places have 6-handed tournies?

[Laughingboy]

Interesting. I thought about my stylistic points, but never considered the stylistic differences of the whole player pool. Too self-absorebed, as usual. /images/graemlins/wink.gif Thanks for the perspective.

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
I play 6-person tournies pretty much solely. The reason I do is because there's much more emphasis on heads-up play, as with a 9-person tourny when you get to the HU portion, generally speaking there's a significant disparity of chips and the blinds are high. In a 6-person tourny, when you get heads up, you're usually at worst at a 2:1 chip disadvantage but blinds are only 5% of your stack, so it's a very profitable situation, even if you're behind.

Second of all, I find the shorter time period to be significant. The longest a 6-person tourny will take is about an hour, though I would say my average is 40 minutes. This is compared to an hour average and 80 minutes at the top end of the spectrum for a 9-person tourny.

Thirdly, the reduced rake is nice, though that's only a small factor.

Mostly, however, it's due to the extreme importance of 3-handed play. That tends to be my speciality, especially with low blinds (I generally get 3-handed at 25/50 or 50/100). I can generally move from last to first easily, whereas in 9-person tournies I find that by the time I get to 3-handed battle, the blinds are generally 100/200 A25 and room for manuevering is significantly decreased.

That's my reasoning ... figured I'd share since I play the 38s on Stars as my primary game.

[/ QUOTE ]

great response...I play the 6-handed almost exclusively now, as well (on UB) and my ROI is significantly higher on them then on 10-handed tables. The above quote is right on the money - 3 handed expertise is a must, the blinds vs. your stack once you're HU, etc.

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
I play 100 6 handed on ub. I completely agree with the previous poster in that heads up and 3-4 four handed play, with relatively low blinds, is very important on these. Shorthanded play with low blinds favors my more flop orientated style.The payout structure greatly favors winning the sng as opposed to cashing in it. Also, people tend to overvalue hands that the wouldnt be as likely to at a full table, ax for example. The other main reason i play is the players. You have more time and hands to get a good read on their style; the same people play these frequently on ub as well. It also tends to attract more overly aggressive players who end up all in with absolute trash early.

[/ QUOTE ]


what's your handle on UB? I play $50 and $100 6-handed all the time....mine's RoyBatty.

[boxedIn]

I've never used UB before and lately have been a bit irked that PStars doesn't offer 6-person tournies above the 35+3 level. What levels does UB offer for these tournaments and how often are they available (are there always enough players to fill it up)?


And, since someone else brought it up, the overaggressive players are also a significant factor; in addition, I've found that some stupid person usually ends up with 60% of the chips by Level 4 and, more often than not, they think they're invincible and start calling with pure [censored] and end up not even moneying.

As for payout structure, I can't speak of UB's payout but PStars pays 65% 1st place, 35% 2nd place. You can't beat the rake finishing 2nd, you have to have at least (AT LEAST) 50% of your ITM finishes in 1st to make it profitable, imo. And ITM should be around 45%, according to my figures. Probably between 45-50% if you're very good, but 40-45% seems a reasonable figure to make a tidy profit.

[gato_tiltuoso]

Boxed In and Dominic,

Maybe I should start another thread for this, but I was wondering how you might describe your strategies when you get three-handed. I have recently started playing six handed on Stars and have had good results with a limited number of tournaments, but lately I've been struggling on the bubble, and I haven't yet developed a specific strategy except "picking your spots" while trying to get the betting patterns of my opponents down. I'd appreciate your thoughts on why you think your 3-handed play is so successful, especially since 3-handed play for these tourneys is also bubble play.

For example, how might you play if you're up against one player who's a big stack and another player who's even with you (or a little bit more) but the big stack isn't really pushing his weight around like he could?

Thanks for any thoughts you might have...

[boxedIn]

3-handed battle is, like most poker, all about position. It also depends on the type of situation you're in and the blind level. Firstly, if it's a decently tight table I'll steal from the button with any kind of hand that might be playable. If this isn't working and you're dealing with a bunch of tight/weak call station, limping on the button often works well, especially if you're post-flop play is good. The key thing about limping on the button is that I've found not many people like to raise out of the blinds so you can usually see flops on the cheap, and if it's checked around to you on the flop you can usually take it with a mediocre bet and get away cheaply if check/called or check/raised.

That's with a weak-tight or a tight table in general. If you have an over-aggressive or someone that tends to call down everything, you're just going to have to take a bit more marginal hands against him (such as A2 when an A flops) and hope you're punishing him with a 2nd best hand. This doesn't mean you should take really marginal post-flop hands against him but what it means is you have to take marginal preflop and exploit great postflop situations, as you will in general be paid off if you hit.

Also, a special note for 3-handed play should be given to play in the blinds as they're 66% of your position. The SB is the worst position possible - I'll bluff-raise if I think I can get the BB to fold but other than that I just play my hands and I'll never call a button raise - either reraise or fold.

I love the BB, on the other hand. Often people don't know how to play short-handed and will fold their button often. This is awesome - you now have position in the BB. I'll call raises with super-marginal holdings with the knowledge that I'll have position post-flop. In general, I'll play anything that's not "big-little" unless I feel like the SB is unmovable. Then I tend to limit my callings to ones where I feel I can punish them if I flop top-pair. If the SB is movable, then you can call lots of preflop raises and lots of flop bets because if they haven't hit, they'll check to you on the turn and you can take it down with a nicely-placed bet, even if you have nothing.

Also, I've found that being a call station works nicely sometimes. People overvalue Ax and will think their A7 is good when it's a flop of 843. By "think it's good" I mean willing to call allin with it. Oftentimes these people will overbet weak Ax even with an overcard to their x and you can obtain lots of chips by check/calling. This only works against specific people and it's a kind of risky play in that you could easily be giving free cards but it's one I tend to use when I'm out of position and think they'll continue betting on the turn whether or not they've hit. (And if an A falls, you can get away easily).

That's kind of a random rambling and if you want to make this it's own post that's cool too. I don't know if what I say is useful or even good but it seems to work for me.

[gato_tiltuoso]

Boxed In,

The description of your play helped me identify one of my weaknesses in three-handed is that I find myself taking too many flops out of position-- so first of all I want to thank you for your post. And yes, in position, I notice that it's also much easier to "steal" postflop, although I find that in a lot of cases I will check behind or else players get wise and start check raising, which can be hard on the bubble if the blinds are up to 200-400.

Also, I don't know if I'm raising enough from the BB or not. What range of hands are "playable" when attempting to steal from the BB if the table is weak and call-stationish?

I hope others read your post and offer their thoughts as well.

thanks a lot for you time and thoughts,

gato

[Dominic]

Boxed gave a great 3-handed strategy summary....I'd like to add a few things I've learned:

Be aggressive. If you flop Top Pair, bet the pot if you have enough chips, push if you don't. If I hit 2nd or third pair, I will almost always bet it. If I have 2nd or third pair or a great draw and my opponent bets it before me, I will almost always raise him, depending on his previous play, of course. Obviously, if he's been a rock, this is not such a good idea. But a lot of stealing goes on 3 handed, so you have to be willing to play back.

Again, be agressive! Don't be the caller - be the raiser.

Don't over value Ax. If I have A9 or better, I'll go to the felt with it, but if I have A2-8, I'll usually limp with it. You don't want to push with something like A7 because the times you get called you will almost always be dominated. (If I'm extremely shortstacked and have to start pushing, I'd rather have a hand like T9s, as I'll almost always have 2 live cards if I get called) But if you limp with Ax and you do hit an A on the flop, it disguises your hand nicely and you can check the flop in order to trap. It can be a little risky, but I'm playing for first, not second!

Although I mostly agree with Boxed's ideas on position, I would like to add that sometimes being first to act when you're HU or 3-handed, can be a position of strength. I probably do most of my steals from that position after the flop, as the other players will almost always have to give me credit for a real hand.

This is a risky and advanced play, one that relies on great hand-reading and play-reading abilities...you have to choose your spots carefully.

So...good luck....and I'd love to hear from others who disagree with my post.



/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[boxedIn]

I actually disagree a bit, especially with your raising with mid/bottom pair. If there's one thing I've learned from 6-person tournies it's that everyone thinks any pair is good because it's a shorthanded game. I see overaggressivness as something to avoid as much as possible because I've found people will call down with lots of very bad hands.

If you're going to win consistently, you shouldn't be hoping your mid-pair, top kicker is punishing mid-pair no-kicker ... you should be knowing your top-pair good kicker is crushing his mid-pair, top kicker.

Raising is effective to open pots or to steal postflop if you sense weakness from opponents. After that, I'm calling down with mediocre hands (mid-pair, drawing hands [unless it's an exceptionally good draw and I have folding equity], etc.) and I'll tell you why. First of all, most players at this level like to get tricky -- they will not punish you with their good hands and will push with their crappy Ax. It's very rare to find a player (like myself) that's going to be willing to continually bet and push from early position a strong hand. The vast majority will do exactly the opposite but will call massive river bets with top pair/no kicker -- this gives you insane implied odds. Also, calling down mediocre bets punishes the people that will continually raise and reraise with mid-pair.

Do not get me wrong - I'm not saying aggressivness is not good. But raising with mid-pair is simply not worth it. If I have a good draw, I'm more willing to push with that if I'm fairly sure my outs are clean, but I'm less willing to play mid-pair aggressivness because if you're called you're more liable to get a shitload of trouble.

Also, on another note - I do not recommend limping with A2. 4-handed UTG, I might fold it if I have an aggressive table image and am likely to get played back at. I might even fold it on the button without a raise in front of me if I've been exceptionally raise-happy lately or taken a significant pot or two. 3-handed I'm raising any Ax, and probably K6+, Q9+, and any two small connected/one-gappers. I will open with all of those any day over A2. A2 is almost the worst hand you can play and I would only play it if I was opening or sensed a large amount of weakness (but probably not even then in the later circumstance). I mean seriously - if you flop an A, you might get called down by mid-pair but about 40% of the time you'll get called down by a better A and be lucky to split the pot. Ax is the most overplayed hand in the game and A2 beats no other A.

A recommendation I missed in the firs post is that you need to severely restrict the hands you call a raise with (dumping up to and including A9/AT, most any K except perhaps KQ, and some low PPs unless you're short). I would also avoid over-defending the blinds unless it's min-raised in front of you. Then I pretty much call with any two except stuff like K2.

The majority of my moves are made at 25/50 or 50/100. By the time 50/100 rolls around, I'm usually either gone (busted on a bad read or a bad beat) or have a very solid stack to do battle with.

[Dominic]

hey boxed...

i agree with just about everything you've said...you obviously have a firm grasp of 3-handed play...while i will raise on occassion with 2nd and even 3rd pair, obviously it's game and player dependent - and if I get played back at I will naturally shut down and hope to see the river cheaply.

I fold A2 4-handed all the time. Sometimes even 3-handed. I'm a firm believer of just limping with anything less than A9...if you get any resistance, you're likely dominated.

Here's a paragraph you wrote I found very interesting:

Raising is effective to open pots or to steal postflop if you sense weakness from opponents. After that, I'm calling down with mediocre hands (mid-pair, drawing hands [unless it's an exceptionally good draw and I have folding equity], etc.) and I'll tell you why. First of all, most players at this level like to get tricky -- they will not punish you with their good hands and will push with their crappy Ax. It's very rare to find a player (like myself) that's going to be willing to continually bet and push from early position a strong hand. The vast majority will do exactly the opposite but will call massive river bets with top pair/no kicker -- this gives you insane implied odds. Also, calling down mediocre bets punishes the people that will continually raise and reraise with mid-pair.

Well put. When I'm having a bad streak, I invariable find myself playing "too tricky." Doing exactly what you said the majority of players do...slow play their strong hands and bet strongly with their mediocre hands. When I play more strightforward - pushing my strong hands, folding my mediocre hands, etc...I do much better. Thanks for putting it so concisely! It's always great to have an experienced player to share notes with.

Boxed, do you play at UB at all?

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
I've never used UB before and lately have been a bit irked that PStars doesn't offer 6-person tournies above the 35+3 level. What levels does UB offer for these tournaments and how often are they available (are there always enough players to fill it up)?


And, since someone else brought it up, the overaggressive players are also a significant factor; in addition, I've found that some stupid person usually ends up with 60% of the chips by Level 4 and, more often than not, they think they're invincible and start calling with pure [censored] and end up not even moneying.

As for payout structure, I can't speak of UB's payout but PStars pays 65% 1st place, 35% 2nd place. You can't beat the rake finishing 2nd, you have to have at least (AT LEAST) 50% of your ITM finishes in 1st to make it profitable, imo. And ITM should be around 45%, according to my figures. Probably between 45-50% if you're very good, but 40-45% seems a reasonable figure to make a tidy profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

UB's payout structure is 70% for 1st, 30% for 2nd. They have 6-handed games all the wau up to $200...maybe $500, I'm not sure. The $50s fill up pretty quickly...the $100s sometimes take a while...