My Early Bust-Out Theory -- Tell me if I am wrong?

[MagnoliasFM]

I've been thinking about sharing this for a while, but I never had the time. I just took the worst beat of my poker career today. I decided to step out of the kiddie-pool and play some $200 PLO with the new blinds at Party, and I lost a $500+ pot when my overflush lost to a one-outer gutshot straight flush draw. ($500 is a lot of money to me, as I am a college student). Part of my healing process is writing, and what better to write about than my SNG theory /images/graemlins/smile.gif I consider SNGs to be my best game, even though it's not even really a game. It's more like craps than poker. (craps where you have a huge edge).

If you take a look at my $22 SNG results, the first thing that will jump out is my freakishly high hourly rate. The second thing that will raise your eyebrow is the pie chart that shows my finishes. My 8th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 4th, 2nd, and 3rd place finish frequencies are all pretty much the same! It's my 1st places finishes that really stands out (over 2 times as frequent as any other place). My 9th and 10th place finish frequencies are a little lower than the rest, but not by much. Some people might laugh at my early bustouts and tell me that I should save my chips for later, but I have a theory on SNGs that I call Early Bust-Out Theory.

Most people who are reading this have been indoctrinated with Sklansky's tournament book, which says that you should pass up small edges early on in a tournament if you're better than everyone else in the tournament (which you automatically are, if you sit down at a $22 tournament). People have taken this way out of context and pass up all sorts of double-up opportunities on levels 1, 2, and 3, without realizing that after busting out early they can just join another tournament, which makes it not wise to pass up any sort of edge. There are two things that you should remember:

1. 4th place pays the same as 10th place.

2. 4th place loses you a lot more money than 10th place does. When you get 4th, you lose your buy-in and around 30 minutes of productivity. When you get 10th, you lose only your buy-in and maybe 5 minutes of productivity.

The profitability of each place from most profitable to least profitable is 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 10th, 9th, 8th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 4th.

This is why, when someone raises in early position to 55 on the first hand of a tournament, I move all-in with AKo. 90% of the time, a raise to 55 means a pocket pair, but sometimes he has AQ or worse. Overall, despite being a small dog to a pair, I will double-up or win a small pot more often than I bust out, because sometimes the raiser will turn up Ax or fold his low pocket pair. I will take similar risks early on with hands like TT-QQ, where I know I am up against either AK or a pair that could be higher or lower than mine. I am not afraid to bust out in 7th or worse. And that is why I frequently do. But also, that is why when I make it to level 4, I usually have a stack that commands the respect of my timid opponents. And that is why I have so many firsts.

I also "play" on the early levels, and I'm not afraid to risk my case chips if I have a read on someone. Another thing I do that causes me to bust out early a lot is the "squeeze" play on level 3.

The level 3 squeeze play happens when you have around 600 chips and the blinds are 25-50. 3 players have limped in and you move in with any two cards and pick up 225 chips about 3/4ths of the time. If you do get called, it's a coinflip as you whether you double-up or bust out.

Another thing is, in level 2 when 4-5 people have limped in, I would gladly flip a coin to either double+up, or bust out. The dead money from the limpers makes it worth flipping the coin. Again, do not be afraid of busting out. Your biggest fear should be making it to the final 4 with a really short stack, which means that you likely just wasted a bunch of time and still won nothing.

To win a SNG, you're going to have to win a few coinflips. Whether you win them at level 1 or level 4, chips are chips. Waiting until level 4 to flip it is silly, it's like the hare and the tortoise, why fall asleep levels 1-3 just because you think you can make up for it later?

Okay, and my last thing is about coinflips. Most people think the only type of coinflip there is is a pocket pair versus overcards. Nope. Any 2 cards vs. any 2 cards is a coinflip basically. The only situations that you want to avoid are domination from a higher kicker, an overpair, and to a lesser extent, two overcards to your non-pair. These situations aren't as common as people think. Stealing the blinds is also a coinflip. You'll only get called about a third of the time, and the times when you do get called, you'll lose less than 2/3rds of the time. So, it's basically a coinflip. Finally, if you have AA and lose to KK, don't think you just got a bad beat. AA and KK is the same hand preflop, so if you and your opponent hold them, in the long run it's 50/50 as to who wins. If the cards were reversed, you both would have gone all-in just the same. So when you go all-in with TT and get called by JJ and lose, don't think you are a bad player. You just lost a coinflip because your opponent easily could have had a lower pair. Pretty much everything I can think of in SNGs is a coinflip. Winning a SNG comes from making nearly even-money coinflips early on and then flipping hugely weighted coins in later levels when people don't defend their blinds.

Darn, that was a lot of writing. I still have a lot to say but I guess I'll save it for the SNG book I'm planning on writing once I luck out in a future WSOP and get some television time. (Which probably won't be for a while since I'm only 17 lol). Anyways, I want you guys to tell me what you think about my theory that busting out early is actually good and shouldn't be avoided.

Next case.

[Hood]

I've very interested in this style of play and it's profitability. If you don't mind sharing, how many 22s have you played? What's your ROI?

Do you multitable? One advantage of playing rather tight early on is it makes it's easy to watch 3-4 games at once.

[ QUOTE ]
his is why, when someone raises in early position to 55 on the first hand of a tournament, I move all-in with AKo.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the first round of a party tourney, this would be the equivilient of you going all in with T1000 in a pot of T100. Do the raisers really call you all in after their T55 raise with AQ and small pairs? Even in the aquarium that is the $11 and $22 party SNGs, I would only expect a call here with AA-QQ and AK-AQ. Seems like a big risk for a small reward.

[stlip]

I absolutely agree. Many of the tournaments you win are because you get a chance for a big pot on a coin flip or with a bit of an edge and it works out. Might as well seek out the opportunity early, sort of like asking the crystal ball of destiny if this is your table or not.

That said I pushed AKo against an open raiser Level 1 who had played almost every hand just looking to steal his bet and the blinds. After a lot of thought the fish calls me with ATo, but wouldn't you know it a T flops and MHING.

[MagnoliasFM]

[ QUOTE ]
I've very interested in this style of play and it's profitability. If you don't mind sharing, how many 22s have you played? What's your ROI?

Do you multitable? One advantage of playing rather tight early on is it makes it's easy to watch 3-4 games at once.

[ QUOTE ]
his is why, when someone raises in early position to 55 on the first hand of a tournament, I move all-in with AKo.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the first round of a party tourney, this would be the equivilient of you going all in with T1000 in a pot of T100. Do the raisers really call you all in after their T55 raise with AQ and small pairs? Even in the aquarium that is the $11 and $22 party SNGs, I would only expect a call here with AA-QQ and AK-AQ. Seems like a big risk for a small reward.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have less than 500 $22s and I understand that my ROI pretty much means nothing without more tourneys to back it up, and so I won't post it so as to not get flamed. This style of play is also really swingy due to most of the money coming from 1st place finishes so it might not be possible to tell whether it is good or not until the long run (I'll definitely share when I have over 2000 tourneys under my belt). And yes, I 4-table (if you can't focus on playing at 4 tables at a time you shouldn't even be playing SNGs for a living).

As for your question about the AK, first of all $22s start out with onlly 800 chips instead of 100, and second of all, you'd be surprised by the types of hands that call. A lot of lower pairs fold, fearing domination, but hands like AQ, AJ, suited paint cards, etc. frequently call. I guess I forgot to mention that this is only for $11 and $22 (I haven't tried $33s). I wouldn't dare to do something like that on a table where people actually know what "pot odds" or "hand vlaues" are. In my view, it is a big risk for a big reward, and you're going to have to flip it later anyways, so why not do it now and if you lose at least you don't lose time.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
Most people who are reading this have been indoctrinated with Sklansky's tournament book, which says that you should pass up small edges early on in a tournament if you're better than everyone else in the tournament (which you automatically are, if you sit down at a $22 tournament). People have taken this way out of context and pass up all sorts of double-up opportunities on levels 1, 2, and 3, without realizing that after busting out early they can just join another tournament, which makes it not wise to pass up any sort of edge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. The "wait for better opportunities" theory basically does not apply to SNGs. However this isn't why you should try to avoid allin situations early. The reason is that anytime two stacks go allin, equity is transferred from them to the other players. A clearer example of this is two equal stacks going allin 4 ways, but it applies 10 ways as well.

[ QUOTE ]
This is why, when someone raises in early position to 55 on the first hand of a tournament, I move all-in with AKo. 90% of the time, a raise to 55 means a pocket pair, but sometimes he has AQ or worse. Overall, despite being a small dog to a pair, I will double-up or win a small pot more often than I bust out, because sometimes the raiser will turn up Ax or fold his low pocket pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you try this in the $200's, a typical raiser will fold everything except JJ-AA, AK. He will have the better hands (including AA and KK) much more frequently because he has raised from early position. You will pick up 55 chips often but it will not be enough to compensate. You will also miss the opportunity to pick up extra chips from them postflop when they have a hand like AQ or KQ.

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, and my last thing is about coinflips. Most people think the only type of coinflip there is is a pocket pair versus overcards. Nope. Any 2 cards vs. any 2 cards is a coinflip basically.

[/ QUOTE ]

You miss pair vs overcard/undercard (e.g. A9 vs JJ) in your list of things that aren't coinflips. I assume you don't think those are coinflips.

For other hands, it depends a lot on the quality of the hand. For example:

cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
3c Jh 523757 30.59 1172642 68.48 15905 0.93 0.311
Qd Td 1172642 68.48 523757 30.59 15905 0.93 0.689

That definitely isn't a coinflip - in fact, it's worse than AK vs two random cards. But:

cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
8c 6c 741215 43.29 964741 56.34 6348 0.37 0.435
Ad 7h 964741 56.34 741215 43.29 6348 0.37 0.565

That I would characterise as a coinflip. So even though they're the same type of matchup - interlaced holdings - the results are very very different.

[ QUOTE ]
So when you go all-in with TT and get called by JJ and lose, don't think you are a bad player. You just lost a coinflip because your opponent easily could have had a lower pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's ridiculous. It only applies if next time, your opponent doesn't have the smarts to get away from TT. For example, I will virtually never lose my stack with JJ to a higher pair on Level 1. So if someone loses theirs to me, that isn't a coinflip, it's them losing their stack.

Perhaps your strategy destroys the $20s, I've never played them so I wouldn't know. A flat range of placings and then twice the number of firsts doesn't sound that sustainable to me. I can promise you that your strategy would get destroyed on the higher limits because you wouldn't get financed by the early loose players.

EDIT: As far as the much discussed hourly-rate theory goes (i.e. risking bustouts so you can play more tourneys/hr) - again, this doesn't apply to the higher limits because the edge you are pushing is so slim, you can't afford to give some up to get a better turnover.

I've just calculated your ROI based on the result profile you gave - double the number of firsts and flat for the rest of the placings. You place first therefore 2/11 and second and third 1/11 each. The average buyins won per tourney is therefore (2/11)*5 + (1/11)*3 + (1/11)*2, or 15/11. Your ROI is therefore ((15/11) - 1.1)/(1.1) or 24%, which is not particularly good for the $20s, although your greater tourneys/hr may give you a higher earn than other 2+2ers with higher ROIs. I'll retract my comments about that not being sustainable. Coming from the $200s I guess I just don't know what a high ROI looks like in placings /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[1C5]

Thanks for posting.

I personally think that is terrible advice. But, there is more than one way to skin a cat and if it works for you, go for it! /images/graemlins/cool.gif Much more variance this way but as you said, out in 8th, fire up a new game quick.

If someone raises in level 1 to 55, I will instead just call with AK and be able to get out of the hand if nothing hits me on the flop without too much damage.

[Hillbilly Cat]

I read your post with some interest. I'm fairly new to tourny poker however, so my comments may have to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Firstly you said...
[ QUOTE ]
I consider SNGs to be my best game, even though it's not even really a game. It's more like craps than poker. (craps where you have a huge edge).

[/ QUOTE ]

I know what your getting at, but I suspect you haven't played much craps. There's no similarity at all. Because of the limited time frame of a single-table tourny I agree that often you need a little good fortune, but its no where near as pronounced as you're suggesting. Craps is pure luck where the house always wins... there's no skill at all.

[ QUOTE ]

If you take a look at my $22 SNG results, the first thing that will jump out is my freakishly high hourly rate. The second thing that will raise your eyebrow is the pie chart that shows my finishes. My 8th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 4th, 2nd, and 3rd place finish frequencies are all pretty much the same! It's my 1st places finishes that really stands out (over 2 times as frequent as any other place).


[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think thats freakish at all.. it depends on how many tournies you're talking about, but what your figures actual say to me is you have a fairly flat, even distribution. Basically your just getting an even spread and there's nothing much to read into that except you don't seem to have much of an edge.

By way of (statistically questionable) example, my last 21 tournies (i.e. what I played this week, I don't multi table) is. 1st = 6, 2nd = 3, 3rd = 1, Out of money = 11.

So I place in the money half the time, and when I do I often win it.

In fact, almost everytime I've won it, I've done so by being in the smallest stack when down to the last three.

[ QUOTE ]

I usually have a stack that commands the respect of my timid opponents. And that is why I have so many firsts.


[/ QUOTE ]

As I said, I often don't. So either way is effective.

[ QUOTE ]

I also "play" on the early levels, and I'm not afraid to risk my case chips if I have a read on someone. Another thing I do that causes me to bust out early a lot is the "squeeze" play on level 3.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that once there's perhaps 6 or less left, what you're saying makes a lot of sense. But, early on I'm not convinced. I'll quickly quote from PLNL Poker (Ciaffone/Stewart)

[ QUOTE ]

'There is another element of satellite play that also dictates tight play at the start. Take a look at those other nine entrants. What you rate to see at a typical table is three tough players, three average players, and three people that you have never seen before in your life. Of the three strangers, one will be so scared that you won't ever play a pot with him, and the other two will play like their double parked. With those two loosies, you are liable to get called if they have as much as King-high. They are not worried, because they "didn't expect to win anyway", want to see how you are playing, and can enter another satellite in a few minutes when they bust out of this one. The obvious correct strategy of play is to do nothing fancy and simply wait for a good hand'


[/ QUOTE ]

There are a few things to note here. Firstly this strategy is not about 'doing nothing' early on, but there is little to be had from pushing marginals. Some of those competitors will virtually bust themselves out. Why risk a bad beat?

Whenever I play I would say this cross section is pretty accurate. What that sort of means is that when he refers to loosies he's talking about you!

Whilst I can see where you're going with your strategy there is a problem and that is because its fits so nicely with mine. I.e. *I* won't be the one taking you on with those marginals early on. One of the other loosies will, or a player with very strong values. Either way you are making your survival chances very bad, or about evens. Classic small favourite or big dog.

If you do get through, then what are you left with? The better players, who've preserved their chips (and I agree you may have a lead). They are not going to be so easily caught out. And the problem now is that with the blinds going up and the number of hands at the table shortening, any edge they have over you figures to be greater (one of the main attractions of short handed play for better players).

I certainly don't need a big chip lead to win, and given the way you play I can now see a big pile of chips with one of the 'looser' players, so naturally I (and I expect the others too) are targetting your stack. This now makes you and even smaller favourite because of this implicit collusion. You may be a coin-flip favourite against one of us, but against three you're up against it.

Typically what I find happens is that a player in your position then gets over turned, and gives a healthy chip lead to a stronger player.

Having said all that, I'm not saying your approach has no merit, and certainly if the payout structure is only rewarding first place, then you are more correct. However sit-n-go's by their very nature reward survival, and therefore I can't agree with your theory that 10th place is less profitable than 4th. If I'm in fourth (and lets reduce all future hands to a coin toss) then I have a 1 in four chance of winning. in 10th it is one in ten... which place do you prefer to be in?

I guess as well, you're kind of assuming its the big stack that will win predominantly. I disagree simply because with the much high blinds near the end, a few steals can suddenly have the short stack back near level terms. It is much more about timing and good bluffing at this stage that knicks the money.

I do agree however that time is money and many players are simply happy just 'lasting the distance'. I don't, I just time my attacks when they are more likely to be successful, offer me lower risk, and the timing is more beneficial.

Mind you, don't think if I flop middle-set early on I'm not gunning for your money, I'm just a lot more likely to actually have middle set than you are.

Really interesting post mate! Explore it some more. I'm a great beleiver in aggression at the table, so perhaps there's a good way to make what you're doing work. I seem to recall reading somewhere about Stu Ungar. My understanding is he was very much 'all guns firing'. If he busted out early, so be it, but if not he figured to have a big lead, and aggressive image and a huge edge. Mind you, playing like that takes no small amount of talent.

To be honest, I think your obviously aggressive style will get better dvividends when the game gets short handed (hence why you probably have more firsts), therefore it actually feels to me like your giving up an edge you already had by firing too early on marginal values. Save that AQo VS KQs for the latter stages, and force 'em down..

[Hood]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for posting.

I personally think that is terrible advice. ... If someone raises in level 1 to 55 ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain why you think it's terrible advice? As the OP says, this is applicable to the 11s and 22s only.

[ChrisV]

Here's a little more on the variation in results in matchups of a similar "type". I ran these sims one day to get a handle on what the percentages were for different matchups. For all the common "types" I ran the best and worst cases I could think of for each hand.

Pair vs underpair: (AcAd vs 6h6s) 79.8% - (7c7d vs 2c2d) 82.5%
Pair vs double undercard: (AcAd vs 6h5h) 79.4% - (AcAd vs Qc8d) 88.5%
Pair vs single overcard: (7c7d vs 8s6s) 66.3% - (7c7d vs Kh2d) 71.7%
Pair vs double overcard (2c2d vs JhTh) 46.0% - (7c7d vs AhKs) 55.4%
Non-pair vs double undercard: (AcKd vs 7h6h) 57.7% - (JcTc vs 7h2s) 71.0%
Non-pair vs interior-undercard: (Kc7d vs 8h6h) 56.8% - (Tc8c vs 9d2h) 68.6%
Non-pair vs interior cards: (Kc2d vs 7h8h) 50.8% - (Ac2c vs Kd3s) 63.7%
Dominating hand: (Ac6d vs 6h5h) 65.8% - (Ac2c vs Kh2d) 77.4%

The main thing to take from this is that at the end of a SNG, when the hands that are colliding are not going to be that great, if you aren't getting dealt high cards, you can up your chances of winning a lot by going allin with a good-quality hand - something suited and close to connected.

[1C5]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for posting.

I personally think that is terrible advice. ... If someone raises in level 1 to 55 ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain why you think it's terrible advice? As the OP says, this is applicable to the 11s and 22s only.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the AK play is not the worst but often someone raises with AJ or AQ and if you call it and an A comes, then you can bust them but often people will fold if you go all in and you only get +55 chips.

But what the poster said about needed coinflips to win is not 100% true. Sure, maybe to win you do but often I find myself ITM with 0 coinflips just by knowing when to go all in and just by stealing blinds.

[Hood]

[ QUOTE ]
Whilst I can see where you're going with your strategy there is a problem and that is because its fits so nicely with mine. I.e. *I* won't be the one taking you on with those marginals early on. One of the other loosies will, or a player with very strong values. Either way you are making your survival chances very bad, or about evens. Classic small favourite or big dog.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the 'small fav/big dog' is rather misleading with knowing how frequently you won't get called, the amount in the pot and the size of your stack, and how frequently you'll be a small fav/big dog. If you're a small fav often enough, and don't get called often enough, then it may outway the change you'll be a big dog. I think this is what the OP is getting at.

[ QUOTE ]
If you do get through, then what are you left with? The better players, who've preserved their chips (and I agree you may have a lead). They are not going to be so easily caught out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree here. Firstly, I think a lot of the time you won't be left with 'better players'. I've seen some really atrocious play heads-up on the 10+1s time and time again. If you're up against 8 or 9 bad players, at least one 'bad player' is going to get ITM.

[ QUOTE ]
I certainly don't need a big chip lead to win

[/ QUOTE ]

No one 'needs it', but it helps

[ QUOTE ]
and given the way you play I can now see a big pile of chips with one of the 'looser' players, so naturally I (and I expect the others too) are targetting your stack. This now makes you and even smaller favourite because of this implicit collusion. You may be a coin-flip favourite against one of us, but against three you're up against it.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you target a big stack? How do you target a loose player? How can I been a 'even smaller favourite' by winning more chips early on?

[ QUOTE ]
Typically what I find happens is that a player in your position then gets over turned, and gives a healthy chip lead to a stronger player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what you're doing here is making the assumption of "well you're playing loose early on and a lot of bad players play loose early on so you must be a bad player. You'll lose your stack to a better player later on". Remember that the OP is still 'good player', and there may not be any 'stronger players' on the table.

[ QUOTE ]

Having said all that, I'm not saying your approach has no merit, and certainly if the payout structure is only rewarding first place, then you are more correct. However sit-n-go's by their very nature reward survival, and therefore I can't agree with your theory that 10th place is less profitable than 4th. If I'm in fourth (and lets reduce all future hands to a coin toss) then I have a 1 in four chance of winning. in 10th it is one in ten... which place do you prefer to be in?


[/ QUOTE ]

The OP is talking about finishing in 4th. If you've gone out in 4th place, then you've got a 0 change of winning. SNGs only reward survival if you get ITM.

[ QUOTE ]

I guess as well, you're kind of assuming its the big stack that will win predominantly. I disagree simply because with the much high blinds near the end, a few steals can suddenly have the short stack back near level terms. It is much more about timing and good bluffing at this stage that knicks the money.


[/ QUOTE ]

I find having lots of chips is a huge advantage around the bubble. Everyone else is scare of going out forth and I end up pushing pretty much every hand and picking up the blinds. It's amazing how passive players get.

[Hillbilly Cat]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you target a big stack? How do you target a loose player? How can I been a 'even smaller favourite' by winning more chips early on?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I'd correctly assessed you as a weak player, and you find yourself with big-ish stack cos you took a bit of a gamble early on, then naturally I want to get involved in a pot with you more often if I can.

By 'targetting' I mean exactly that, trying to get into a position where I can deprive you of that stack.

When the game rewards survival I pick my fights as carefully as I can...

I agree, on my own, I can't guarantee that, but in any form of poker its not just my responsibility. If there's several of us, playing poacher, and trying to get heads up with the looser/weaker player, then whats happeining is that we're *implicitly* colluding to take him out. If he now finds himself in a position where players think he's a soft target, then he's going to get played with more, and thus theres a higher probability that one of us is going to have the better cards.

He becomes an even smaller favourite because of this, not because of the size of his chip stack per-se. I'm just assuming he has a bigger stack now cos of his earlier play.

If I only get one decent hand I'd like it to be up against him. My implied odds are bigger, my chances of succcess are higher, and given he's a loose player, my chances of picking off his bluffs are also higher.

Some people play poker from a very technical standpoint (and have no criticism of that approach) I don't, at least not as much. I rely more heavily on reading hands/people. I am always trying to 'engineer' positive situations for myself, the cards are simply one aspect of that. If he's looser the I may be able to get away with lower values myself. If he's too aggressive I can try and pick him off.

I agree though that what you've highlighted in my comments is a lot of assumptions on who and what the other player is about. But I still say, using the strategy I employ, I would much rather be up against this chap later in the tourny, no matter how successful he's been up till now.

In a tourny I'm not so sure about pushing small edges early on. I think tournies *are* about taking risks, but they should be *very* calculated. Typically it only takes a few opporuntites to walk away with the money. I can afford to wait, pick my moment and pounce.

Hope that helps

[EarlCat]

The biggest problem I see pushing so early is the fact that you're up against so many more hands--and thus a higher probability someone is holding a monster. Yes, you may usually end up in a coin-flip with a caller, but you've got 9 potential callers! You've got a much bigger chance of getting busted by one of nine hands than by one of four.

It's the same reason you can raise more hands preflop in a 6-handed ring game than in a 10-handed game.

I do like your opportunity cost analysis of why 10th is better than 4th. I think you should be an economist. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[The Yugoslavian]

1. Finishing 4th pays out what finishing 10th pays out.
2. Finishing 10th takes less time than finishing 4th.

However, it doesn't follow that finishing 10th is 'better' in any valuable sense than finishing 4th.

Finishing 4th in fact should be *much* preferred over finishing 10th in a 50/30/20 payout strcture.

You do not need all the chips to 'win'.

You do want to give yourself the highest chance to 'win', however.

Getting tenth does not help in this goal unless you can engineer a highly favorable situation for yourself and your hand.

Yugoslav

[The Student]

[ QUOTE ]


Finishing 4th in fact should be *much* preferred over finishing 10th in a 50/30/20 payout strcture.

Yugoslav

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think so? I usually think your posts are great, Yugoslav, but I'm just not understanding why 4th is better than 10th. You don't win any $, and as the OP said, you could have used the time you spent playing from 10 - 4 players in another game (boosting your hourly win rate). Can you explain this a bit more?

While I am not one of those SNG players who will push marginal hands early on as the OP suggests, I do see how his approach can help to max out your hourly win rate (even if it doesn't improve his ROI - just because he's investing the $ more often). I think the variance might give me a stroke, but if it works for you, then why not?

ts-

[The Student]

Hey,

Sorry to hear about your PLO loss, but thanks for the post. Very interesting. As I just wrote in the post above, while this approach isn't for me, I can see how it can boost one's hourly win rate. My question for you is what does this do for your bankroll? The variance with such an approach is so much larger than other SNG approaches (such as AleoMagus's), that I would think it would require a larger bankroll than normal to withstand the variance. I understand that you still have a limited # of STTs under your belt, but I'm wondering what your thoughts are re: the bankroll requirements for this.

ts-

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey,

Sorry to hear about your PLO loss, but thanks for the post. Very interesting. As I just wrote in the post above, while this approach isn't for me, I can see how it can boost one's hourly win rate. My question for you is what does this do for your bankroll? The variance with such an approach is so much larger than other SNG approaches (such as AleoMagus's), that I would think it would require a larger bankroll than normal to withstand the variance. I understand that you still have a limited # of STTs under your belt, but I'm wondering what your thoughts are re: the bankroll requirements for this.

ts-

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't simply a 'not my style' type of thing. You're going to increase your variance b/c you'll place less often. Your ROI is also going to go down. I don't see how you'll 'make up' these decreases in $/hr -- I guess perhaps you can if you are poor at playing a small stack in SNGs.

The bankroll requirement shouldn't be too much more, frankly. The concern is psychologically dealing with your streaks and making sure the new approach to SNG play is even going to be +$/hr for you.

I'd imagine $215 players are pushing smallish edges early anyway....but what FM is saying isn't even really small edges, he's advocating perhaps barely +CEV plays just in the interest of amassing chips early or busting early.

Yugoslav

[microbet]

[ QUOTE ]
(if you can't focus on playing at 4 tables at a time you shouldn't even be playing SNGs for a living)

[/ QUOTE ]

That's ridiculous. Different people have different skills, the SNGs go up to at least $1,065, and what constitutes 'a living' can vary greatly.

[Jman28]

Finishing 4th in fact should be *much* preferred over finishing 10th in a 50/30/20 payout strcture.

I'm not sure what you mean by this statement, but I think I strongly disagree.

I think that early gambles aren't as bad as people make them out to be, and that there is some value in this method of playing.

If you are excellent big stack player, you gain a huge edge by doubling up early. I don't know why we don't talk about this more often.

We all talk about how to play on the bubble with a chip lead, but we never talk about how that advantage is so great that it should perhaps be worth some unorthodox play to get there. (that was worded badly, but you get it)

This strategy will probably lower ROI, but if it increases $/hr, that's what matters most, assuming you can handle the variance.

-Jman28

[The Student]

i agree with you - especially with the your last statement:

"This strategy will probably lower ROI, but if it increases $/hr, that's what matters most, assuming you can handle the variance"

I think Yugoslav makes a good point though about the variance - you have to be able to withstand the psychological swings too and not let it hurt your play (so that you start pushing with real trash hands that are big dogs and not just coinflips).

ts-

[microbet]

If you are playing as many tables as you can handle and are playing more for the immediate money than for either fun or education you should probably take $/hr into some consideration.

But, if you aren't maxed out on tables, then whenever you feel like making a move that is +CEV, but -$EV (or even -CEV???) just open up an additional table. Or maybe just play ring games where CEV=$EV.

Or better yet, go crazy in the first round. It's all good.

[voltron87b]

Ohman. I'm not going to read the thread since I assume someone else can explain it. Someone tell me if this hasn't happened.

[Scuba Chuck]

Do you intend to be a long term master of small fish? Do you think this strategy you're mastering will transcend to other poker genres (like stud, Omaha, etc)? Do you hope to increase your $/hr by playing fewer games for higher stakes at any future point in your life?

The answer to these questions should help you decide how you feel about your line of thinking.

Frankly, I think you're a contrarian thinker, which is fine. So am I. But you might be way out in left field here.

[Jman28]

Hey guys, I ran some numbers on this and decided to put them in a new thread- http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1843760&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1

I think we may find it to not be profitable, but it's definitely worth a look.

-Jman28

[microbet]

Are you talking to me or the original poster?