MLG comment on SNGs vs. MTTs

[gumpzilla]

Over in the "How to win MTTs" thread, MLG made the following comment that I'm curious about:

[ QUOTE ]
however, I think a lot of sit n go players have a very hard time in the middle stages of tournaments. there is really no point in a sit n go where the blinds are high and bubble considerations aren't in play, while those situations arise in mtts somewhat frequently.

[/ QUOTE ]

I replied to this over there, but it seems to me to be an interesting enough issue that I thought I'd start a thread.

I'm curious what the differences between these situations are. I can think of a few things:

1) The bubble is where chip EV and $ EV decisions can start looking different from each other
2) Stealing away from the bubble might be somewhat more difficult if people haven't tightened up as much yet to make the money.
3) There are likely to be a wider distribution of stack sizes at your table.
4) You're still going to be at a full table, +/- one or two players for the most part.

These are obviously important factors, but it seems to me that the same kind of principles of shortstack play are going to be at work in both cases; it's just that in one case you might use ICM as your metric vs. chip EV. Am I wrong about this?

Thoughts?

[MLG]

In sit n go's simply stealing forever is a viable goal to strive towards. Gap concept, they need a big hand to call you, yada yada yada, in MTTs your stack has so far to grow that you need to double up, a lot. Also, everybody else needs to grow a lot, so they are more willing to call you when they have the chips to do so in order to gather chips.

[gumpzilla]

How deep are the stacks you're thinking of? Are we talking about something in a 10-15 BB regime, or shorter? My sense is that playing to try to double up is generally going to require enough stack so that you have some room to maneuver, i.e. you're not pot committing yourself from the getgo. <10 BBs it's hard for me to imagine having a ton of flexibility; trying to trap with big hands would be nice but seems painfully obvious if you're in a push mode ordinarily. Mixing in the occasional stop'n'go might help with this, perhaps.

[hurlyburly]

In an MTT depth becomes relative, because 50BB can become 20BB long before you're reaching significant money, so accumulating in the space between is essential. Therefore, getting a chance to get all your chips in as a favorite is worth the risk of a showdown.

I see this in practice as a loose preflop/tight postflop phenomenon that gets majorly exaggerated in the first hour of a rebuy. It's common to watch a guy pump in 6-10 rebuys before catching a rush and getting all his chips back with interest cashing in on all that call equity he built. I used to think it was because they didn't fear going broke, but now I think it's just that they are building maneuverability in the second hour to prepare for the third hour, and so on...

In an SNG chips don't change value, so all you theoretically need to do is maintain your original stack regardless of the blinds to eventually guarantee yourself 2nd. You are rarely ever required to double up, so reducing variance is MUCH more important, even if that means settling for the blinds as often as you can get them without ever winning a significant showdown.

I have an example of this from last night where I ended up in a 6-handed $35+3 with Galaxy 500. I watched him for quite a while in the WSOP Qualifier Sunday, and wasn't really happy about my chances. Then it dawned on me to just avoid him all the way. He systematically dismantled the table while I got chips where I could, and just hung on for a money finish. When we got to heads up I had <1/5 of the chips. I know this is weak, but I knew very well that I wasn't going to beat him while he could definitely break me.

I don't think that could EVER happen in an MTT.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
In an MTT depth becomes relative, because 50BB can become 20BB long before you're reaching significant money, so accumulating in the space between is essential.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, but I don't see what this has to do with big blinds (which I'm taking to mean that the average stack is quite short) away from the bubble.

[ QUOTE ]

In an SNG chips don't change value, so all you theoretically need to do is maintain your original stack regardless of the blinds to eventually guarantee yourself 2nd.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you can theoretically do that in an MTT too. There's an issue of practicality in both cases. Clearly this is more practical in an SNG than in an MTT, but I think frankly unrealistic in both cases. Surviving to the bubble with minimal change to your stack is one thing; trying to cash while trying to keep your stack at its initial value is quite another. Also, what's your basis for saying chips don't change value in SNGs but do in MTTs? I don't see how this makes any sense whatsoever.

[Sluss]

[ QUOTE ]
In sit n go's simply stealing forever is a viable goal to strive towards. Gap concept, they need a big hand to call you, yada yada yada, in MTTs your stack has so far to grow that you need to double up, a lot. Also, everybody else needs to grow a lot, so they are more willing to call you when they have the chips to do so in order to gather chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

This right here is my biggest problem. I working on this every multi-table tourney. I would love to just take down flops uncontested and steal away. Then I find myself shortstacked on the bubble.

Growing the sack to just take a showdown and sometimes get sucked out on is not easy for me to handle. Getting maximum chips from each situation. Now all I have to do is find away to get this to work.

[hurlyburly]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, but I don't see what this has to do with big blinds (which I'm taking to mean that the average stack is quite short) away from the bubble.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I don't understand your question. Having an average stack DOESN'T give you flexibility, which is why early edge pushing is so crucial. If you're at 10-15BB, then you're legitimate prey for someone at any point in the tourny, moreso on the bubble.

Chips don't change value in an SNG because there is a fixed amount at the table. You could be rolling over a table in an MTT with a huge stack, but until you have 10% of the total chips in play, you aren't ready for the final table and need to keep accumulating.

I'm not TRYING to keep my stack at it's initial value, I am trying to avoid variance. I'll take a whole nightful of 2nds if I can. If I see someone chewing his way through the whole table, I'm not gonna lock horns with him without something HUGE. If everyone else wants to, so much the better. Most of my SNGs are in the money when the blinds hit the ante level, so you can comfortably have 1.5-2k in chips the whole way.

Absolute night and day from MTT, where the blinds become 2x your initial stack WAY before the final table (or even the bubble).

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

I guess I don't understand your question. Having an average stack DOESN'T give you flexibility, which is why early edge pushing is so crucial. If you're at 10-15BB, then you're legitimate prey for someone at any point in the tourny, moreso on the bubble.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the whole point of the original question was specifically the middle to late game with shallow stacks. I'm not interested in early game questions at this point.
Playing a big stack in the middle game is nice, but I'm reasonably confident I have a pretty good idea of how to go about doing that.

[ QUOTE ]

Chips don't change value in an SNG because there is a fixed amount at the table. You could be rolling over a table in an MTT with a huge stack, but until you have 10% of the total chips in play, you aren't ready for the final table and need to keep accumulating.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a pretty substantial difference between a stack of 500 and 1000 if the BB is 50, and not that much of one if the BB is 500. This is true in SNGs and MTTs, and is what I usually think of when people talk about how in the later game each individual chip isn't worth as much.

Nobody is arguing that you don't need to accumulate chips. The question is what the best way to go about doing this is when the stacks are all starting to get pretty shallow. In SNGs near the bubble, there are pretty good tools for answering this question. Away from a bubble in an MTT, those tools (I'm thinking ICM here) don't apply.

[hurlyburly]

When you start seeing people busting out pushing A8o, and they have a similar sized stack as yours, you NEED to double up.

When you look at 22 as a legitimate "push hand", you NEED to double up.

When you get QQ in early position and are afraid you'll get multiple callers when you push, you REALLY NEED to double up.

15xBB is when hands that used to be ugly start getting the "beer goggles" for me if the bubble is still a long ways off. 10xBB I'll push any unopened pot from LP with any 2 8 or better. Less than that and I actually tighten up and follow the "Push or Wait" chart someone posted in the SNG forum a while back.

[bugstud]

[ QUOTE ]
How deep are the stacks you're thinking of? Are we talking about something in a 10-15 BB regime, or shorter? My sense is that playing to try to double up is generally going to require enough stack so that you have some room to maneuver, i.e. you're not pot committing yourself from the getgo. <10 BBs it's hard for me to imagine having a ton of flexibility; trying to trap with big hands would be nice but seems painfully obvious if you're in a push mode ordinarily. Mixing in the occasional stop'n'go might help with this, perhaps.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, here's a fun example. Stars 350k guarnateed. When you get to the money, the average is 10xBB or so, plus antes. About halfway in it gets to 8xBB, plus antes. As you might guess, being average here means you are reduced to praying that you win the hand you push with, even though you could be in 35th place out of 75 left or something. As such, everyone is aware that your push standards are probably lower brucase your FE is ggoing down drastically after your blinds, and they need chips too.

If you want earlier in the tourney worries about similar things, the stars 350k is good about this too, the structure is rather accelerated for a tourney of its size. You neeeeed to rack up some chips from about 450 left on. That's the point where you can build a stack to where you can take 2-3 shots at busting people and start truely building the stack near the bubble.

FWIW my best finishes involved getting lucky around the bubble and building 2 large stacks. Once I got hosed with about 50 left and limped into the final table, where I got damn lucky, and the other I had decent sized stack to start with. If we get a EMarkM to finish the java replayer he's working on, you can see the situations that we faced and perhaps illustrate the points more clearly than we can write.

[goodFlop]

I recently played PP's low buy-in ($30+3) NLHE MTT, and questioned a push that I made: I was wondering whether I should have folded or pushed in that situation: please comment and analyze ..

SITUATION:
---------
700 players entered, it's now down to 120 players, the bubble is like at 80 players, but I'm not just trying to get to the bubble, but want to be a contender.

Blinds at 200/400 with 5 minutes left at that level, I have 5600 (14xBB) (I think this is slightly above average chip count) and have been playing decently accumulating chips steadily while not risking much.

I look down at 44 UTG and decide to make a small raise to 650 since the table was somewhat tight and wanted the blinds to fold, and play HU against one player. All fold to a big stack (20K+ chips) who reraises me all-in, probably reading me for weakness and expecting a fold. The big-stack had been bully the table somewhat and I read him for not having a very big hand.

QUESTIONS:
---------
1) on a side note, what do you think about initial raise:
Was there a point to that (smallish) 1.5xBB raise with 44?
I think it may have signalled weakness to the big stack, and it probably was not enough to move blinds off their hands (blinds had like 3K) even if big stack didn't reraise

Instead should I limp hoping to flop a set, or raise a standard 2.5x-3xBB and hope no scary overcards flop out of position UTG.

2) Main question:
a) If my read was correct that big stack didn't have a big hand (a race situation like say JTs, A8o),
should I have folded there to leave me with about 4900 (12xBB with 5 minutes at level 200/400) which was not extremely desperate situation, or tried to double up?
- Up till that point, I had not made many risky moves, but felt I needed to double up
- These kinds of decisions I feel are crucial to being able to get over the hump at MTT.

b) If my read was say only 60% certain (that big stack did not have overpair), I probably wouldn've been more inclined to fold.

RESULT: (irrelevant)
=======
It turned out big stack had A5s and hit two pair, and I was out. I said to myself I could have folded ...