My reason to be conservative early theory - Opinions please!

[Rolen]

Assume you and everyone else starts with 800 chips

Let's say you get involved lots early on and gain 200 chips by level 3 (25/50) through some very well timed bluffs and some solid play, so you have 1000 chips in total. You find yourself with AK on the button and it's folded to you. You raise 3x BB. The small blind with 600 chips goes all in and the BB folds. You decide to call and he flips over pocket nines. Fortunately, you win! Your net result is 1650 chips (1000 + 600 + BBs 50).

A little while later you still have 1650 chips, but now you're at the 150/300 blind level and chips are at a premium. You see AQ in first position and decide the time is right and push all in. The BB with 1000 chips decides to call you and, to your delight, flips over AJ! You win again and now have 2800 chips (1650 + 1000 + 150 SB).

Now, this time, you don't get involved early, and the blinds decrease your stack slightly to 750 chips. You get AK on the button again in level 3, blah blah blah, you and 99 with 600 chips are all in again and you win again. You net 750 + 600 + 50 = 1400 chips.

Later on, you find AQ again, and to your suprise, AJ in the BB with 1000 chips calls you! You win and end up with 1400 + 1000 + 150 = 2550.

So increacing your stack by 20% early, assuming you find yourself all in a few times (rare that you don't in an SNG), results in a gain of 150 chips later on, tiny in comparison to the stack sizes (there's about a 5.6% difference between the two stacks). Now, if you do this in reverse (you lose the first all in) then the 20% increase becomes imperative to your survival. So if you often find yourself on the short end of the stick in all in situations, be loose and aggressive early. If you've got good timing late on, be conservative as you'll be taking a lot of risks for an almost meaningless 'advantage' when bubble play comes along. (And if bubble play never comes along then none of it really matters, you're out!)

EDIT : Small maths prob, I struggled with adding at school

[RobGW]

As long as you are arbitrarily assigning small stack sizes to the SB and BB who call you, why don't you run several scenarios and see what results you get then.

[Rolen]

If you're in the habit of messing with big stacks late and the two double ups here come against stacks that cover you, your % is a touch over 20%, which, at this stage, is maybe two successful blind steals. No matter how good you are, if you and someone who limped with 26o both flop monster hands and his happens to be a touch more monstrous, you're out. Not worthwhile.

[shejk]

I like it.

Just for the sake of discussion though: Your argument needs to accomodate for the increased value of the earlier won chips the times your AQ loses to TT or AJ or whatever. If you do, you'll see there is a point actually in accumulating some extra chips early on anyways /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Unparagoned]

Yes, but the goal of getting involved early is not usually to pick up a hundred chips or so. You want to play hands that have the potential of netting you BIG increases, or such is my thought. If I limp 45s on the button behind 3 EP limpers, I will accept the small pot when I hit something I like, but what I'm getting involved for is to have the chance to bust someone who does not suspect the hand I have made. So, if we're to follow through on what you've just proposed...

1) Getting involved early will sometimes net you a 100-200 chips loss, sometimes net you a 100-200 chip gain and sometimes double you up. There are the occasions when getting involved early will get you busted; however, I would argue that you are probably more likely to bust playing premium hands and being the one who has someone catch on you...

2) Losing a couple hundred chips early does not matter a whole lot because later on, the determining factor will be winning a couple of all-ins.

3) Winning a couple hundred chips is nice and I'm certainly not going to complain if it happens.

4) Doubling up early is VERY nice and I think it's probably worth splashing around a little bit if we can accomplish this goal. I like having the ability to put others to the test without busting myself...how 'bout you?

I apologize for the numerical ordering, but this is a break from writing my senior thesis which involves me doing alot of argument outline and response at the moment...the point though is that I'm not sure your analysis of splashing around early takes all the factors into account.

[Phil Van Sexton]

You have less than 100 hands to go from 800 chips to 8000 chips. Your opponents suck just as much (or more) in the early levels as they do in the later levels.

You can do all the math you want, but the fact is that you need to play your A-game from the first hand to the last. You can't just give up +EV opportunities because you are scared of losing a few chips.

I'd prefer not to lose all my chips, but I could care less about risking 200 if I see a +EV opportunity.

Coincidentally, playing conservative is the correct way to play against bad players at a 10 handed table with small blinds. However, there's a difference between playing conservative and playing weak. Play tight-aggressive, not weak-tight.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
You have less than 100 hands to go from 800 chips to 8000 chips. Your opponents suck just as much (or more) in the early levels as they do in the later levels.

You can do all the math you want, but the fact is that you need to play your A-game from the first hand to the last. You can't just give up +EV opportunities because you are scared of losing a few chips.

I'd prefer not to lose all my chips, but I could care less about risking 200 if I see a +EV opportunity.

Coincidentally, playing conservative is the correct way to play against bad players at a 10 handed table with small blinds. However, there's a difference between playing conservative and playing weak. Play tight-aggressive, not weak-tight.

[/ QUOTE ]