What's the point of first 3 levels in high buy-in SNGs?

[barycentric]

Seriously, since e.g. in a step 5, everyone's super tight early, how much difference does it make if one just starts playing the tourney when the blinds get to be 50/100?

[ewing55]

The first 3 levels are so the fish can play until we take their money. Duh... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

----------Jeff

[FieryJustice]

The first 3 levels are so I can get AA and lose to someones AK or KK. Besides that, they are just to waste time.

~Jcard

[Afterh0urs]

Reread your first line until you understand why this is not optimal strategy.

[barycentric]

[ QUOTE ]
Reread your first line until you understand why this is not optimal strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I was exaggerating the inaction in the first three levels. But I guess these responses suggest that if 10 non-fish sit down at a high buy-in STT, then the first 3 levels are really pretty meaningless.

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]


Of course I was exaggerating the inaction in the first three levels. But I guess these responses suggest that if 10 non-fish sit down at a high buy-in STT, then the first 3 levels are really pretty meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

If everyone is playing super tight, do you really think playing super tight is the proper srategy for the table?

The player who takes advantage of this situation will have an edge when the real tourney starts.

[Afterh0urs]

Actually, I wasn't suggesting that at all. If you're playing with 9 other good players who all have diesel bubble game, then the first three levels are going to be _very_ far from meaningless. It is your play in these levels which will allow you to survive the crapshoot that occurs when aggressive players turn it up on the bubble.

On the bubble, good players will be unpredictable. In the early stages, these tight players are predictable. When would you rather mix it up with them?

I'm probably going to get some backlash for my views because they're admittedly different from the norm... but that's what makes them profitable.

[Big Limpin']

Whats the reason for playing a cash game?

[barycentric]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I wasn't suggesting that at all. If you're playing with 9 other good players who all have diesel bubble game, then the first three levels are going to be _very_ far from meaningless. It is your play in these levels which will allow you to survive the crapshoot that occurs when aggressive players turn it up on the bubble.

On the bubble, good players will be unpredictable. In the early stages, these tight players are predictable. When would you rather mix it up with them?

I'm probably going to get some backlash for my views because they're admittedly different from the norm... but that's what makes them profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is you can be super aggressive early and still not gain that much because no one gives you any action unless you're beat. That seems like a horrible way to play early. Not only do you not significantly increase the chance to survive the crapshoot later, you increase the variance of busting before the bubble.

Playing loose-aggressive tends to result in the loose player going up against the best hand of the other 9 players every hand. If there's a huge disparity in postflop play, maybe this is viable, but we're assuming that the table is strong.

The analogy here is that the aggressor sits down at an extremely tight/aggressive NL25 table. With loose play he can expect to win some chips, mostly blinds, at the cost of increasing variance by a lot. Then all of a sudden, the blinds go up by a lot but it's still a NL25 game. Then, my question is this. Even when playing opposite the T/A style of everyone else early on results in +CEV, due to the increased variance, does it really result in signifcant +$Ev?

[Afterh0urs]

I'm not gonna get too deep into this as I have saved up quite a few Step 5 buyins that I plan on using and don't want to give my strategy away, but the way I play tends to reduce variance, IMO.

Basically, it all goes back to the basics of poker. In NL, where so many hands are won without showdowns, your table image is far more important than your cards, so as long as you're able to project the image that you want and make your reads accordingly, you will be able to build your stack without risking too many of your chips.

I never advocated the super aggression that you talked about in your response. And assuming that a creative player will only get action when he is beaten is giving way too much credit to the reading abilities of players.

SNG formulas are fine in the games where there are fish, but otherwise the concept of waiting for a premium hand to move your chips will be less effective, because as I've said before, tight players are easier to read. A tight player is far more likely to only get called when they're beat than someone who mixes it up in the fashion I encourage.

There aren't really any shortcuts in the highest level SNGs. Solid poker shall prevail over any waiting strategy and passing up +CEV situations early just because the blinds are low is far more wreckless than using the maneuverability to your advantage.

Of course, you need to know the right hands to play. I'm not saying to come out guns blazing with AJ or something similar that is likely to be dominated. But what I am saying is that so many "good" players are passing up a lot of solid opportunities to double up early because they're so set in a certain way of thinking.

I'm rambling now at 6:30 AM, so I'll end the post here. Tomorrow when I come visit, I'll clear up any confusion I caused due to my inability to write coherently.

Peace and good luck,
MJ

[Jbrochu]

I've always been confused myself by the contradictory opinion that only fish play in the first three levels, and yet you will only get action when you're beaten. Seems like these must be some very smart fish for this theory to be true.

Don't get my wrong, I believe in playing fairly tight early, but I'm not afraid to mix it up when the situation is favorable (i.e. - position, my cards, etc.). I play at Stars though, so the deeper starting chips stacks allow for a slightly looser strategy than Party.

[Edit - I just realized this post was for high buy-ins. I only play low buy-ins]

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, since e.g. in a step 5, everyone's super tight early, how much difference does it make if one just starts playing the tourney when the blinds get to be 50/100?

[/ QUOTE ]

It makes a huge difference if you're a good player.

A good player will enter 50/100 with 2000 chips far more often than being busted. And they will have done it while minimizing their bust risk.

Do you see why?

[Fatdogs12]

I dont see why. How will they do this while limiting thier bust risk? Taking a shot at flopping the nuts, or reading people post flop?

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
Taking a shot at flopping the nuts, or reading people post flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily flopping the nuts, but flopping a good enough hand that you likely have the best holding. Then, you take advantage of the dope who can't get away from his KQ on a Q 9 5 board when I'm holding a set of 5's.

[Fatdogs12]

Right... That does make sense

[adanthar]

The weakness in the first post is the assumption that everyone in a Step 5 is super tight early, or tight at all, or knows how to play.

I doubled up early in one Step on the following hand: Button open minraises in level 3, I'm in the SB with 44 and call, BB calls. The flop comes A /images/graemlins/club.gif Q /images/graemlins/club.gif 4 /images/graemlins/club.gif, I bet the pot (150), BB folds, button calls. The turn is an offsuit 7, I bet something like 300 or 350 into the 450 pot, button calls. The river is a blank, I push for 500 more and the button calls for 90% of his stack with his...A7o. (Forget the river play. How bad is the flop and turn?)

I had datamined 5000 hands on that guy before this hand ever came up and he was that bad in all of them. He's not alone; there are plenty of Step 5 losers and some of them are horrible. With a couple of exceptions, the rest of the regulars feed off them and each other's variance.

But you don't need to be very tight, or very LAG, early regardless. You just need to know who the LAG's and calling stations are. Trust me, they're out there.

[nebben]

Wouldn't playing aggressive not be optimal either, because only players with the best hands would call you, and because that problem is much larger than any benefit you would get from stealing 45 chips in blinds?

[Afterh0urs]

See, you can apply this to lower buyin SNGs as well, but the problem with that is that typically the players are so bad there that it isn't worth it to take measures to disguise your hand, since they're just going to pay off your monsters anyway.

Against thinking players, deception is the key.

In the lower buyins, I'd advocate playing your position in the early levels. Don't be calling big raises hoping to hit the flop hard, but don't be afraid to play ANY hands with potential, because your implied odds will be enormous as long as there are players willing to call you down.

[The Yugoslavian]

As Adanthar points out....I think taking an isolation approach is the way to go in these games. There will always be suckers and your job early is to break them and avoid the sharks...

It's like a high buyin limit game....you're always looking for opportunities to isolate and outplay the opponents significantly worse than you are. Sure you'll tangle with the better players, but for the most part you would like to avoid them.

Obviously in a STEP 5 you will eventually get down to the end where it's likely all the players will be pretty good. However, with the different STEPs payout structure I'm almost positive many 'strong' players are making plenty of mistakes here too.

The granular nature of STTs makes them tough....but not close to unbeatable (from a theoretical perspective anyway).

Yugoslav

[barycentric]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Taking a shot at flopping the nuts, or reading people post flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily flopping the nuts, but flopping a good enough hand that you likely have the best holding. Then, you take advantage of the dope who can't get away from his KQ on a Q 9 5 board when I'm holding a set of 5's.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're not talking about a 5+1 tourney here.

[Voltron87]

A lot of people can't get away from it at the 55s, I can attest to that. Dunno about 109+.

[Pokerscott]

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of people can't get away from it at the 55s, I can attest to that. Dunno about 109+.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good players probably shouldn't get away from it at the lower limits. Laying down top pair depends a lot on your assessment of the probability of bluffing and the probability of bad players pushing middle/bottom pairs. In the lower limits it could be +EV to hold onto but horribly -EV to hold onto in higher limits. I play at the 109s and I think it is borderline what to do there /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Pokerscott

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Taking a shot at flopping the nuts, or reading people post flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily flopping the nuts, but flopping a good enough hand that you likely have the best holding. Then, you take advantage of the dope who can't get away from his KQ on a Q 9 5 board when I'm holding a set of 5's.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're not talking about a 5+1 tourney here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? I see that kind of hand on the $55's everytime I play.

Worse even.