very common misconception people seem to need cleared up sometimes.

[citanul]

From another thread, and has been posted elsewhere, so I'm not picking on the guy in specific, it's just for general education, or something:

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want to even play the first 2 levels. I would much rather get junk for 2 orbits at least.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is very very very very very very wrong.

go check out your pokertracker stats broken down by blinds levels. one of the goals of your sng poker career is to be + chips at all levels. particularly at the low blinds / low stakes combo, you should be quite ahead. people play really really bad. passing up spots that you are likely significantly ahead is bad. passing on spots to make a lot of chips with small investment, similarly, is bad. passing on spots to make lots of chips with large investment, because you have good reason to believe you have the best hand against a terribl playing payoff box, is bad.

they are bad, theoretically you are better. you are supposed to use this to your advantage, not wait for the worst of the lot to bust out all the time. this will become particularly more important as you move up in stakes to the highest levels.

i wish there were much more to add here, but there isn't.

citanul

[luckyplayer]

I think there is a lot more to add. I've definitely felt that I'm not taking advantage of bad players by only playing AA-QQ+AK strongly, playing all other pairs for sets, and getting rid of all other big broadway unless in late position.

But what is to be done differently? I'm a noob, and my only real experience is through books I've read. And most on this site say that the books don't apply to sngs very well.

suggestions?

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there is a lot more to add. I've definitely felt that I'm not taking advantage of bad players by only playing AA-QQ+AK strongly, playing all other pairs for sets, and getting rid of all other big broadway unless in late position.

But what is to be done differently? I'm a noob, and my only real experience is through books I've read. And most on this site say that the books don't apply to sngs very well.

suggestions?

[/ QUOTE ]

for starters, i honestly believe that playing a strategy much, if not exactly, like the one you just described as the one you follow, for the first couple levels, is quite good enough to be a winner at, hmmm... probably up to the 50s, maye even higher.

the point is however that like, folding top pair top kicker too much, folding top pair NO kicker too much, not getting all in when you have the nut flush draw in a big pot with 3 other players all in, little things, big things, etc, are all leaks.

at all the levels, against all players, there are things you can do that take chips from them, pretty much. everyone makes mistakes, or has their own little quirks, or whatever, and taking advantage of them is key. if you see that a player goes all in early with 22, or A, or some junk like that, you should be fine running it out with him with say, TT if he's the pairs guy, or AJ if he's the ace guy, etc. taking edges is what it's about. exploiting bad plays. and that's just talking about preflop.

the obvious and overused answer to your question of "what more is there to be done" is play and research the game. post hands, post questions, read. good luck.

citanul

[kyro]

I money way more often when I double up in the first couple of rounds. I'll take a bustout or two early if it means the majority of the time I have chips to play with for the rest of the tourney. Nice post.

[Scuba Chuck]

Citunal, I'm sorry, but I'm going to hijack your post.

Due to my current streak of (call it whatever you want) crap, I've decided to change parts of my game. I've learned so much about poker from this forum, that I think I'm getting myself into trouble. In particular advice like, don't bet the full pot, but 1/2 or 2/3 because you want to try and keep weaker hands around. (think about AK v A5 for example). In fact, I've found a lot of my flop betting to be a source of problems which I'll get into in a moment. Another problem has been trapping with AA early.

The following has been my conclusion and you can berate me all you want. I agree that this style of play will increase my ROI.

Let's say my ROI at the $33s is ~24%. I think that this style of play will increase my ROI by ~2% maybe 3%. Regardless, this is what I estimate the longer term results to look like.

ROI .........Variance
24% .........+/-15%
28% .........+/-40%

I don't know what sample size to add to this assumption, and I wish I could report actual numbers. But my variance experience has been far more emotionally strenuous than I had anticipated.

We all want to find edges to help us increase our ROI, but at what cost? I’m sure I’ll revisit these strategies as I move higher in limits, but at the $55s and lower, I’m tired of my AK getting check-raised all in to get sucked out by a better kicker on the river. The fish are soooo stupid. They think they can “make moves” with such small stacks, but it’s just not so. I’m pretty much committed to a hand like AK with an Ace flop. In these scenarios, I used to bet just over the pot by like 25 chips or something. But, as I’ve been taught by this forum, that this betting behavior is just not as smart, as it won’t keep weaker aces around (yada yada yada). So I believed you (and still do), and I’m sure my ROI in the long run (however long that is) will be higher. But in the short run, the variance to my bankroll is starting to bother me.

In conclusion, at this stage (or these levels) I have decided that my emotional state doesn’t care for the increased variance just to achieve a little more ROI.

Scuba

[Voltron87]

other easy hands to add to the level 1-3 arsenal are all pocket pairs. play them for T50 or less. If you hit a set you play. If you don't you fold. Kind of difficult, i know.

[adanthar]

To follow up on citanul's post, it is very possible to beat Party SNG's long term without ever playing poker, just following a big 'push/fold X in Y position/Z players in' hand chart. Saapbo won money even without the Z part.

In order to beat the game at all levels for the optimal amount of money, however, you must learn to actually play it. People that advocate raising huge with big pairs to get it heads up are, by and large, without a clue of what to do when that fails and they get to the flop against *horror of horrors* three people with their overpair. Usually, they get their chips in, lose, and resolve to raise more next time 'to get rid of the guy that called with top pair' (why?) This is potentially decent Party SNG play and even works well most of the time because a good chunk of the players will call off a hundred chips preflop with A9o, but it's bad poker.

How to play different flops is a question without a set answer. I personally draw my line at 6 outs; if I see a board where most* of the potential calling hands are 6 outers or better, I'll play my one pair/overpair/2 pair hands much more strongly, sometimes even disregarding pot odds, for various reasons too detailed to go into here. If I feel I have the best hand and am likely to keep it, the goal becomes to extract every chip from the other guy. Other times, I have red queens, the flop is 876 of clubs, there are three people in and I'll simply check/fold when someone bets and gets a caller. That may mean folding the best hand; tough. That's playing poker, too.

*not 'some'; a K72 board with 2 spades just isn't that scary, folks.

There are far too many things to talk about here than can be summarized in one post, but basically, it comes down to this: when you raise aces to 75 because three people will call you and they play bad postflop, it's much better than when you raise to 75 because, with five limpers, you think you can chase two guys out of the pot.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
variance discussion

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people take variance easier than others. I think I'm pretty lucky in that regard, but I have my own swings and I do occasionally switch games or limits (play sats, for example) to get away from a bad streak. Others will have their own methods. Even the occasional ROI lowering move (for example, you pwn some limpers by pushing when a raise is just a little bit more effective) can be good if it reduces tilt along the way.

Pushing AK on an Axx flop because you're scared of A5 is not one of those moves, IMO. If your game is suffering THAT much, switch games and come back later.

[kevstreet]

[ QUOTE ]
I money way more often when I double up in the first couple of rounds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed! Actually, even if I can get to 1200 I feel much more confident entering levels 4 and 5.

[kevstreet]

[ QUOTE ]
other easy hands to add to the level 1-3 arsenal are all pocket pairs. play them for T50 or less. If you hit a set you play. If you don't you fold. Kind of difficult, i know.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. I actually will give myself up to 10% of my stack to call w/ these hands after level 1.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
Citunal, I'm sorry, but I'm going to hijack your post.

Scuba

[/ QUOTE ]

Nooooooooooooo! And that guy who sold me this post told me I should get lojack on this thing. Damnit.

I don't know to be more upset about the hijack, or the butchery of my nick. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Since I'm not upset at all about the hijack, I'll roll with the latter. Mostly, Lanutic would be a really strange way to spell lunatic.

Variance v ROI is a big thing. Don't forget, however, to consider the hourly rate implications you may be giving up by passing on some early variance.

Still, however, these things may not sway you. It in many ways comes down to why you play poker, to make the most money, or to have fun, or to get to be the best poker player you can be, or to make money, but not have to face certain psychological issues while you play. All of these are completely worthy reasons to play, and there are more, clearly.

And in fact, picking one of those reasons does not mean that you can't pick more than one. It might be that you play more hours, and go on less tilt, make fewer errors, and in other ways move up your ROI, by passing on variance inducing moves that are +EV.

I guess that one could go about calling such things "personal EV" or "pEV" or something like that. I think there are interesting implications of such things however. For instance, I believe that the higher stakes, and stronger the competition you play against, the more of these variance inducing/ROI plussing moves you have to make in order to be a winner, and if you can't make them, it means that your ROI may suffer to either negative or to a point where playing a lower stakes game is the best option, in $/game, $/hr, etc. I know that several players play lower stakes games because they think they make more money playing those than they would or do playing the higher stakes games. This could be a reason why.

You do what works for you. That's what's most important. Not hating playing or hating yourself at the end of the day is very important to your longterm poker profitability, and well, happiness as a person and poker player.

There could be massive discussion about things like "read based plays" or whatever you want to call them. Plays like the ones that Gigabet posts, for instance. Or say, all post flop plays where you don't think you necessarilly have the best hand /images/graemlins/smile.gif These plays may or may not increase your variance, if done properly, or improperly. They also may or may not increase your profit, depending on how well they are executed. Meh, that's all I want to go into that at the moment, but the point is that such plays become more and more important to overall profitability, and becoming a top player, as you move up to face tougher profitability.

As is easilly shown in a number of ways, as you change stakes (man, this is totally not on topic with your post, but it's with mine, i don't know how i wound up back here) you can start punishing the opponents not for being the stupid twits that they are all the time at hte lower limits, but because they are too tight and predictable. Stuff to chew on.

Hope this helps at all Scuba,

citanul

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
In particular advice like, don't bet the full pot, but 1/2 or 2/3 because you want to try and keep weaker hands around. (think about AK v A5 for example).

Scuba

[/ QUOTE ]


This is definitely not the reason to bet 1/2-2/3 of the pot! The reason is so that when you are betting without a hand (Which happens often), you can bluff with less risk. Mathemetically your bluff's have to work much less often when you bet less than the pot, however these bet's often have the same effect as a full pot size bet.

[johnnybeef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I money way more often when I double up in the first couple of rounds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed! Actually, even if I can get to 1200 I feel much more confident entering levels 4 and 5.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find that when I get a huge stack early, I will usually money, but, I tend to get a lot of thirds. This is prolly attributed to the fact that i kinda coast into the bubble, which by then I'm usually no longer the big stack. I think I'm on to something here so I'll let others elaborate. *Note* Dont take this to mean avoid double up opps in an early level.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
other easy hands to add to the level 1-3 arsenal are all pocket pairs. play them for T50 or less. If you hit a set you play. If you don't you fold. Kind of difficult, i know.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. I actually will give myself up to 10% of my stack to call w/ these hands after level 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

fwiw, i think the original admitted newb said he played all pocket pairs. which is good, there's been a bunch of recent people who say they don't. which saddens me and baby jesus. at the 1000 chip games i will play all pocket pairs for more than 50, but probably capping out at 85, depending on the immediate odds i'm getting from the pot, position, and the control of the player(s) i feel i have post flop. control over opposition is generally more effective the fewer people are in the pot, but it will inspire me to play for more chips in spots where i'm not getting the greatest immediate odds if i feel i'm going to win the pot without spiking a set a great % of the time, or if i know for almost certain the guy has a big pair that he'll go way too far with.

i think that setting an absolute upper limit is probably ok, but having it be mutable to the situation is important.

control over opponents in heads up situations and with position particularly is a large part of hands that players who play well, and confidently, can add to their arsenals.

citanul

[Voltron87]

clarication- i will play non royal pocket pairs for more than t50 if the situation is right, i just meant T50 as a training wheels situation.

[citanul]

please god let people stop posting in this thread that when they double up early they generally make the money more often than if they don't.

the first person who did so is excused, since he used that statement to make a point afterwards, that he was inclined to do some early "gambling" in order to try to get himself into a position where, well, he makes the money more often.

one thing said OP should look at when considering that stat is whether or not he's sort of double counting. that is, the games where you gamble early, and lose, you lose. thus those games, you can't make the money. i swear that makes sense in my mixed up brain somewhere.

but yeah, if one more person says anything that correlates well to "i find that if i never lose a hand, i wind up winning the tournament" i'm going to snap and stop being helpful and/or insightful for at least a week.

citanul

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In particular advice like, don't bet the full pot, but 1/2 or 2/3 because you want to try and keep weaker hands around. (think about AK v A5 for example).

Scuba

[/ QUOTE ]


This is definitely not the reason to bet 1/2-2/3 of the pot! The reason is so that when you are betting without a hand (Which happens often), you can bluff with less risk. Mathemetically your bluff's have to work much less often when you bet less than the pot, however these bet's often have the same effect as a full pot size bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

jebus guys, why don't we eliminate the whole forum and just have this one thread.

citanul, half joking.

ps: yeah, curtains pretty much hits the nail on the head here. also, yeah, the fact that you have the same folding equity, and that you can milk the idiots anyway, is pretty good. betting the full pot is fine sometimes too, particularly when valuebetting crowds. but a big key is that in heads up and 3 way pots, particularly, betting less saves you when bluffing, as explained. meh.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I money way more often when I double up in the first couple of rounds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed! Actually, even if I can get to 1200 I feel much more confident entering levels 4 and 5.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, with 1200-1500 chips at Party, you will often be chip leader in rounds 2-3 when a lot of the see-every-flop folks are ground down to 400-500 chips. In that situation, I have found that my bets get a lot more respect from all but the maniacs.

[kyro]

Well obviously more chips correlates to higher probability of moneying. I didn't mean to make that my main point. I meant I'll risk busting out as a big favorite if it means a good shot at having plenty of chips to use to my advantage. Getting down to 50/100 with 7 players left and 750 chips because you've folded everything sucks.

[curtains]

btw citanul you are right. These players who don't want to play the first 2 rounds are really misguided. They will play well enough to win but are building a terrible foundation for their poker. btw I feel that I am extremely tight in the first two rounds, but I'm nothing compared to some of the posters here.

I often fold AKs/AK for a single raise in the early rounds, if that raise is too many times the BB for example. (ie someone open raises in EP for 75-100 in the 10-15 blind round.)

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
btw citanul you are right.

[/ QUOTE ]

can never hear that too much.

citanul

[citanul]

yes, as i said, your post was fine, since you made a point to go with your statement. it was the starting and coming tide of people echoing your statement that had me worried this was going to get silly.

as we both know, there have been some pretty extensive calculations done on the question of "say you're offered the chance to go all in against a single opponent on the first hand of a tournament, what edge do you need to call with?" so yeah. this is all a part of "playing good."

no worries kyro, i'm not out to get you, yet.

citanul

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
yes, as i said, your post was fine, since you made a point to go with your statement. it was the starting and coming tide of people echoing your statement that had me worried this was going to get silly.

as we both know, there have been some pretty extensive calculations done on the question of "say you're offered the chance to go all in against a single opponent on the first hand of a tournament, what edge do you need to call with?" so yeah. this is all a part of "playing good."

no worries kyro, i'm not out to get you, yet.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

He's like a candy bar, hard and crunchy the outside, but on the inside he's soft and sweet.

[kyro]

[ QUOTE ]
no worries kyro, i'm not out to get you, yet.


[/ QUOTE ]

Except AA. I fold AA in Level 1 if everyone goes in before me.

How about now?

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
no worries kyro, i'm not out to get you, yet.


[/ QUOTE ]

Except AA. I fold AA in Level 1 if everyone goes in before me.

How about now?

[/ QUOTE ]

watch your back.

citanul

[Gramps]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't want to even play the first 2 levels. I would much rather get junk for 2 orbits at least.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



this is very very very very very very wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is more true than it was when I first started playing SNGs 3/4 of a year ago (at the levels I've played, at least). Back then there were more players who, while playing pretty tight early on, would also play way too tight/passive at the bigger blind levels and just get run over.

Now, there seems to be a lot more very aggressive/reckless players who's style of play is more correct later on (if they get there), but who totally overplay hands early. Against these opponents, you definitely want to see more (cheap) flops early. Against opponents who play way too tight late, I think it's better to be tight(er) so you can get to where you can steal from them later...but there probably aren't many players who fit that description now, so I agree wholeheartedly that one should look for cheap opportunities to see flops against overplaying foolios.

[citanul]

yah, i too started playing about the same time as you indicate, and i can concur that the low buyin games at that time were totally filled with just the right kinds of fools to play the TOTALLY ABC poker of Aleomagus fame back in the day. now most games that are filled with fools are filled with a different kind of fools. and well, a small part of that at least is the 2+2ers who show up and know very little more than "play tight early and loose late." the games are still very beatable, but they are beatable in a somewhat different manner.

citanul

[curtains]

I think a new measure of whether or not you are a good player, is the frequency in which you are cursed out or called an idiot by one or more players at the table. It happens to me almost once per set these days (set = 8 tournaments). Last night I had a few entertaining ones that I should post...

In one hand the button went allin for 650 with 100-200 blinds, and I moved allin for 2100 from the SB with A3o. He had KK and of course I won very easily when an ace came. He started screaming and calling me idiot for playing A3o, and I played dumb and kept insisting that I went allin because I had pair of aces on flop. It was fun.

[kyro]

Hi, my name is kyro. And I don't play enough pocket pairs in the early levels.

[Insert applause]

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]

I think a new measure of whether or not you are a good player, is the frequency in which you are cursed out or called an idiot by one or more players at the table. It happens to me almost once per set these days (set = 8 tournaments). Last night I had a few entertaining ones that I should post...

[/ QUOTE ]

these days I'm getting more and more people who are cheering when i bust out. i get really pissed off for about 5 seconds (usually since I just pushed KQ from the SB and BB has KK... oops) and then look at my wallet on my desk which can't hold any more money.

[microbet]

Being called an idiot is nice, but I much prefer being called a lucky f.uck.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
I played dumb and kept insisting that I went allin because I had pair of aces on flop. It was fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

your play, brilliant in my opinion.

citanul

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
my wallet on my desk which can't hold any more money.

[/ QUOTE ]

it's called a bank, dumbfukc.

citanul

[allenciox]

There are actually lots of reasons to bet 1/2 - 2/3 of the pot, of which the one you list is one of them. It also helps you put somebody else on a hand when they call.

There are also times, based on the texture of the flop, when you should NOT make a 1/2 pot bet --- for example, the flop comes JT7 2-suited, with at least 3-4 people seeing the flop. Lots of people can have big draws on such a flop; you don't want to price in their call, if you have AJo, for example. In which case, it is imperative that you pot the bet. You just want to make sure you don't give away your hand by the size of the bet --- so you should pot the bet whether you have a semi-bluff hand such as KQ or AJ.

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
my wallet on my desk which can't hold any more money.

[/ QUOTE ]

it's called a bank, dumbfukc.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

straight cash homie.

need it for the b&m.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
straight cash homie.

need it for the b&m.

[/ QUOTE ]

dude, it's called a rubber band.

citanul

ps: i totally hijacked my own, pretty contentfilled, thread.

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
straight cash homie.

need it for the b&m.

[/ QUOTE ]

dude, it's called a rubber band.

citanul

ps: i totally hijacked my own, pretty contentfilled, thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

i keep some 20s in my wallet and the rest in my back pocket. the wallet is so I don't have to pull out 2K and flip through to find a 5 when I'm buying cereal at the supermarket.

[45suited]

I agree with citanul's post completely. One thing that I have been doing, if my opponent's on the 10's will let me, is this: If I lose a big pot in level one and get down to say ~t450, I'm more likely to try to limp in, even from early position, with a suited connector. I will do this if I see that the table is passive. The opposition plays so poorly (much of the time) after the flop that quite often I can double back up relatively quickly. I won't play the trouble hands, but I will use the rest of level 1 to try and get lucky at a cheap price. If not, I've probably only cost myself 60 chips or so trying to see cheap flops. I'll still have say 400 or so and will be able to employ an all-in strategy at the appropriate time. Does anyone else do this after getting down early? I suppose that it is only possible at the lower levels...

[raptor517]

hahahahahhahha. yea i wanna keep track of the number of times i get called a moron or an idiot. it usually makes me smile.. however this one jerkoff told me i should quit watching the wpt, after i blew me 4500 chipstack on the bubble to end up getting 4th. yay for people calling pushes for 2500 at level 6 with Q10. yay for them. they will never ever win. AHAHHAHHAA. good thread btw cit. i like. holla

[SuitedSixes]

Nice avatar.

[vinyard]

Hey! Look, everybody! Citanul's signal to noise ratio just went above 1%! Woo hoo.

He might be an arrogant tool but citanul is a 100% right. You need to play a more advanced game to beat the 1000 chip games long term. I learned the hard and humbling way including a trip all the way to the 11s and back. You have to be more cognizant of things that are less problematic at the lower levels both because of the starting stack sizes and overall superior level of play. A 22 table has 4-5 players on average willing to play any two broadways for a raise; a 55 might have one. In the 800 chip games you make a good chunk of your money by letting donkeys play poorly and picking your spots. In the 1000 chip games this is much less true - the only advantage to playing higher stakes is that there is greater understanding of FE on average so you have less people calling off their entire stack with K8 to your push from the small blind. There is a lot more poker played between level 1 and mathematically determined push and fold mode. You need to play high quality poker in between to have the folding equity requisite to consistently place make worthwhile money.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
There are actually lots of reasons to bet 1/2 - 2/3 of the pot, of which the one you list is one of them. It also helps you put somebody else on a hand when they call.

There are also times, based on the texture of the flop, when you should NOT make a 1/2 pot bet --- for example, the flop comes JT7 2-suited, with at least 3-4 people seeing the flop. Lots of people can have big draws on such a flop; you don't want to price in their call, if you have AJo, for example. In which case, it is imperative that you pot the bet. You just want to make sure you don't give away your hand by the size of the bet --- so you should pot the bet whether you have a semi-bluff hand such as KQ or AJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

No of course I sometimes bet different amounts, however my most common is about 2/3s of the pot. However there are many times where I bet the whole pot, or I bet less than half the pot as well.

[Frank A. Adrian]

[ QUOTE ]
... keep some 20s in my wallet and the rest in my back pocket.

[/ QUOTE ]

Be careful. You can get sciatica that way. Sitting on a lump is definitely not good for your posture.

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]

the point is however that folding top pair NO kicker too much . . . are all leaks.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am always folding top pair no Kicker during the first two rounds, and usually the third round. For example, let's say I have Q3o in the BB. Four limpers, including myself. The flop comes 7, T, Q rainbow. I ain't betting that Queen (if I did bet that queen, then why wouldn't I limp with Q3o in other positions). Somebody will call me, I'll have no confidence that I have the best hand, I will check the turn and they will bet me off the pot. I just stay away from that kind of crap.

One limper I might play it strongly. Fourth level I might play it strongly, especially if I am a bit short-chipped. But during the first 3 levels, my basic rule of thumb is that if I take the hand to the river, I want to be shocked as hell if I lose it.

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
... keep some 20s in my wallet and the rest in my back pocket.

[/ QUOTE ]

Be careful. You can get sciatica that way. Sitting on a lump is definitely not good for your posture.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll keep that in mind, I'd rather not have my leg aputated.