Taking it to the Next Level -- Longish Post

[KenProspero]

Over the last few weeks, I've been migrating from STTs to MTTs.

While I'm adjusting my game, I've been keeping it to very low stakes -- from cash pay out freerolls to Big Buck tourneys.

Typically, am finding myself with 400-600 players, top 30 or 40 get paid.

I find myself having some success, in that I reach the 'money' 30-40% of the time. However, so far I haven't been able to get deep into the final table, where the bigger payouts begin.

The question is any advice as to how to take it deeper.

My style -- Generally very tight early on. In the first hour or so, it's not unusual for me to see the flop (including Blind hands) 16 or 17% of the time. I loosen up considerably based on the the percentage of my stack that is a forced bet (i.e., blinds plus antes) per orbit.

The hands I decide to play, I'm looking to play hard and aggressively. Usually, the players at this level are oblivious and I can get away with this. However, if I find I'm getting no action at all, I'll start stealing blinds with impugnity until they don't let me get away with that.

Early rounds, I'm not spending a lot of effort stealing blinds, but as we get deeper, I'm looking for the opportunity.

Short stacked -- (say under 6-7 big blinds, maybe even more), the 'call' button all but disappears. It's either all in or fold here, most of the time.

Ok, as I stated, I'm having success getting into the money, but it's usually with a fairly short stack. Sometimes, hanging on by the fingernails till the bubble bursts. Sometimes with enough chips that doubling up can bring me from top 40 to 7-15.

My question, basically, is whether the strategy I'm using looks sound. I figure that either everything is more or less ok, and that as I play more tourneys, the bigger finishes will come, or I'm missing something fundamental here.

[burgi]

I'm also still pretty new to MTT's, but to me, your strategy looks pretty good!
I do the same thing basically, and basically had similar results as you, until I had my first final table finish yesterday, which was very nice.
I think if you keep playing that way, you will get your final table finishes eventually.
But, as I said, I'm still new to MTT's, so remember this when listening to me! lol

[mustardo]

I too am dead new to MTTs being a regular SnG man I too found myself to be able to limp to the money but not much further. From reading around here and a couple of books I think the biggest difference between a MTT and a STT is that you don't mind taking a few flops early if you can cheap enough.

In a STT the risk to reward of doubling up early is not that great however if you can build a stack early then as the money approaches you can use your stack to be very aggressive as people become much tighter.

This means if you can see flops cheaply playing suited connectors and low pairs knowing you can get someones whole stack when you hit the flop nicely becomes worth the risk.

This also means that the odd blind steal early is not a terrible play, while you should not take the risks you might do later you do not want to miss out on any opportunities to pick up chips.

Sorry if its a little incoherent sposed to be at work and would be interested to hear if anyone thinks I'm way off

Ta mussy

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
Over the last few weeks, I've been migrating from STTs to MTTs.

While I'm adjusting my game, I've been keeping it to very low stakes -- from cash pay out freerolls to Big Buck tourneys.

Typically, am finding myself with 400-600 players, top 30 or 40 get paid.

I find myself having some success, in that I reach the 'money' 30-40% of the time. However, so far I haven't been able to get deep into the final table, where the bigger payouts begin.

The question is any advice as to how to take it deeper.

My style -- Generally very tight early on. In the first hour or so, it's not unusual for me to see the flop (including Blind hands) 16 or 17% of the time. I loosen up considerably based on the the percentage of my stack that is a forced bet (i.e., blinds plus antes) per orbit.






Ok, as I stated, I'm having success getting into the money, but it's usually with a fairly short stack. Sometimes, hanging on by the fingernails till the bubble bursts. Sometimes with enough chips that doubling up can bring me from top 40 to 7-15.



[/ QUOTE ]

I think one of the keys to MTT's that makes them different from STT's is the need to accumulate chips. At a STT a tight player can basically sit and watch others bust out for a while, double up once or steal a few blinds on the bubble, and cash. There are only so many chips in play.

At an MTT you have to increase your stack exponentially to win any real money. Weak tight play gets you bubble cash or bubbled out, neither one is worth the effort. I'd rather win once and get ten blanks than finish 18th ten times. It sounds like you are too afraid to lose chips early on to have any real chance to win chips.

Also, if you make it to the money with a short and medium stack, you can't just sit and let the big stacks push you around, pick your spots and push back, be willing to gamble to double up - for the same reason- to win you have to make the final table with chips.

[runout_mick]

In low buy-in, or freeroll tourneys, I've had a lot of success by limping into a LOT of speculative hands early (6-7 o/s, A7 suited, etc). If the flop misses you, easy fold. BUT if the flop hits you in the forehead, most players at this level have a hard time getting away from over cards, top pair, and even middle pair. These same players love to overbet these hands, and usually won't back down to a reraise. Using these tactics I either am out of the tourney, or close to chiplead at first break.

After first break, I tighten WAY down to just keep up with the blinds until close to the bubble.

As the bubble approaches, start stealing like a madman. People are so preoccupied with "making the money", they forget that anything less than first place is "first loser" at best. Once the bubble is very near to bursting, I show one or two of my most blatant steal hands (3-8 o/s, etc), to reinforce my "maniac" image, so I can exploit this after the bubble bursts.

Once the bubble bursts, play disciplined TAG until the final table. Play usually loosens WAY up after the bubble, so sit back and wait to exploit it.

Not sure if this helps, but I have found success changing gears like this during my low buy in big (2000 +/- plrs) mtts.

(p.s.- using these tactics has financed ALL my mtts. I have played in 2 $50 mtts, 20 or so $20 mtts, and countless $10 and unders (all the while maintaining a healthy bankroll of arond $0). I have never deposited a penny, and have recieved priceless experience in the meantime.)

[EarlOfSandwich]

I'm quite new to MTTs, so take any of the below with a large grain of salt. But here are a few observations.

First, I think tight play early on is wrong. If it's a $30 buy-in or below, there's probably a lot of cash being thrown around. You should limp into a lot of pots, and limp with a very wide range of hands from late position. You should usually fold on the flop unless you hit big -- people are too loose-passive, there are too many in the hand. You're looking for those one or two key hands early on that can allow you to double-up.

A few other points I'd like to illustrate with the $30 MTT I played on Party last night.

I would observe, first, that playing patterns are often surprising -- each table having its own tendencies, which can change from level to level.

Last night, I had a medium-ish stack in the mid going, sometimes dipping down to pretty weak. The bubble was at 70 players, but I was disappointed to see so much aggressive play when we were down to 110, 100, 90, etc. I kind of thought I had run into an aggressive bunch who wouldn't let me use the bubble factor to steal a bunch of chips.

I used selective aggression during that time, survived, and then noted some even more aggressive play after the bubble burst. Disappointing.

It wasn't long before my selective aggression worked, though. It worked a little ... I survived, grew a little ... and then managed to win a big hand. At around 50 left and below, playing the big stack became incredibly effective. The mid and small stacks were just *determined* to survive, and my selective aggression blossomed into bully status. The chip leader was at my table, and I bullied my way from half his stack, to 3/4, and ultimately to equal and slightly above.

Being the bully was worth tons and tons of chips, even at a table where people had *seemed* aggressive. Be prepared to shift gears like that.

Some of the more experienced players can probably refine this, but my feeling is that being a good bully means selective bullying. You should lay off a hand or two, then take your logical opporunities to steal. I was probably stealing about 1 out of 3 hands. If you steal more than that, you're inviting all-in playback with any medium-ish hand. You want to keep it just inside the realm of plausability that you have a good hand.

Your strategy should be a combination of stealing and playing back at raises with your premium hands. I actually got busted for half my stack doing the latter (KK gets outrun by Q9), which left me with a small stack. To reinforce the value of stealing, and the possibility of doing it with a 10BB stack, I was actually able to build back from there again to chip leader. Selective but relatively frequent steals, combined with a big playback at some point that doubles you up, can take you from small to leader in relatively short order.

One final, bitter lesson. I went into final table with a 120K stack, second only to the 180K somoene had recently built at the other table.

I made a really bone-headed play after just one trip around the table. I was kind of fatigued, and the texture of the hand changed quickly. Playing one hand badly at the final table can have you going out 9th instead of at least 6th or 5th, which I almost certainly would've made if I had folded that one hand. There's a big difference between 9th place money and 5th. My account is probably 1K or more shorter today than it would've been if I had thought a little more clearly under fire.