Low Ceiling vs High Ceiling-SNG strategy(long)

[Nick M]

This will probably get ignored like a lot of things said by people on this forum that are not recognized. But I thought that If a few people read it and understand it, than it's probably worth it.

First I would like to explain what Low Ceiling and High Ceiling strategy is. Low Ceiling play is preflop move in poker. A lot of people on this forum use this as their sole strategy for winning at SNGs. It's a great steady strategy that when done well can yield nice profits. It's great for math people. Great for those cool ICM thingys that everyone always talks about. It's a solid strategy and a necessary skill to have in your arsenal. There is just one problem with it, your results are completely and totally dictated by the cards and the odds. This means that you can only be as profitable as the cards and the odds LET you be. You have no say in this matter. When the cards don't want you to win, then you have variance. And you have no say in this either. This is Low Ceiling. No range. No way to avoid variance in any way.

High Ceiling is different. High Ceiling is poker played on both the preflop level and the post flop level. This is where you can defend against variance. You don't just get to play your cards, you can play your opponents cards and take EV that does not belong to you. High Ceiling play has range. It doesn't just steal blinds it steals POTS. Low Ceiling takes EV that does not belong to you sure, the blinds. But High Ceiling is involved in the action and can take advantage of the action. High Ceiling SNG strategy is not High Ceiling cash game strategy. IN NL cash i am in like a million pots. This is about survival and beating variance. Taking what does not belong to you. But also incorporating Low Ceiling move in poker too.

In Low Ceiling play the cards break even. This means the ROI for a person is not unlimited. There's only a set amount of ROI one can achieve by play Low Ceiling poker. You can do much worse but you can never do better. The cards break even, but situations and people never do.

I hate when I read threads and people pose this question of what they do on the button with like 109o, there's 5 players left and you're middle stacked. Then you get like 5 million responses for PUSH!!! hahahah you have no clue what you're talking about. You have know idea what the player's image is at the table. You have no idea what the SB and BB are like as players. He has not told you one hand either of these players have turned over. Just because you put this through a simulator, pick some calling ranges, and it says over 292623462394694624643 SNGs this play will profit you %@&%!* EV doesn't mean you should make it. There is more to the game than a computer telling you what is a +EV play and what isn't. Does the computer know that right before you decided to push 109o into the chip leader's BB he just lost a heart breaker to the all in small stack???? NO it doesn't know that.

Another thing that I want to shed some light on. You hear people say that when moving up in ranks, their ROI shouldn't drop too much. Well with Low Ceiling this is completely correct. ROI will drop a little, but why should it. If profit is dictated by the cards and the odds ROI should never drop. The reason is the players at the higher levels understand this strategy and also use it. if you use the LC style at one level there might be 2 other people using it. Now say you move up 3 levels and there is 5 people using it. Now you need to split all this +EV with the people that are doing the same thing as you.

Let me ask you a question. In poker what is usually the best defense for most set strategies??? The total opposite of that set strategy. If a maniac is raising every pot, you limp more preflp, and call more post flop. If some tight guy is limping every pot you slam him to death and fold when he plays back at you. It's simple. But what is the defense for a non set strategy???? High Ceiling play has no set defense. This is why ROI is unlimited...well in a sense. You could win every single SNG you play, that's the limit ahhaaha. But you understand.

I think it's funny that most people want to play poker instead of a 9to5 job because it gives you freedom. You're your own boss and you set the hours. But then they go and play in the most "freedomless" way possible to get their freedom outside of poker. I was a pro skater for a long time and freedom is my first love. I could do a whole thread on freedom, love, great times, and artistic views; but that would be boring for most people. But that's how I like to play poker, free. No set style, no set range. I make decisions on the fly and I use my instincts.

Thanks

Nick M.

[lastchance]

Preflop FE matters a helluva lot more in SNG's than other forms of poker. And limping with 10x BB is horrible (most of the time). There's a lot of poker that can be played, and at the same time, there's very little poker one can play.

And yes, poker is a constant-sum game. Low-Ceiling also has a low cap. A lot of the bubble and short-stacked plays we do are indefensible. And yeah, you can always play opponents, but "high-ceiling" poker has the same problem "low-ceiling" poker does.

If your opponents play optimally, you can't beat them, no matter how well you play. And yes, it's a lot harder to play optimally with 200x BB than it is with 5x BB.

[kyro]

So in other words this forum is relatively useless because we don't know the opponents and therefore are ineligible to comment on a play.

No. In SNGs, the majority of moves are math-based. Sure, toss a few reads in there and you improve that much. But when someone asks a question in these forums, we are answering based on what we are given. If we are given reads, we incorporate those reads into our answer. If not, it becomes almost solely math-based. For the majority of players here (especially at the lower limits) trying to be "artistic" with your plays will end up getting you burnt.

[pergesu]

The party SNG structure doesn't lend itself very well to postflop play late in the game. The new level has changed that somewhat, but not a whole lot.

Sure, a lot of responses are either push or fold. But when you've got 7 BB, it doesn't make sense to limp or raise less than your stack in most cases. The few cases where it may be true, people are quick to point it out and discuss it.

Different forms of poker have different skillsets. Postflop play isn't as important in endgame SNG play as it is in other forms. If you want that fun, go play some PL/NL cash games. I just care about making $$

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate when I read threads and people pose this question of what they do on the button with like 109o, there's 5 players left and you're middle stacked. Then you get like 5 million responses for PUSH!!! hahahah you have no clue what you're talking about. You have know idea what the player's image is at the table. You have no idea what the SB and BB are like as players. He has not told you one hand either of these players have turned over. Just because you put this through a simulator, pick some calling ranges, and it says over 292623462394694624643 SNGs this play will profit you %@&%!* EV doesn't mean you should make it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a little confused by this comment. Poker is all about making the most +EV decisons at all times. Why would you pass up +EV situations in a SNG just for the sake of playing differently than what is the normally considered optimal play. You say you prefer to use your instincts to guide your decisions, but in the example hand you gave what sort of instincts are you using? Some sort of premonition of your opponent's hand? You also stated that you have no idea what the SB and BB are like as players which is true, but you can still have some sort of idea as to how loose or tight the are. This can be translated to a certain range of hands that you can expect to be called by. From this information you can determine what the best play is. I'm sure many players might say that they make this decision based on "instincts", but a good players "instincts" in the spot will assuredly match what is mathematically correct. The instincts you are talking about are just what is mathematically correct. You just aren't actually doing any calculations in your head because you have a feel for what is right and wrong, but it still all comes back to the math.

[treeofwisdom7]

dont fall off the skateboard again

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
This will probably get ignored like a lot of things said by people on this forum that are not recognized.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that this is one of the best forums here for discussing ideas based on their own merit. (Wow, that's scary. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif )

[ QUOTE ]
Low Ceiling play is preflop move in poker. A lot of people on this forum use this as their sole strategy for winning at SNGs. ..... There is just one problem with it, your results are completely and totally dictated by the cards and the odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are seriously missing the point of the strategy you are alluding to. The thrust of many of the discussions here is selectively going all-in when the odds, the opponents, the cards, and the situations are favorable. The conclusions you have reached about "the SST Doctrine" appear to be based on a superficial reading.

[ QUOTE ]
This means that you can only be as profitable as the cards and the odds LET you be.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of good poker is played with little regard to the cards. The cards are meaningless in a hand that does not go to showdown.

[ QUOTE ]
High Ceiling is poker played on both the preflop level and the post flop level. This is where you can defend against variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing of any worth I have read here advocates avoiding postflop play when appropriate, particularly in the early levels. Postflop is very important there, and is discussed in detail here. Pushing all-in is discussed more here than in other forums because its selective and appropriate use is a much more important skill in SnGs than in other forms of poker.

You say that your strategy of correct postflop play "can defend against variance", but you provide nothing to substantiate that claim.

[ QUOTE ]
freedom is my first love

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."
--Kris Kristofferson

[/ QUOTE ]

[benza13]

As has been pointed out, you bring up some good points, but they don't apply as much for the majority of people in this forum that play on Party, in the lower limits. That is a major reason why push/fold advice is the most common. If we all played on other sites that gave bigger stacks then post flop play would be more common. At the higher levels post-flop play and fancier plays stand a much better chance at working because your opponents are also thinking. When your average opponent is a complete donk, then you can only hope to play by the odds and the numbers.

To sum up our points, as you move up it becomes more difficult and you need to incorporate more plays and reads into your actions. Yep, sounds about right...

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
High Ceiling is different. High Ceiling is poker played on both the preflop level and the post flop level. This is where you can defend against variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement doesn't make much sense either. Variance is not necessarily a bad thing. If you want you can have no variance whatsoever. Just lose every game you play. That will "defend against variance" too.

[Nick M]

I should have mentioned this in the Post. I only play on Pokerstars.

[Slim Pickens]

There is something we can never quantify: the fraction of the time a given opponent will fold to a given bet, or alternatively, the fraction of the time an opponent will make a given play in a given situation. Accurate estimation of this is critical to the validity of the mathematical answer, but it is difficult, and even more difficult for someone who is good at it to explain how to do it to someone who is not. That's the whole problem with trying to get a purely mathematical answer to a push/fold/moron debate. I agree with the OP 100%, but I'm happy to exist as a Low Ceiling player until I have a better understanding of the game.

SlimP

[lastchance]

1500 chips = a lot more postflop poker and "high-ceiling" strategy (which is the same as postflop poker). 800 chips on Party with people who will not fold middle-pair = little-no postflop poker and insanely few moves that are not "all-in."

[kyro]

Then I hope you realize how ridiculous your post is to the majority of us. Go back and read hands that take place on PS. You won't be seeing the same PUSH IT/FOLD IT as much. We aren't robots here, rather, we make the most +EV play for us, and oftentimes, that play is the same thing over and over.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
I should have mentioned this in the Post. I only play on Pokerstars.


[/ QUOTE ]

Pokerstars and Party SNGs call for somewhat different approaches to the game. Obviously when the stacks are deeper, there's more room to play other than push/fold, specifically in mid-early stages, but also later on. However, the normal aggressive pushing strategy that is often advocated here is essentially correct for Stars too, specifically for the bubble and around bubble situations. Trying to play in a different manner, i.e, more post-flop, smaller than all-in raises etc, when the stacks are short/very short, will usually lead you to making costly mistakes.

Actually, what you say in your post, is not very different than what many avarage SNG players think. They hate those push/fold "2+2" style players, and think they don't know to play better, i.e, play post flop, use "fancy moves", reads, etc. Obviously, those avarage players are usually wrong and also are losing players. They don't like the push/fold strategy, because it does not allow them to "play poker".

With regard to your comments about reads, well reads mean little, or even very little, when stacks are that short (although we still use reads when calling/pushing ranges are discussed here). That's the simple truth.

[ilya]

I think you're looking for something from poker psychologically that SnGs can't really offer. Play uber-deep-stack NL ring.

[dmmikkel]

[ QUOTE ]
When the cards don't want you to win, then you have variance. And you have no say in this either. This is Low Ceiling. No range. No way to avoid variance in any way.

[/ QUOTE ]

No way to get around variance no matter how you play. Some forms have lesser varians, other more variance.

[ QUOTE ]
you can play your opponents cards and take EV that does not belong to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes no sense to me. At any given situation in any form of poker, there's one move that has the most EV. It's the move that make you the most money in this and every future hand. How can you get more EV than max EV?

[ QUOTE ]
Low Ceiling takes EV that does not belong to you sure, the blinds

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't get this either. It's +EV to steal blinds. I know that and therefor the EV belongs to me.

[ QUOTE ]
In Low Ceiling play the cards break even. This means the ROI for a person is not unlimited. There's only a set amount of ROI one can achieve by play Low Ceiling poker. You can do much worse but you can never do better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cards break even in any game. Some games you just play them differently. Some say cards might not matter if you can outplay your opponent, but it does. If you can make it +EV calling his raise with 72o, then you're just playing 72o better than your opponent.

And ROI is never unlimited in any game. It is impossible. Unlimited ROI would mean you're getting infinite odds (obviously a good bet)

----

To sum up what I think.

I think you somehow don't get what kind of math lies behind any form of poker because you keep talking about EV that doesn't belong to you (or EV that doesn't really exist) and unlimited ROI.

Basicly I think your biggest mistake is thinking like this:

[ QUOTE ]
There is just one problem with it, your results are completely and totally dictated by the cards and the odds

[/ QUOTE ]

You're basicly saying some forms of poker are not dictated by cards and odds. Absolutely everything in poker is math and odds.

You may say it's a people game, but reads are nothing but numbers and variables. You may know what he has. You may know what he thinks you have. You may think you know what he thinks you have. Still it's 100% math. It's math that's so complex no one will ever master it 100%, but that doesn't mean it isn't math.

A move you make that is against all books, but that you make based on instinct and feeling, can still be mathematically proven to be the correct move.

--

Edit: no point what so ever but this was my 109th post and i play the 109s. wee /images/graemlins/wink.gif Better move up before my 215th post (what happens after that i don't dare think about :P)

[Matt Walker]

I don't see why low ceiling play and high ceiling play are mutually exclusive as you define them. Can't you play one with deep stacks and the other with less than 10x stacks? I think thats what most players on here are doing.

[Nick M]

I'm not looking for anything. I like playing SNGs. I like the way I play them. I like winning. Not sure what you think I'm making this post for but it's not complaining about SNGs, or trying to figure out how to change SNGs to suit my style, wants, or needs. You might be misunderstanding my post. I'm not trying to get something from SNGs that it's not giving me. I'm just trying to explain that you can beat SNGs for a very good ROI without ICM calculation and strictly low ceiling play. And you can have some fun doing it.

[lastchance]

At Pokerstars. :P

[Nick M]

I'm going to try and answer everyone's questions here. It seems that people are taking many things out of context and that't not very productive.

[Nick M]

I agree completely about SS play. My defintion of High Ceiling play

[ QUOTE ]
High Ceiling is poker played on both the preflop level and the post flop level.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think playing preflop poker when it's the bubble and/or you're SS is completely and totally correct.

[lastchance]

Oh... Ok...

BTW, I think in that case, the best players on the forum play "high-ceiling," and we want to play L1-L3 as best we can...

[Nick M]

[ QUOTE ]
So in other words this forum is relatively useless because we don't know the opponents and therefore are ineligible to comment on a play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you know this isn't true. Please be realistic. People asked all of us a question and we will answer that question the best we possibly can given the information we have. But I believe that there's a lot more to the right answer than chip stacks, position, blinds, and opinions on calling range of opponents.

[Nick M]

Yes I agree. I posted after this reply and said I play on Pokerstars. But I also replied to "lastchance" here...

[ QUOTE ]
I agree completely about SS play. My defintion of High Ceiling play


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

High Ceiling is poker played on both the preflop level and the post flop level.


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



I think playing preflop poker when it's the bubble and/or you're SS is completely and totally correct

[/ QUOTE ]

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because you put this through a simulator, pick some calling ranges, and it says over 292623462394694624643 SNGs this play will profit you %@&%!* EV doesn't mean you should make it. There is more to the game than a computer telling you what is a +EV play and what isn't. Does the computer know that right before you decided to push 109o into the chip leader's BB he just lost a heart breaker to the all in small stack???? NO it doesn't know that.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, yes it does, because you have told it. That information is contained in how you've determine the calling range, which is in fact the ONLY way that BB's "context" can affect his play. Nice try, though. The way in which BB is going to be affected is something for you to figure out at your discretion. It is very subjective. The idea that people who are analyzing hands by these methods have missed something by taking out the "people element" is only a charge made by someone who doesn't understand how the analysis works, what it says, and what it doesn't say. It simply isn't true. It is simply a way of quantifying the consequences of your subjective judgments about a player's actions.


As for the rest of your post, you seem to be saying that deep stack poker is different from short stack poker, and that the edges are potentially larger. This isn't exactly a revelation, although it's worth pointing out to a complete neophyte, although I think that can be done in a sentence or two.

What someone may be misled by in your post is this "ceiling" you're talking about is something you can choose. It isn't. It's dictated by the structure of the game. That's primarily why you see so much discussion of preflop strategy here. It's because you don't typically have any viable alternative. Yes, the edges are smaller, and the cards and odds and math are more important, but that's the nature of the online SnG. That's just the way it is.

eastbay

[Nick M]

[ QUOTE ]
You say you prefer to use your instincts to guide your decisions, but in the example hand you gave what sort of instincts are you using?

[/ QUOTE ]

in the example I said this, but your quote cut it off...

[ QUOTE ]
Does the computer know that right before you decided to push 109o into the chip leader's BB he just lost a heart breaker to the all in small stack????

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this is a great example of why I wouldn't push this right now. This can only be felt I think.

[ QUOTE ]
but a good players "instincts" in the spot will assuredly match what is mathematically correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a great point. I completely agree with you. A great player knows what the best play is or about what the best play is. It will probably be very close to what's mathematically correct. But I also think great instincts factor in things the computer can not see. For instance my example of the heart breaker loss to the SS. It also does not factor in YOUR table image. Great instincts know when it may not be right to push because you have pushed the last 3 hands straight. On the last one people were taking an awfully long time to make decisions. Possibly implying that they were getting fed up with your pushing.

Really good point about instincts being mathematical without actually doing the calculations, it's really true.

[djj6835]

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

You say you prefer to use your instincts to guide your decisions, but in the example hand you gave what sort of instincts are you using?


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



in the example I said this, but your quote cut it off...


[/ QUOTE ]
I assume you are talking about the portion where you mention the fact that the BB just lost a hand to the short stack. This fact can be accounted for in a mathematical calculation to determine what the most +EV play is. I would assume the BB's calling range is higher if he is frustrated about the loss in an attempt to regain his lost chips. If I think the BB is going to call me 100% of the time then I wouldn't push here. I suppose I am using some instincts here, but it still all comes back to what I know is mathematically correct. My instincts merely tell me to widen the BB's calling range.

edit: btw, I agree with much of what you said regarding post flop play considering you play at pokerstars. I wouldn't recommend this for Party Poker. I assumed you were talking about Party when I first read your post.

[Big Limpin']

Awesome post.
I was born and raised on 1500chip SnGs.
The only difference was that you played HC for a greater # of hands per SnG before the LC "go apeshit" phase kicked in.
Ergo, a good HC player came into the LC segment with more ammo.
Then i moved to Party.
The LC segment is pitifully short.
For all intents and purposes, PP SnG may as well start at 800/1000 chips at t50/100 (with 2-5 arbitraty villians gone AWOL
That is where the profit comes from.
We all pay 1.1xBI...and 5-8 of us will "gamboooool" for the prize pool.
Somewhat facetious, of course there is some "skill" in LC, but really, its more a case of you just not having a LACK of LC smarts.
I will play 7 people, in a coinflipping roundrobin, for last man standing stakes of 50/30/20. IF im the sh*t, i may be a little more likely than anyone else at the table to get the top prizes.
But not my much.

[Nick M]

so you agree with me hahaha

actually one thing I saw and want to answer...

[ QUOTE ]
You say that your strategy of correct postflop play "can defend against variance", but you provide nothing to substantiate that claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my post I write...

[ QUOTE ]
You don't just get to play your cards, you can play your opponents cards and take EV that does not belong to you. High Ceiling play has range. It doesn't just steal blinds it steals POTS. Low Ceiling takes EV that does not belong to you sure, the blinds. But High Ceiling is involved in the action and can take advantage of the action.

[/ QUOTE ]

I probably should have been more specific. What I say here is variance is determined comepletely and totally by losing hands. If you never lose a hand there will be no variance. That means that if you can take pots that you would otherwise lose if you should down, you're defending against variance. I think LC preflop defends against variance because you steal blinds. Blinds that you can win without having the best hand. But like I said in my post, HC play takes not just blinds, when you switch to LC, but it takes POTS.

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."

Benjamin Franklin

[Nick M]

totally ahhaha NH /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[lastchance]

I don't see how you can "defend against variance." It happens. All you can do is maximize your EV. If your point is that a lack of postflop skills is a leak in SNG's, I think we can all agree with that.

You made a good point very oddly however. A simple "not being able to play postflop costs you money L1-L3" and "you need to learn not to be a weak-tight pansy" should have sufficed. I know personally, playing postflop and L1-L3 play is exactly what I need to learn next.

[pergesu]

I'm clearly missing something here.

In my style of play, which is basically being as smart as a goldfish and pushing 80% of hands when blinds are big, I do pick up pots. The pot is just comprised of the blinds because there has been no action yet. The vast majority of the time I don't want to go to showdown.

I don't really see your distinction between "picking up BLINDS" and "picking up POTS".

[Nick M]

yeah totally agree here...speaking of big stacks nice avatar.

[Nick M]

pots happen post flop and they are larger than just the blinds. This is all I mean. But yes playing like a "smart goldfish" is the right play when the blinds are high, given your stack size that is.

[Nick M]

yeah I answered another question about the defending variance thing. I am going to copy it in here too. Thanks for the reply.




Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You say that your strategy of correct postflop play "can defend against variance", but you provide nothing to substantiate that claim.


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



In my post I write...


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You don't just get to play your cards, you can play your opponents cards and take EV that does not belong to you. High Ceiling play has range. It doesn't just steal blinds it steals POTS. Low Ceiling takes EV that does not belong to you sure, the blinds. But High Ceiling is involved in the action and can take advantage of the action.


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



I probably should have been more specific. What I say here is variance is determined comepletely and totally by losing hands. If you never lose a hand there will be no variance. That means that if you can take pots that you would otherwise lose if you should down, you're defending against variance. I think LC preflop defends against variance because you steal blinds. Blinds that you can win without having the best hand. But like I said in my post, HC play takes not just blinds, when you switch to LC, but it takes POTS.

[pergesu]

Alright, so what's the point of it all? Taking down the pot preflop vs taking it down postflop doesn't much matter to me - I'd especially not like to see a flop with I've got my 96o, opponent has QJs, and I could really use the chips.

Can't say I've seen threads where they're like, "Okay it's level 2 and everyone folded to me, what should I do?" and everyone says to push. Yeah, having postflop skills will dramatically increase your profits, cause you can make some money in the early levels as well. Not sure that it's like revolutionary...

As for the "hahaha you guys have no idea what you're talking about" because we don't know if some guy just lost a big pot, eastbay already explained how it all works.

I don't mean to rag on you, it just seems that your clarifications all add up to "Learn to play postflop so you can survive the early rounds." *twirls finger*

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't mean to rag on you, it just seems that your clarifications all add up to "Learn to play postflop so you can survive the early rounds." *twirls finger*

[/ QUOTE ]
It's more like "learn to play postflop so you can win chips in the early rounds."

[Nick M]

[ QUOTE ]
No way to get around variance no matter how you play. Some forms have lesser varians, other more variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

in my post I actually said this.

[ QUOTE ]
This is where you can DEFEND against variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

i also replied to another question about this saying

In my post I write...


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You don't just get to play your cards, you can play your opponents cards and take EV that does not belong to you. High Ceiling play has range. It doesn't just steal blinds it steals POTS. Low Ceiling takes EV that does not belong to you sure, the blinds. But High Ceiling is involved in the action and can take advantage of the action.


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



I probably should have been more specific. What I say here is variance is determined comepletely and totally by losing hands. If you never lose a hand there will be no variance. That means that if you can take pots that you would otherwise lose if you should down, you're defending against variance. I think LC preflop defends against variance because you steal blinds. Blinds that you can win without having the best hand. But like I said in my post, HC play takes not just blinds, when you switch to LC, but it takes POTS.


[ QUOTE ]
This makes no sense to me. At any given situation in any form of poker, there's one move that has the most EV. It's the move that make you the most money in this and every future hand. How can you get more EV than max EV?


[/ QUOTE ]

yes there is one move that makes you the most EV possible. I agree. I am just saying a lot of those don't happen pre flop


[ QUOTE ]
Don't get this either. It's +EV to steal blinds. I know that and therefor the EV belongs to me.


[/ QUOTE ]

What I mean by EV that doesn't belong to me is EV won with the worst hand. Obvioulsy $EV can never be won by you with the worst hand.


[ QUOTE ]
And ROI is never unlimited in any game. It is impossible. Unlimited ROI would mean you're getting infinite odds (obviously a good bet)


[/ QUOTE ]

in my post I write this.

[ QUOTE ]
But what is the defense for a non set strategy???? High Ceiling play has no set defense. This is why ROI is unlimited...well in a sense. You could win every single SNG you play, that's the limit ahhaaha. But you understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

ROI is unlimited up to the point you are winning every single SNG. This is what I mean by unlimited.


[ QUOTE ]
A move you make that is against all books, but that you make based on instinct and feeling, can still be mathematically proven to be the correct move.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is completely untrue. A play that makes your opponent THINK he has the worst hand, has absolutely nothing to do with Math.

[lastchance]

You can't win every single SNG, even if you're Phil Ivey with the game theoretic knowledge that Chris Ferguson/David Sklansky has.

Like I said, if your opponents play optimally, your ROI over an infinite period of time is not going to be higher than 0%. It is impossible.

[Nick M]

In my post I say this

[ QUOTE ]
High Ceiling is poker played on both the preflop level and the post flop level.

[/ QUOTE ]

this implies that HC can play LC but not the other way around. A square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square. I want to play like a rectangle. hahaha

[Nick M]

it's not impossible, it just can't be done by anyone on this planet. This means that the sky is the limit when you play HC strategy. You make the rules. Your skill decides your ROI, not JUST the odds and/or the cards.

[Nick M]

I had a feeling you were going to try and rip me a new one. This is OK. You are you and I am me. I will of course respond to your post...once I figure out all these big words. Thanks for the Reply!!!!

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]
it's not impossible, it just can't be done by anyone on this planet. This means that the sky is the limit when you play HC strategy. You make the rules. Your skill decides your ROI, not JUST the odds and/or the cards.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, this is completely and absurdly wrong. A perfect poker player cannot win every single SNG. It is impossible, because you will have KK when your opponent has AA. You will be card-dead. Like it is impossible to beat the big game for more than 1 BB/Hour, it is impossible to beat SNGs over a certain ROI, depending on how lousy your opponents are.

A perfect player's ROI is strictly decided by how bad that player's opponents are.

You can't beat at Tic-Tac-Toe. It's the same with poker. There is optimal play, and depending how close to it your opponent plays, you can't beat them for a higher ROI than is possible.

[Moonsugar]

Your ROI can only negative and in a magnitude equal the rake, not 0%.

[Nick M]

hahaha thanks BL

You know it's funny. I am so surprised that no one has brought up the fact that LC strategy is so important when you are 8 tabling. And HC strategy is almost impossible 8 tabling. This is why you play preflop because it allows you to play more tables which actually gains your more $EV.

My defense to this arguement would be that I believe the best LC player 12 tabling could not make more money than the best HC player 6 tabling...I think hahahaha.

The LC section is pitifully short...damn I need to maybe step it up a little.

[ QUOTE ]
For all intents and purposes, PP SnG may as well start at 800/1000 chips at t50/100 (with 2-5 arbitraty villians gone AWOL That is where the profit comes from.


[/ QUOTE ]

totally agree. I think on PS LC starts at the 75/150 or the 100/200 level depending on the amount of players left.

[ QUOTE ]
I will play 7 people, in a coinflipping roundrobin, for last man standing stakes of 50/30/20. IF im the sh*t, i may be a little more likely than anyone else at the table to get the top prizes.


[/ QUOTE ]

this is basically what LC poker is I totally agree.

[Moonsugar]

All poker is math, it is just not the math you think it is.

Some structures are such that there is only 'Low Ceiling Poker' (TM) available.

I only win when my opps. make mistakes. I don't really care what street they make it on.

[Nick M]

An SNG can be beat by only showing down one hand, the last one.

The perfect player can win every single SNG he plays. There is just no one alive that can do it. Don't think in terms of reality, think in terms of the word perfection. Try to picture it, an SNG can be won by only showing down 1 hand, the last one. The perfect player will grind you down to 1 chip and then take you out with the best hand when he gets it.
We all strive to become this person, no one will ever do it obviously but it is possible. Just because no one has ever done it or no one will ever do it, doesn't mean it's not possible.

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]

The perfect player can win every single SNG he plays. There is just no one alive that can do it. Don't think in terms of reality, think in terms of the word perfection. Try to picture it, an SNG can be won by only showing down 1 hand, the last one. The perfect player will grind you down to 1 chip and then take you out with the best hand when he gets it.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is impossible against a very good player. I remember a PSI when HL raised ATs on the button, Chip Reese called. Chip Reese check-raised HL on a Txx board, and Lederer called.

What I'm saying is that there's no way the perfect poker player can get away from HL's hand there. If you're HL, you're going to lose a lot of chips when this happens, and there's no way in hell the perfect poker player doesn't lose a lot of chips here to someone like Chip Reese.

If your opponent is good enough, they should be able to make it impossible for a perfect player to laydown the second best hand in certain spots. If your opponent is good enough, they should be able to make it near impossible for you to call a bluff in certain spots.

With only 50x BB at most, there's no way that any, and I repeat any player wins every single SNG, let alone 30-40%. And there's no way the perfect poker player has more than a 50% ROI at the Step 5 Higher's.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
I had a feeling you were going to try and rip me a new one. This is OK. You are you and I am me. I will of course respond to your post...once I figure out all these big words. Thanks for the Reply!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

That was certainly not "trying to rip you a new one."

I think you point out an important concept: that edges in deep stack poker can be bigger than short stack poker. However, I don't think this is not already well understood by most intermediate players.

I think we really found your motivation at the end of your post where you said something "and having fun doing it." I think this is your motivation. You find analysis dry, boring, and, as you characterized it, anti-freedom. It's clinical, for squares, and just plain no fun, right? Well, not everybody feels that way. Some people think working the numbers is fun, and there's actually a deeply creative element in trying to find new ways to apply analysis to poker situations.

It's not for you. That's cool. Just don't try to discredit it in ways that don't make sense.

eastbay

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]

I think we really found your motivation at the end of your post where you said something "and having fun doing it." I think this is your motivation. You find analysis dry, boring, and, as you characterized it, anti-freedom. It's clinical, for squares, and just plain no fun, right? Well, not everybody feels that way. Some people think working the numbers is fun, and there's actually a deeply creative element in trying to find new ways to apply analysis to poker situations.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, we're nerds. :P

[Nick M]

I know the hand. Howard won on runner runner flush.

The perfect player is infinite times better than chip reese hahaha. You're thinking too much in terms of reality. Think philisophically. It's hard to imagine something like this but this is what I mean. The perfect player never loses I'm telling you hahaha. Think of it backwards this might help. If a player never lost he is perfect. How can someone be perfect if he loses??? You must think outside of what you know to be logical, what you know to be reality.

If we disagree than we disagree it's cool.

[Moonsugar]

[ QUOTE ]
An SNG can be beat by only showing down one hand, the last one.

The perfect player can win every single SNG he plays. There is just no one alive that can do it. Don't think in terms of reality, think in terms of the word perfection. Try to picture it, an SNG can be won by only showing down 1 hand, the last one. The perfect player will grind you down to 1 chip and then take you out with the best hand when he gets it.
We all strive to become this person, no one will ever do it obviously but it is possible. Just because no one has ever done it or no one will ever do it, doesn't mean it's not possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, and just because no one takes a beat EVERY HAND during a SnG doesn't mean it is not possible, either. So, since it is possible, your hypothetical perfect player cannot win every SnG (assuming he plays a so called infinite amount, he can do that since he is imaginary). Or, does your perfect player somehow ELIMINATE chance?

[pergesu]

Can a perfect player beat a table filled with 9 other perfect players?

[SumZero]

I think you are just inviting contraversy by mislabling (and there by placing a value judgement) your two things as High Ceiling and Low Ceiling. It is really postflop and preflop play respectively. I agree that players who can play in deep chip stacks and make great post flop plays are more impressive to me (the best TV poker performance I've seen was Daniel Negreanu playing the 6-max super deep stack poker at the plaza). If you prefer the type of poker you call "high ceiling", or think that this style of poker is where your greatest edge is maybe you should consider not playing SnG tourneys. Or playing SnG tourneys on sites that have more chips and slower escalation. I'm in the minority of the STT posters in that I play exclusively at UB with the 10 minute level 1500 chip stacks and here as often as not you do NOT end up with push/fold decisions on the bubble nor when heads up starts. Obviously sometimes you still do because a bunch of people survive to late stages or you get crippled and end up on a short stack. But often I find that the last 5 have players with between 2500-3500 chips (or 1 short stack and 4 3000+ stacks) and 50-100 blinds. Here there is room for your prefered "high ceiling" play.

But to think that the people here who talk about "low ceiling" startegies arte intrinsically wrong or suboptimal is a mistake.

[Barcalounger]

[ QUOTE ]
Can a perfect player beat a table filled with 9 other perfect players?

[/ QUOTE ]

You just blew my freakin' mind!

[Nick M]

Nope the cards decide that one. Every hand would be shown down cause the players would run out of chips trying to find the pefect play to outplay themselves.

We agree on this right?

[pergesu]

I don't know, that's why I'm asking you. I don't know enough of what a perfect player would be.

But here's my thinking. A perfect player is someone who never makes a mistake. At a table full of perfect players, nobody would have an edge over anyone else, or over the table as a whole. So in an infinite number of trials, they would all finish in each position exactly 10% of the time. And lose to the rake /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Nick M]

yes the perfect player eliminates chance. Not literally. He just does not get involved when he can't win. And another thing to think about besides the fact that the perfect player needs to only show down one hand, the last one. He also only needs to beat one guy, the last one.

Trying to explain philisophical and hypothetical players to a math guy is like abbott and costello's "who's on first."

[Nick M]

that sounds perfect to me...the cards decide it all so they all break even(minus the rake /images/graemlins/smile.gif). Exactly

[Nick M]

one thing I want to make clear is that HC is both Preflop and Postflop. I have replied to many people with this quote from my Post...

[ QUOTE ]
High Ceiling is poker played on both the preflop level and the post flop level

[/ QUOTE ]

this means HC players use the LC strategy when it's optimal.

You said at the end...

[ QUOTE ]
But to think that the people here who talk about "low ceiling" startegies arte intrinsically wrong or suboptimal is a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Low Ceiling play is suboptimal in levels 1-4 on PS and levels 1 and 2 on Party. So this is incorrect. Using only the LC strategy CAN be suboptimal.

[Moonsugar]

Trying to explain reality to an insane person is as well.

I forgot that in addition to being the PERFECTLY GOOD PLAYER WHO ELIMINATES CHANCE your imaginary friend also has the awesome ability to induce his oppponents to PLAY PERFECTLY BAD.

Hey, how many times did you take a hard fall in the rink?

I am out, I cede LaLa Land to you.

[pergesu]

Dude you're missing something huge here.

Nobody suggests using this low ceiling strategy in the early levels. For real, we all know that you play poker at the beginning, and then go ape pushing at the end.

So as a lot of people have pointed out...this is nothing new. And I'm truly amazed this has extended to three pages.

edit: holy crap, four pages. And some of it is my own contribution...

[Nick M]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey, how many times did you take a hard fall in the rink?

[/ QUOTE ]


hahahah "rink" I think this is the clincher to the closed mindedness hahahah RINK totally funny!!!

[SumZero]

My perfect player has better table selection than that! He'll stick to easier tables (like the big mixed game at the Bellagio - NOT /images/graemlins/smile.gif)

[Nick M]

it has extended to 3 pages because I have done something that 99% of posters never do. I have replied to all questions and answered them to the best of my ability. This, I feel, deserves some respect.

[lastchance]

That is insane. The perfect player MUST lose a hand because it is obviously correct for him to do so. The perfect player calls AA when a donk raises all-in on L1, right? So, there, the perfect player must lose at least 20% of the time. Unless, of course, he folds because he has a greater edge down the line.

But there's no way in hell you have a greater edge than AA does over a random hand. Because blinds exist, because Push/fold does become the mantra in the late game, because no one is good enough to laydown middle set on the flop. Because you can't see the other player's hand, and great players randomize their play to make sure that you can't get a read on them. Because your opponent is trapping 10% of the time, yet you still have to bluff.

Because profitable play in poker requires a certain amount of risk, and no one is good enough to eliminate that. A perfect player cannot beat the Big Game for more than 5 BB/hour, because no one can. Because those players play way too close to perfect.

Because Game Theory allows you to limit the amount your opponent can win.

Look, philosphy has nothing to do with poker. Game Theory has everything to do with Poker. Because the hypothetical perfect opponent makes the best move at every stage of the game, and because the best move in poker means you will lose some of the time.

Playing great poker is not just about maximizing your winnings, at the highest levels, it's about decreasing your opponent's winnings, considering poker is a constant sum game.

[11t]

When I first read your post I wasn't going to respond because I thought it was full of a lot of wishy-washy ideas however I feel compelled to after reading the thread. Dude I think you are completely off based and talking without thinking. You talk about "stop thinking in terms of reality."

Lets say the perfect player has AK and somebody pushes into him with AJ, if he calls and loses he will go bust. What does he do? He calls. He busts 25% of the time, do the math and you will realize why you are wrong. Of course if you are implying that the perfect player would be able to pass up these edges and play his cards blind than I think you are making a grave mistake. If you have never played against somebody how are you going to know how they are going to play and what ranges of hands they are playing? The PERFECT PLAYER gets AA first hand utg and raises, mp2 pushes. What does the PERFECT PLAYER do here? Fold since he doesn't want to gamble now?

You're thinking is correct, higher ROI is certainly attainable at SNG's where the blinds increase slower and you start with deeper stacks however the perfect player is gonna have somebody hit a set on him or some crazy suck out when he has AA, such is the way of the game.

IF you truly knew the philosophical aspect of this game you would see why you are wrong. The perfect player plays as close to optimally as possible and accepts the outcome regardless of how the cards fall.

People will break down and call you with rags, it is the way of the game.

Eventually on the bubble you will push against the tightest player in history and he will get AA and you will bust. It is the way of the game.

What you are speaking of is the GOAL of every player. To win every SNG possible and to do everything possible to play optimally. The perfect player can play optimally in the deepest stacked slowest increasing blind tournament and still lose.

You talk about not showing down a hand until the final one, so would you suggest folding 75/25 edges due to the fact you may lose? Would the PERFECT player give up these edges? Sure you can play with your cards blind but how often are you gonna force a PP off of their hand when an A flops?

This is gonna be a ridiculous comparison but I used to play a RTS game called StarCraft religiously for several years and when the WarCraft 3 beta came out people complained that it took away the competetive edge due to luck. People eventually learned to live with the variance though and accept the game thusly.

You can play perfect and still lose and that is simply the way of the game.

It is just poker.

[Nick M]

At first I thought it was going to be hard to respond to this post...then I re-read it.


you kinda cut off the paragraph where it really explains what I mean. This is mostly my fault cause I was not specific. I have a problem with this. ahhaha

[ QUOTE ]
You have no idea what the player's image is at the table. You have no idea what the SB and BB are like as players. He has not told you one hand either of these players have turned over.

[/ QUOTE ]

They say push but they don't know, because no one has told them the important information. This is what I hate.

Another example could be...
If you're on the bubble and the blinds are 25/50 what do Calculation Tools do for you??? It will show you the optimal preflop play. It will show you what hands are the best hands to push with the given information. NOT the optimal play in total. You get 2 free hands but the blinds aren't worth enough to push evey other hand.

Also I don't mean to be logical here but no one uses an ICM or Pokerstove or any of those tools during the hand. So really you can only use what you memorize and every situation is different. But one could argue that most situations are close...but then this would not be optimal now would it hahahah.

I think the most important point you make is the first sentence...

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, yes it does, because you have told it.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly the tool converts your opinions into the optimal answer to the question you pose. So very important to understand.

you write....

[ QUOTE ]
It's not for you. That's cool. Just don't try to discredit it in ways that don't make sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

and also

[ QUOTE ]
You find analysis dry, boring, and, as you characterized it, anti-freedom. It's clinical, for squares, and just plain no fun, right? Well, not everybody feels that way. Some people think working the numbers is fun, and there's actually a deeply creative element in trying to find new ways to apply analysis to poker situations.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think i am going to call you Easybay from now on....calm down man hahahah. If you think I find analysis boring you're completely wrong. BUT this type of analysis I only think is important in certain situations.

What am I trying to discredit???? See I feel you think I'm talking about you hahaha defintely not. I have no idea who you are. I have read some of your posts and they're very interesting. I like them a lot. But to say that I'm trying to discredit something in ways that don't make sense is ridiculous. Basing your strategy soley on Preflop play, or Low Ceiling type of play as I like to call it, is sub optimal. There is a ceiling that will be reached. You have no range. This can not be disagreed with I think you know this because you made this comment...

[ QUOTE ]
I think you point out an important concept: that edges in deep stack poker can be bigger than short stack poker. However, I don't think this is not already well understood by most intermediate players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really appreciate your reply.

[Nick M]

just to let you know that the perfect player thing has very little to do with my original post. Not sure why you latched on to this but you did. It really is another thread. Now you believe that I am "completely off based and talking without thinking." That I feel is pretty insulting considering you have judged me and the post, because of one spin off of one line. The Perfect thing got started with someone during the thread and spinned out of control. I would rather not get into that on this thread. If you want to PM I would love to discuss it with you. I think the concept is simple to understand once you let go of what you believe to be perfection.

[Nick M]

Must go to sleep.

[lastchance]

Ok, yeah. We're just pointing some odd logic in the original post. Your examples and explanation of a very basic poker + SNG theory made little sense.

Instead of talking about High Ceiling and Low Ceiling, saying that playing preflop push/fold at L1-L2 is stupid and suboptimal would have been much easier to understand and also much more correct.

[jcm4ccc]

Your original post makes an obvious, uninteresting point in a long-winded, condescending, and insulting way.

The rest of the forum is giving you way too much respect by actually taking you seriously, when a simple "[censored] off, [censored]" should suffice.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
You say that your strategy of correct postflop play "can defend against variance", but you provide nothing to substantiate that claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I say here is variance is determined comepletely and totally by losing hands. If you never lose a hand there will be no variance. That means that if you can take pots that you would otherwise lose if you should down, you're defending against variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm very suprised noone has picked up on how worng this is though I guess it just goes to show how many people see the concept of variance simply as running bad. In a NL cash game You can win every single pot you ever play and still be subject to variance! Sometimes you will win more and sometimes you will less. The only two people not subject to variance are the guy who coms 1st in every SnG he plays (nobody) and the guy who places out of the money in every Sng he plays (some people). Variance is not neccesarily a bad thing. If you could pick a lottery with a +ev of $1 and no variance or one with a +ev of $1,000,000 but huge variance which would you pick?

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Your original post makes an obvious, uninteresting point in a long-winded, condescending, and insulting way.

The rest of the forum is giving you way too much respect by actually taking you seriously, when a simple "[censored] off, [censored]" should suffice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I was pretty close to giving a simple "[censored] off, [censored]" reply earlier on this thread, but decided to take the less offensive route for a change. I agree that the original post here is very uninteresting at best, as most intelligent posters here point out too. There's an illusion of some "hot" discussion here, because the OP is insisting on answering each reply in a very didactic way, which is kind of funny actually (although I still didn't see him replying to my earlier reply above... /images/graemlins/frown.gif).

[45suited]

Sorry, I have a hard time being lectured to about "higher ceiling" play by someone who does not realize that 77 is significantly stronger than 22. This is not exactly a higher level "low ceiling" concept, so I really don't think that your "higher ceiling" play is much better than any of us PP push monkeys anyway.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2731371&page=&view=&s b=5&o=

[treeofwisdom7]

this post sucks really. show me an example that a high ceiling player would play so much different than a low ceiling player. call me a low ceiling player HAAAAAHAAAA but if a move is correct i'll take it. if its like SS then i'll take it if i believe its correct..


WHERES THE EXAMPLE?

[zaphod]

[ QUOTE ]
yes the perfect player eliminates chance. Not literally. He just does not get involved when he can't win.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but this seems like nonsense to me. So when does the perfect player get involved? Only when he cannot loose?

Example 1: Hand 1 of a SNG. UTG moves all in, perfect player is UTG+1 and holdes aces. What does he do? If he calls there is a greater than zero chance that he will loose.

[ QUOTE ]
And another thing to think about besides the fact that the perfect player needs to only show down one hand, the last one. He also only needs to beat one guy, the last one.


[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly the perfect player have never played on PP. Some players will not lay down a hand whatever you do, so in order to win chips from them you will have to show down some hands.

Example 2: Your perfect player plays a table full of players willing to gambol at any moment. They will not lay down their hands whatever happens. The perfect players next 200 hands, will be no better than A9 off(usually much worse), he will get no chance to see flop for free in the BB since his opponents will be raising all the time.
So how does your perfect player plan on winning this SNG when he does not get any decent hand? Remember that he is eliminating chance, so getting lucky is not the answer.

Oh, by the way i know your answer, you will tell that you are not the perfect player so you cannot know...
I think the perfect player only exist in your immagination.

Or maybee i forgot to turn on my sarcasm detector?

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]


Instead of talking about High Ceiling and Low Ceiling, saying that playing preflop push/fold at L1-L2 is stupid and suboptimal would have been much easier to understand and also much more correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

I made an early response to some of the more obvious errors in the original post, and came back to find a monster thread. After skimming through endless pages, I have found this thread has become difficult if not impossible to follow. A big part of the reason for this is the OP's insistence on using his own terminology without sufficient definition. Every reply has a slightly different assumption of what LC and HC mean, and how they apply to the game that that poster plays. Without standardized terminology, the discussion has degenerated into intersecting monologues. I feel that I understand less now of what the OP meant by his invented terms than I did to begin with. If the OP wants a meaningful discussion, he should use the standard terminology of the forum, rather than try to get the forum to use his.

Until then, I'm outta here.