Harrington says I'm too conservative

[Skipbidder]

Boy, I thought I knew how to play poker SNGs. My results have been pretty good, and I've certainly gotten my fair share of other players telling me I'm a lucky fish at the end of the tournament (when I'm in push or fold mold). I've just finished reading Part two of HOH. Turns out I'm a big wuss. Who'd of thunk it? I'm mucking hands that I should be calling (or raising). I'm mucking at the end when I should be calling or pushing. Very interesting. I look forward to seeing how my results change as I try to incorporate these ideas into my game. Perhaps this belonged in Books rather than 1-table. Carry on.

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
Boy, I thought I knew how to play poker SNGs. My results have been pretty good, and I've certainly gotten my fair share of other players telling me I'm a lucky fish at the end of the tournament (when I'm in push or fold mold). I've just finished reading Part two of HOH. Turns out I'm a big wuss. Who'd of thunk it? I'm mucking hands that I should be calling (or raising). I'm mucking at the end when I should be calling or pushing. Very interesting. I look forward to seeing how my results change as I try to incorporate these ideas into my game. Perhaps this belonged in Books rather than 1-table. Carry on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't finished the 2nd book, but I really don't agree with a lot of Harringtons thoughts when it comes to SNGs.

Any examples of specific situations where you are too tight?

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
Any examples of specific situations where you are too tight?

[/ QUOTE ]

My guess would be something like:
7 handed, Blinds went up to 75/150 a couple hands ago.
Hero is UTG+1 with T8s and 970 chips, others have a standard range of stacks.

According to Harrington, we are clearly in the "red zone" and thus should push. You can push if you want, but its not a very good idea.

[Isura]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any examples of specific situations where you are too tight?

[/ QUOTE ]

My guess would be something like:
7 handed, Blinds went up to 75/150 a couple hands ago.
Hero is UTG+1 with T8s and 970 chips, others have a standard range of stacks.

According to Harrington, we are clearly in the "red zone" and thus should push. You can push if you want, but its not a very good idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG. Pushing is awful here.

[Newt_Buggs]

I got bored of the first one and didn't finish it. I either already knew most of the stuff or disagreed with it.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any examples of specific situations where you are too tight?

[/ QUOTE ]

My guess would be something like:
7 handed, Blinds went up to 75/150 a couple hands ago.
Hero is UTG+1 with T8s and 970 chips, others have a standard range of stacks.

According to Harrington, we are clearly in the "red zone" and thus should push. You can push if you want, but its not a very good idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dan is too logical for this. He is probably assuming the SNG is 'winner take all' in which case I would push that spot.

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]

Dan is too logical for this. He is probably assuming the SNG is 'winner take all' in which case I would push that spot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never claimed Dan would actually make a move like this, I'm just saying if you aren't careful this is the kind of move you may interpret as a good play after reading his book.

note-I just made that example up, its not actually from the book.

[Proofrock]

I think you're oversimplifying this here. In the example you provide, your M is roughly 4, which isn't good, but you aren't desperate enough to push anything from early position. In the section on red zone strategy, Harrington includes clauses like, "If your position is good enough (say because five or six of players have folded to you) then you should be willing to go all-in with all but the very worst hands." (p. 140) When he states the "3-to-1 Rule" on page 141 (giving whether it's +EV to push when you're a 2-to-1 dog), part 3 states that "you think there's a 50 percent chance that your remaining opponents will fold to an all-in bet." UTG+1, with 5 players left to act behind you, I wouldn't confidently say that there's 50% chance that the remaining opponents will fold, and with M = 4 you're still above the point where this 3-to-1 rule strictly applies.

At any rate, the section on structured hand analysis provides the methodology for determining for yourself whether or not it would be +EV to push in this specific case. The great strength of the book and its application to SnGs, in my opinion, is in outlining the principles and demonstrating the thought process used in deciding how to play a hand, not in giving a strict formula for playing tournaments.

Do you have any specific examples of analysis that you think is flawed in the book(s) in regards to SNG strategy? I'm interested in having a dialogue about this, since I'd like to improve my understanding of the strategy.

-cj

[Nottom]

There was a thread about it a while back.

HOH review (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=2736604&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&fpart=1&vc=1)

As for the structured hand analysis, it is basically exactly what SNGPT does except it doesn't consider the effects of ICM.

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]

As for the structured hand analysis, it is basically exactly what SNGPT does except it doesn't consider the effects of ICM.

[/ QUOTE ]

One thing I noticed about HoH is that it really doesn't address bubble play *at all*. It doesn't even say anywhere "assume you are playing for first so don't fold into money but this is how you take advantage of others who are". It's like it doesn't even exist.

As 2+2 knows well, cEV != $EV in many situations. But I don't think Harrington realizes (or chooses to address) this fact. Does barryg address this in AotR?

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
Does barryg address this in AotR?

[/ QUOTE ]

Barry hardly even talks about how to play poker in his book.

I still thought it was a very good book.

[johnnybeef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any examples of specific situations where you are too tight?

[/ QUOTE ]

My guess would be something like:
7 handed, Blinds went up to 75/150 a couple hands ago.
Hero is UTG+1 with T8s and 970 chips, others have a standard range of stacks.

According to Harrington, we are clearly in the "red zone" and thus should push. You can push if you want, but its not a very good idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dan is too logical for this. He is probably assuming the SNG is 'winner take all' in which case I would push that spot.

[/ QUOTE ]

either that or he assumes that the blinds go up at a less frequent interval then every 10 hands....

[brettthomas]

[ QUOTE ]
One thing I noticed about HoH is that it really doesn't address bubble play *at all*. It doesn't even say anywhere "assume you are playing for first so don't fold into money but this is how you take advantage of others who are".

[/ QUOTE ]

In Vol II he does briefly discuss bubble play for multi-table tourny's. He states that just inside the money pays so poorly that the bubble should be ignored and you should play to win. He doesn't discuss bubble play for SNG, which is a shame b/c the structured hand analysis is beautiful and he gives many SNG examples.