Is this why limit STT's suck?

Frequently, in limit or no limit STT's, one finds oneself getting to level 4 with 400 or so chips left. The blinds are now 50 and 100. Ok, so in no limit STT's, the idea is that bad players will just keep limping in, folding when they miss the flop, and letting the blinds eat their stack, until they have nothing left, right? And you, as a more skilled player, want to instead pick a good starting hand and go all in, hoping to double up or steal the blinds.

But in limit, you CAN'T push all in. And if you raise another 100, on top of the usual 100 at level 4, everyone will just call and you'll be facing 3 or 4 players on the flop anyway.

So at limit STT's, the correct strategy in this situation is to do just what every clueless player already is doing anyway... to limp in (no sense in wasting your chips raising before the flop when no one will fold), and then fold when you miss the flop (no sense in wasting any more chips without a decent chance postflop, anyone with a pair or a drawing hand will call if you bet).

So if the correct play is the same play that everyone else already is doing automatically, where's your edge in limit?

Against the general wisdom of this forum, I decided to try limit STT's anyway. I've gotten unlucky in the early rounds most every time. Ok, so that's poker for you. But in most situations in poker, a skilled player can at least have a chance of doing ok even when not lucky by exploiting the weaknesses of his opponents. I don't see any way of doing this in limit tournaments, not until near the end, and if you're winning less than your fair share of pots you never make it to the end.

I'm suspecting that the overall structure of limit STT's favors luck over skill to a much greater extent than in no limit STT's, so that one's ROI might be cut in half by playing limit. I'm not even sure one could beat the rake long term at the $5+1's.

[splashpot]

The difference is that you will be playing real poker for levels 1-3. I'm sure there are small differences, but for the most part, you should play as if it were a limit ring game. This will leave you less short stacked most of the time later in the game.

[bawcerelli]

limit is completely different than no limit whether in tournament format or not.

[ QUOTE ]
The difference is that you will be playing real poker for levels 1-3. I'm sure there are small differences, but for the most part, you should play as if it were a limit ring game. This will leave you less short stacked most of the time later in the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, levels 1-3 are pretty much exactly like limit ring games. But the ever growing blinds and stakes means you must win your fair share of pots just to break even. Less than your fair share, and you're shortstacked at level 4, and then what can you do? Limp in, fold, limp in, fold, big blind puts you all in with T4offsuit, and the game's over.

The ability to vary your bet, and bet large amounts, is a powerful tool one can use to win pots even without having any decent cards at all. Without this tool, you've lost a bunch of your edge over others. Does the structure of limit STT's give you any other edge which you wouldn't have had in no limit? None that I can see.

[splashpot]

Sure going all in is a powerful tool that you can't use in limit games. Fold Equity obviouly is an important part of the game. But as long as you are a better limit player than the others you will have an edge.

[ QUOTE ]
So at limit STT's, the correct strategy in this situation is to do just what every clueless player already is doing anyway... to limp in (no sense in wasting your chips raising before the flop when no one will fold)

[/ QUOTE ]
Clearly you don't know proper limit theory.

[ QUOTE ]
and then fold when you miss the flop (no sense in wasting any more chips without a decent chance postflop, anyone with a pair or a drawing hand will call if you bet).

So if the correct play is the same play that everyone else already is doing automatically, where's your edge in limit?

[/ QUOTE ]
You say correct play is to fold when you miss the flop. Then you say everyone else will call all the time. Then you say that correct play is the same as everyone else.

[ QUOTE ]
But the ever growing blinds and stakes means you must win your fair share of pots just to break even. Less than your fair share, and you're shortstacked at level 4, and then what can you do?

[/ QUOTE ]
If you are playing better poker than them, you will be large stacked more often than short stacked. It's just that simple.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not even sure one could beat the rake long term at the $5+1's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe true because you would need ok poker skills to beat that rake and anyone playing at the 5+1 is a MORON!!!

I understand some people have smaller bankrolls, but move over to Poker Stars you'll learn more at lower limits due to the structure and you'll save tons of buy in dollars.

[ QUOTE ]
Sure going all in is a powerful tool that you can't use in limit games. Fold Equity obviouly is an important part of the game. But as long as you are a better limit player than the others you will have an edge.

[ QUOTE ]
So at limit STT's, the correct strategy in this situation is to do just what every clueless player already is doing anyway... to limp in (no sense in wasting your chips raising before the flop when no one will fold)

[/ QUOTE ]
Clearly you don't know proper limit theory.

[ QUOTE ]
and then fold when you miss the flop (no sense in wasting any more chips without a decent chance postflop, anyone with a pair or a drawing hand will call if you bet).

So if the correct play is the same play that everyone else already is doing automatically, where's your edge in limit?

[/ QUOTE ]
You say correct play is to fold when you miss the flop. Then you say everyone else will call all the time. Then you say that correct play is the same as everyone else.

[ QUOTE ]
But the ever growing blinds and stakes means you must win your fair share of pots just to break even. Less than your fair share, and you're shortstacked at level 4, and then what can you do?

[/ QUOTE ]
If you are playing better poker than them, you will be large stacked more often than short stacked. It's just that simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, of course you will be larger stacked more often than you will be shorter stacked. Although larger in this case means larger than the median stack. The loose gambling goofs will have the largest and shortest stacks.

And in a ring game, this would be irrelevant, you could just rebuy when your stack gets too small to play a hand properly. Obviously, the problem in a tournament is that a small stack shrinking to nothing has lost the tournament, while a large stack is not guaranteed to win. This is the essential "problem" with the tournament structure: if you win in the beginning but lose later on, you lose, since the stakes have gone up. If you lose in the beginning, you can't win later on because there is no later on for you. You have to win all the way through... or you need a tool to catch up when you've fallen behind, which is what the all-in can do for you, if you have that tool available.

You said above, "Clearly you don't know proper limit theory". So what would you recommend doing in that situation in a limit tournament, then? You have 400 chips, level 4, blinds are 50 and 100. You have KQ. Do you limp in for 100, or raise to 200, thereby risking half your remaining stack, knowing you will get multiple people calling your raise? (in the lowest stakes limit STT's, you do indeed know this will happen, it almost always does) If you miss the flop, do you throw in another 100 chips anyway, hoping this is the one time in 10 that everyone will fold?

[wickss]

I have had a certain degree of success at limit touneys (as well as limit Omaha/8.) I play them occasionally for a change of pace.

Basically I play my premium hands agressively in the early rounds. I try to build a stack of 1000+. Later in the touney, I make moves from the late position. I raise alot preflop and bet the flop. At this point 2 things are likely to happen.

1.) I could be at a table full of calling stations who always protect their blind. They will call all my bluffs to the river when they flop a pair of deuces. (This is actually common in low stakes limit holdem cash games if they put you on 2 unpaired high cards.) At a table like this I tend to bluff off my chips and finish out of the money.

2.) I could be at a tight table. They will fold preflop or on the flop. I will get a hugh stack from this play on the bubble. I usually win these tourneys.


After you play a few touneys like described in #2, you will begin to think, "Wow, Easy money!! I'm gonna do this all the time. WooHooo!!!" Then you will play some #1 tourneys and think, "This sux!! What kind of idiots are these people? Why cant they fold like good fish?"

When I played my first Limit HE tourney it was at Pacific Poker. They tourneys seem to be tighter in later rounds than Party's do. Also, the blinds go up every 15 hands instead of 10. The blind structure might be different as well; I can't remember as I have not played there in about a year.

In the end, I like Limit HE tourneys, but I suspect my play at the #1 tables needs some help.

[splashpot]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, the problem in a tournament is that a small stack shrinking to nothing has lost the tournament, while a large stack is not guaranteed to win.

[/ QUOTE ]
This makes no sense. The small stack obviously has some chance to win. Yea, it depends a lot on the cards, but no one is ever out for good. I've seen a 10 chip stack double up 5 times and make the money.

[ QUOTE ]
if you win in the beginning but lose later on, you lose, since the stakes have gone up

[/ QUOTE ]
True.

[ QUOTE ]
If you lose in the beginning, you can't win later on because there is no later on for you

[/ QUOTE ]
Not true. By the exact same logic as above. You'll only lose a little at the beginning.

[ QUOTE ]
You said above, "Clearly you don't know proper limit theory". So what would you recommend doing in that situation in a limit tournament, then? You have 400 chips, level 4, blinds are 50 and 100. You have KQ. Do you limp in for 100, or raise to 200, thereby risking half your remaining stack, knowing you will get multiple people calling your raise? (in the lowest stakes limit STT's, you do indeed know this will happen, it almost always does) If you miss the flop, do you throw in another 100 chips anyway, hoping this is the one time in 10 that everyone will fold?

[/ QUOTE ]
I made that statement because you claimed in your original post that it's useless to raise preflop since everyone will call anyways. This is not correct limit theory. As for your example, you don't give enough information for a proper answer. How many people are left? What is your position? etc.

You keep saying that everyone will always call. Use that to your advantage. Read Small Stakes Hold'em by Ed Miller if you haven't already. If you have, review it because it explains why it is good when you're in a game where everyone calls you with bad cards.

The only reason I don't like limit STTs is they take so damn long

[sir..please]

limit stt's suck for so many more reasons!!

[Ogre]

limit sngs are sweet

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You said above, "Clearly you don't know proper limit theory". So what would you recommend doing in that situation in a limit tournament, then? You have 400 chips, level 4, blinds are 50 and 100. You have KQ. Do you limp in for 100, or raise to 200, thereby risking half your remaining stack, knowing you will get multiple people calling your raise? (in the lowest stakes limit STT's, you do indeed know this will happen, it almost always does) If you miss the flop, do you throw in another 100 chips anyway, hoping this is the one time in 10 that everyone will fold?

[/ QUOTE ]
I made that statement because you claimed in your original post that it's useless to raise preflop since everyone will call anyways. This is not correct limit theory. As for your example, you don't give enough information for a proper answer. How many people are left? What is your position? etc.

You keep saying that everyone will always call. Use that to your advantage. Read Small Stakes Hold'em by Ed Miller if you haven't already. If you have, review it because it explains why it is good when you're in a game where everyone calls you with bad cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not talking about general limit theory here. I know that in limit ring games you want as many calling stations as you can get at your table, calling to the river with nothing. I'm talking about tournaments here, and specifically, tournament situations where you are short stacked. This is a situation where you would >really< like to be able to get people to fold, if there were some way to do so. If the hand puts you all in, a 50% chance at winning 400 chips is much better for you than a 30% chance of winning 1200 chips.

As to my KQ question: Assume there are 8 players left in the game. Assume you're UTG. Or assume you are in mid position with 1 player having already limped in. Or assume you are in late position with 2 players already having limped in, and you know if you raise one of the two blinds will call, and the 2 limpers will call the raise.

On the button with no limpers, I would indeed raise if I thought I could get one of the two blinds to fold, but this is an extremely unlikely situation in level 4 at the lowest stakes limit STT's.

The only advise I can give OP is to read the above mentioned SSHE or TPFAP. You definatly have some holes in your logic.

As for my unhelpful response:

Limit STT's multiply the variance of limit and the variance of STT's creating a super-variance monster. That's why no one plays them.

[splashpot]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not talking about general limit theory here. I know that in limit ring games you want as many calling stations as you can get at your table, calling to the river with nothing. I'm talking about tournaments here, and specifically, tournament situations where you are short stacked. This is a situation where you would >really< like to be able to get people to fold, if there were some way to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. There are many situations where you lose your edge by not having the ability to go all in. Having 4-5 BB is one of those situations. But you can gain edges in other ways. Ways that would not be possible in NL games. Since people will call you more often, you need to use that to build a large stack early. When that doesn't work and you are left with a short stack, yes, it is true that your options are limited and not good. Use what advantages you have.

[ QUOTE ]
If the hand puts you all in, a 50% chance at winning 400 chips is much better for you than a 30% chance of winning 1200 chips.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure this is not true. If you use those exact percentages, I'm pretty sure it would be better to have the 30% shot at 1200 chips.

[ QUOTE ]
As to my KQ question: Assume there are 8 players left in the game. Assume you're UTG. Or assume you are in mid position with 1 player having already limped in. Or assume you are in late position with 2 players already having limped in, and you know if you raise one of the two blinds will call, and the 2 limpers will call the raise.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, your options are not good. Of course you would choose to go all in if you had that option, but you don't. I would probably raise in each case simply because the alternatives are even worse. Of course I'm probably very wrong because I've played about a total of 5 limit SNGs in my life.

All I'm really saying is that there is a definate edge that you can have if you are a good limit player.

A reason why all this is important, for those who are still reading this thread:

A tight, skilled Limit player will win 6-7% of hands at a full ring game versus loose players. The loose players will win more pots, but win less money as they pour money into the pot in all those hands they don't win.

This means that during levels 1-3, totalling 30 hands at partypoker's STT's, a good player will only win an average of 2 pots. This means that a significant percentage of the time, I'm gonna guess 33%, a good player will win either zero or one pot, either one of which will leave him shortstacked at level 4. (sometimes the one pot will be huge, leaving him in good shape, but this is offset by the chance at other times of winning 2 tiny pots, leaving him again shortstacked)

Another statistic: a good limit player might be expected to win (with no rake) 5 or so BB/100 hands, or .5 big bets per 10 hands. This leaves him winning, on average, 15 chips on level 1, 30 chips on level 2, and 50 chips on level 3. So being up to 900 chips at the beginning of level 4 is about what you might expect.

On the other hand, an average pot on level 2 might equal 8BB, or 480 chips. Win only one pot instead of 2, and what are you left with? 420 chips.

So a good, winning player will be shortstacked by level 4 perhaps a 3rd of the time, at limit STT's.