NL: waiting around for good cards

hi,

i have been doing very well at no-limit recently, playing very tightly early on like harrington suggests.. and i've had a good flow for cards for sure.

i wanted to put some of this experience to some statistical analysis.... i have taken two strategies, waiting for ultra-great cards and waiting for great cards (and you will still have opportunity with goods cards in position where you can get in very cheaply)

so here's the statistical analysis.

two pre-flop hand groups (TT+, AQ+ = 4.4% chance) (QQ+, AK+ = 2.4%)

here are the results of how likely those cards are to hit:
hands excellent/ultra
1 4.4% 2.4%
10 36.2% 21.6%
20 59.3% 38.5%
30 74.1% 51.8%
40 83.5% 62.2%
50 89.5% 70.3%
60 93.3% 76.7%
70 95.7% 81.7%

so after 50 hands, you have 90% and 70% chance of these hitting (and as i said, you have some opportunities cheaply with position on good hands).

200 person, i think you can easily wait for these cards and few will notice. SNG (10 person) more people may start to notice so make sure you do play some good cards in position, but you are basically waiting for big cards. actually more i think about it, SNG might be tougher. 200 person tournament is just so anonymous and table constantly changes.

but i think this statistical analysis shows that you can wait it out.

any comments/corrections? i suppose one thing i'd say is that TT is pretty easily cracked so you might want to go the higher standards where the chance of hitting the cards isn't as great.

[Mark1808]

[ QUOTE ]
hi,

i have been doing very well at no-limit recently, playing very tightly early on like harrington suggests.. and i've had a good flow for cards for sure.

i wanted to put some of this experience to some statistical analysis.... i have taken two strategies, waiting for ultra-great cards and waiting for great cards (and you will still have opportunity with goods cards in position where you can get in very cheaply)

so here's the statistical analysis.

two pre-flop hand groups (TT+, AQ+ = 4.4% chance) (QQ+, AK+ = 2.4%)

here are the results of how likely those cards are to hit:
hands excellent/ultra
1 4.4% 2.4%
10 36.2% 21.6%
20 59.3% 38.5%
30 74.1% 51.8%
40 83.5% 62.2%
50 89.5% 70.3%
60 93.3% 76.7%
70 95.7% 81.7%

so after 50 hands, you have 90% and 70% chance of these hitting (and as i said, you have some opportunities cheaply with position on good hands).

200 person, i think you can easily wait for these cards and few will notice. SNG (10 person) more people may start to notice so make sure you do play some good cards in position, but you are basically waiting for big cards. actually more i think about it, SNG might be tougher. 200 person tournament is just so anonymous and table constantly changes.

but i think this statistical analysis shows that you can wait it out.

any comments/corrections? i suppose one thing i'd say is that TT is pretty easily cracked so you might want to go the higher standards where the chance of hitting the cards isn't as great.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK you wait 50 hands for 1 great hand, will you now recoup the cost of going around the table 5 times? With observant players they will all fold when you enter only once every 5 rotations and you will not get paid off.

The game is not about a rigid system of playing your cards its about putting chips in when you have the best hand or others will fold and folding when you have the worst hand and others won't fold. The person who can make these decisons best given the players and circumstances they are faced with will be the long term winner. Sometimes you would lay down KK, others you may win a big pot with 7-2os.

OK you wait 50 hands for 1 great hand, will you now recoup the cost of going around the table 5 times? With observant players they will all fold when you enter only once every 5 rotations and you will not get paid off.


The game is not about a rigid system of playing your cards its about putting chips in when you have the best hand or others will fold and folding when you have the worst hand and others won't fold. The person who can make these decisons best given the players and circumstances they are faced with will be the long term winner. Sometimes you would lay down KK, others you may win a big pot with 7-2os.

[/ QUOTE ]

START OF MY COMMENT (I SCREWED THIS UP)

thanks for the response!

do you play no-limit online (i agree that B&M that people will notice you aren't playing)? the tables change constantly in an online tournament, so most of the people haven't seen you're very tight (good and bad aspects to that, you can't use your ultra-tight image when the blinds get bigger).

The game is not about a rigid system of playing your cards its about putting chips in when you have the best hand or others will fold and folding when you have the worst hand and others won't fold. The person who can make these decisons best given the players and circumstances they are faced with will be the long term winner. Sometimes you would lay down KK, others you may win a big pot with 7-2os.

[/ QUOTE ]


5 times around the table might cost me 250-300 out of 1500 chips, and i'm sometimes playing from blinds and late in good position.... i'd worry more about making up the chips playing Q9s and stuff like that (chips from subsequent streets with the Q9s too) i used to play in middle position with limping crowd.

The game is not about a rigid system of playing your cards its about putting chips in when you have the best hand or others will fold and folding when you have the worst hand and others won't fold. The person who can make these decisons best given the players and circumstances they are faced with will be the long term winner. Sometimes you would lay down KK, others you may win a big pot with 7-2os.

[/ QUOTE ]

have your read harrington? or similar book. under no circumstances (other than free from the small blinds) should you play 72o early in a tournament.

i would say harrington advocates a very rigid system (with some randomization of action to throw off regular opponents) for playing early with a deep stack.

he absolutely advocates waiting for great cards.... online tournaments are not as long as his normal tournaments though so you have to loosen up somewhat.

i also said that you can play some good suited stuff and lower pocket pairs with position.

i play small $$$ online tournaments and people really don't seem to catch on the fact that you play very few hands, and then the tables change alot so it's pretty much completely moot.

in person, yes, they start thinking you're wierd (weird) if you play ultra-tight.

but i'm finding it very low risk, if the cards hit, you're set up. if not, go to work when the blinds get a little bigger.

I APOLOGIZE, I REALLY SCREWED THIS UP IN TERMS OF YOUR COMMENTS AND MY RESPONSES... but basically i think harrington is a very tight rigid system for early on with large stack relative to blinds. might have to adapt it somewhat for online tournaments and SNG's especially (SNG's will probably notice you haven't played except blinds in 50 hands).

[Mark1808]

Good points, I play B&M. In tourneys I play tight early, but it is imparative you look to steal mid and later. My son 8 tables $50NL online and a super tight strategy is working very well for him. So you are right, it depends on the game type.

[chessforlife]

what about the blinds eating away your stack?