figured out something about harrington

i've been involved in some of these debates about whether you should just play ultra-tight when the most stacks are still very large compared to blinds. as harrington (great book) suggests. he loosens up a little with position and a bunch of callers, mostly loosens with connectors (suited AND offsuit) but is generally VERY TIGHT pre-flop early in tournaments.

BUT, i had wondered about the opinion that the blinds are so small, why not throw in with a bunch of other cards and see what happens?? i'd be thinking alot more suited cards with some connection (i've come to see that only premium offsuit are worth playing as i've finally seen that QTo, KTo, KJo are not good cards in many no-limit situations - learned the hard way).

so i was thinking i should be able to loosen up to Q9s (for example) with decent position and a bunch of callers early in a tournament. it will only cost me 1% of my stack and i might hit something.

but my realization is this: if i hit a 9, a Q, a flush draw, or a straight draw (or some combination of the above, including weak flush or straight draws), i'm going to be tempted to keep playing thru the streets and then it can get very, very expensive and fairly risky if you don't hit anything further.... basically, what i'm saying is that the Q9s is going to put me into alot of shaky situations where i have a chance to double or triple up, but it's going to be very expensive and very risky...

i could end up spending 20%+ of my chips on a hand that wasn't that great to start with and end up losing, or i could get eliminated from the tournament.

basically, i think i have to look further along and say where could this Q9s take me, as opposed to thinking it's only 1% of my stack and i could hit a flush draw (could hit a flush on flop but then tons of risk that As or Ks are out there).

anyhow, just some thoughts i had... i couldn't figure out why harrington is so against just tossing 1% of your stack in any reasonable suited hand. instead of harrington is very tight early and i think i understand why... plus if you get a super-premium pre-flop hand, you want to be able to use maximum chips as opposed to having pissssed away 20%-30% on your chips on suited fishing trips.

Harrington's methods avoid getting you involved in too many risky post flop decisions. Of course, you can adjust your play accordingly for LAG play, but you have to be able to lay hands down and the more LAG you are the more hands with strength your going to run into when it appears you have a big hand yourself. For instance you flop 2 pair with your Q9s but your opponent flopped a set. We know you can't play scared, but Harrington is merely suggesting not getting involved in too many hands that will make for a lot of tough post flop decisions. The lay downs are easy, it's when you hit your hand that it get a little more difficult.

[ QUOTE ]
Harrington's methods avoid getting you involved in too many risky post flop decisions. Of course, you can adjust your play accordingly for LAG play, but you have to be able to lay hands down and the more LAG you are the more hands with strength your going to run into when it appears you have a big hand yourself. For instance you flop 2 pair with your Q9s but your opponent flopped a set. We know you can't play scared, but Harrington is merely suggesting not getting involved in too many hands that will make for a lot of tough post flop decisions. The lay downs are easy, it's when you hit your hand that it get a little more difficult.

[/ QUOTE ]

rocking, you said what i said, but you said it better and in a fraction of the words... a bit of an epiphany for me because as i said, i thought what's the harm in putting in 1% of chips, but as you say, you have to be very willing to get away from your hand even if you hit two pairs. and i think very, very few can do that.

one thing i don't understand is that "isn't a great player like harrington good enough to play the post-flop?", or is it too even too risky for him??

thanks again!!

of course he is good enough to play post flop, his whole basis of play comes from "eeking" out small edges that he has over other players at the table. i.e. positional advantages, hand selection, solid reads, deductive reasoning etc... The more hands you are involved in the more possibility of getting in trouble. He even points out that in the last 20 years of the WSOP, the chip leader after day 1 has never won the tourny. They more than likely play a lot of hands (stack accumulation) and do not know when to let off the gas. Every hand, every table is situational, based on your reads, your table image, the stack sizes, the blind sizes and maybe least of all - your cards.

Nothing wrong with getting involved with a lot of hands if you can adapt to the situation. I will say, I think that if you do not have years of experience that being LAG will probably be the hardest type of play to master. anyone can play tight and for beginners it's almost a must, but learning to mix it up I think is crucial and a key part of my game.

[ZootMurph]

I think the flip side of how Harrington plays is a guy like Sammy Farha. He plays a lot of hands, and gets a lot of action on his good hands and good flops.

Both ways of playing work well, if you are comfortable with them. The great thing about Harrington is that he can take down some decent pots with bluffs because he is generally so tight. Obviously, playing loose early can get you good action later, but it can cost you a lot of chips splashing around.

Overall, I think there are benefits to both styles of play at any stage of the tournament. And, at any stage of a tournament, you have to be able to switch from one to the other.