Agree/Disagree

In a conversation with a fellow poker player about sng strategy, he summarized his theory: I disagreed STRONGLY with this...maybe i'm wrong, but please give me your opinions:

"the key in sng's is to never have to go all in. every person who is serious about sng's will tell you that"

"you can play hard with out putting all of your chips at risk"

"you should NEVER have to go all in without the nuts before the blinds get to 100/200 unless you are desperately short stacked"

talking PP sngs, 11's or 22's.

[splashpot]

I go all in before the blinds hit 100/200 in the majority of my games. Much of the time with garbage.

[Shilly]

Yes, but what do you think of the cheesy fiesta potatoes? I heard that they were a hidden treasure, but both times I've ordered them they've been pretty disgusting. Small sample size?

Disagree, example:

You have 7s 7d
flop comes 7h 8d Ts

I don't have the nuts but I'm still going go all in if possible.

[splashpot]

Cheesy fiest potatoes? What, is that the new Dominos side dish or some crap? Sounds pretty nasty.

no sir, taco bell, and boy are they ever a hidden treasure.

[splashpot]

Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure I go all in before the blinds hit 100/200 in EVERY sng I play. Your friend can't be winning if he doesn't do this.

on the contrary, i've won about 7k playing sngs. (I'm his friend)

[splashpot]

[ QUOTE ]
on the contrary, i've won about 7k playing sngs. (I'm his friend)

[/ QUOTE ]
So you're saying, if the blinds are 50/100 and you have 700. You get 55 in the BB. Flop comes 25K, someone puts you all in, you're going to fold?

[The Yugoslavian]

STT poker is all about accumulating chips without showdown. In short stack STTS, FE is king.

That has nothing to do with having all or some of your chips in the middle.

Yugoslav

I'm saying that it is your objective to not get all of your chips in the pot unless you are sure you have the winning hand. SURE you have the winning hand. The object is not to go all in with AQ preflop with 750 chips when the blinds are at 50/100

[splashpot]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that it is your objective to not get all of your chips in the pot unless you are sure you have the winning hand. SURE you have the winning hand. The object is not to go all in with AQ preflop with 750 chips when the blinds are at 50/100

[/ QUOTE ]
With those blinds and that stack, I would go all in with AQ on the button when folded to me every time. What would you do? Folding is out of the question. Raise? To what? 300? Just plain stupid.

[tdp]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that it is your objective to not get all of your chips in the pot unless you are sure you have the winning hand. SURE you have the winning hand. The object is not to go all in with AQ preflop with 750 chips when the blinds are at 50/100

[/ QUOTE ]
You couldn't be more wrong.In this exact situation I go all in everytime if I'm the first one in.
7k over how long?

are you telling me that would would push all in at a 10+1 in first position with AQ? that's absurd. the play at these tables is so loose, it's not out of the question to be called by J10 and 92. i prefer to be able to see a flop, and outplay people from there, rather then relying on blind luck.

7k = almost 2 years

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
are you telling me that would would push all in at a 10+1 in first position with AQ? that's absurd. the play at these tables is so loose, it's not out of the question to be called by J10 and 92. i prefer to be able to see a flop, and outplay people from there, rather then relying on blind luck.

7k = almost 2 years

[/ QUOTE ]

you're not talking sense...you *want* people to call 700 with JT or 92 if you have AQ. strong hands are often worth more in push/fold situations at lower buyins than at higher ones precisely because your opponents call so loosely.

[splashpot]

What's absurd is doing anything else. What are you going to do? Limp? What if someone min-raises? You're gonna call off another 100 leaving you with only 550? Then you fold if you miss the flop?

This kind of action will get you into a world of trouble. You might as well just give away your chips.

[microbet]

[ QUOTE ]
7k = almost 2 years

[/ QUOTE ]

That stat isn't going to blow people away around here.

[Double Down]

They rock

[jeffraider]

[ QUOTE ]
are you telling me that would would push all in at a 10+1 in first position with AQ? that's absurd. the play at these tables is so loose, it's not out of the question to be called by J10 and 92. i prefer to be able to see a flop, and outplay people from there, rather then relying on blind luck.

7k = almost 2 years

[/ QUOTE ]

See the fact that you're willing to make any kind of statement about whether a play is correct or not without stack sizes, number of players left, etc, kind of indicates you don't know what you're talking about.

$7,000/2yrs or $7,000/730 days = $9.59 a day. Your playing for lunch money?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]
$7,000/2yrs or $7,000/730 days = $9.59 a day. Your playing for lunch money?

[/ QUOTE ]

On the other hand, it's not a bad result for a hobby. Ask people who play golf or ski as a hobby what their +/- is for the last 2 years. I'm pretty sure our boy here has them crushed.

[Hornacek]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
7k = almost 2 years

[/ QUOTE ]

That stat isn't going to blow people away around here.

[/ QUOTE ]

vnh.

move up in limits then. seems like your game is wayyy too catered to play $11s and $22s. The higher games, there's considerably less donks (although my recent $55s heater would disagree) and pushing while you still have FE is CRUCIAL.

in conclusion, to the OP: I disagree. You're fired!!

[ QUOTE ]
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure I go all in before the blinds hit 100/200 in EVERY sng I play. Your friend can't be winning if he doesn't do this.

[/ QUOTE ]I'm not sure why you think there is only one approach to winning SNG play. We might consider his approach inferior (and it might be) but that doesn't meanhe can't use it at the 11s and 22s and beat the game.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that it is your objective to not get all of your chips in the pot unless you are sure you have the winning hand. SURE you have the winning hand. The object is not to go all in with AQ preflop with 750 chips when the blinds are at 50/100

[/ QUOTE ]
With those blinds and that stack, I would go all in with AQ on the button when folded to me every time. What would you do? Folding is out of the question. Raise? To what? 300? Just plain stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]


Button? Hell I'm tossing my stack in UTG with this monster.

[splashpot]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure I go all in before the blinds hit 100/200 in EVERY sng I play. Your friend can't be winning if he doesn't do this.

[/ QUOTE ]I'm not sure why you think there is only one approach to winning SNG play. We might consider his approach inferior (and it might be) but that doesn't meanhe can't use it at the 11s and 22s and beat the game.

[/ QUOTE ]
I never said there is only one approach. I just think his approach sucks. I think you underestimate how extreme HIS approach is. I really do find it hard to believe someone could win doing this.

Not going all in til 100/200? Unless he's playing tons of hands early to build a stack, he'll be blinded down to <600 chips by the time the blinds get this high. Come on. I dare you to tell me that you think this is a winning approach.

[Bigwig]

Disagree. He's wrong. This really isn't debatable.

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
are you telling me that would would push all in at a 10+1 in first position with AQ? that's absurd. the play at these tables is so loose, it's not out of the question to be called by J10 and 92. i prefer to be able to see a flop, and outplay people from there, rather then relying on blind luck.

7k = almost 2 years

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't want JT to call you when you have AQ AT ANY LEVEL OF ANY TOURNAMENT (bubble considerations aside) then you're an idiot.

[bluefeet]

Poor examples, misapplied, out of context, whatever...from the 30,000 foot level, the statement - if limited in his ability to elucidate*, does have merit.

A better statement might be worded like this:

[ QUOTE ]
STT poker is all about accumulating chips without showdown. In short stack STTS, FE is king.

That has nothing to do with having all or some of your chips in the middle.

Yugoslav

[/ QUOTE ]


* my word of the day, hope i didn't fugitup /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Bigwig]

Sigh. The 'different approaches' argument has gone too far.

Sure, there are varying styles that can be effective. However, there are certain fundamental aspects of SNG play that are dictated by probability. This probability does not change from game to game. This constant means that there are certain strategies that are correct such a high percentage of the time, that it's horribly non-optimal to ignore them.

I know several stubborn, bad poker players. When I tell them their mistake, their answer is always: "Well, I just don't play the same style as you do."

Right. I play a winning style, and they play a losing style.

[ QUOTE ]
Not going all in til 100/200? Unless he's playing tons of hands early to build a stack, he'll be blinded down to <600 chips by the time the blinds get this high. Come on. I dare you to tell me that you think this is a winning approach.

[/ QUOTE ]I don't have any experience with PP 800 chips stacks. But, this guy has won $7k over two years (we don't know over how many SNGs). I don't see why we shouldn't believe him. I think there is a tendency in this forum to pooh-pooh any approach that isn't along STTF party lines.

In low stakes PS turbos, I imagine you could beat the game if you never started pushbotting before 100/200 level, but the larger chip stacks must make a big difference.

Please don't misunderstand. I don't think the guy is playing optimally. I just think that there is room at low buy-in SNGs to give up a few % of ROI and still be a winning player. And, the psychology of this approach might fit this player better -- he may not be able to handle the pushing approach -- so it might actually serve him better.

I don't expect he will be as successful if he moves up a few levels. Then the ROI is is giving up might turn him into a losing player.

[ QUOTE ]
This constant means that there are certain strategies that are correct such a high percentage of the time, that it's horribly non-optimal to ignore them.

[/ QUOTE ]My point is that there is room between "non-optimal" and "losing".

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This constant means that there are certain strategies that are correct such a high percentage of the time, that it's horribly non-optimal to ignore them.

[/ QUOTE ]My point is that there is room between "non-optimal" and "losing".

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course there is. Not a single player in the world plays optimally. That's zero. Are we not posting here, however, to get as close to optimal as possible? An obvious un-optimal play should not be defended under any circumstance.

[Hornacek]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This constant means that there are certain strategies that are correct such a high percentage of the time, that it's horribly non-optimal to ignore them.

[/ QUOTE ]My point is that there is room between "non-optimal" and "losing".

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course there is. Not a single player in the world plays optimally. That's zero. Are we not posting here, however, to get as close to optimal as possible? An obvious un-optimal play should not be defended under any circumstance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both make valid points. Hey, if this guy doesn't want to get better, fine with me. We're just here to help one another.

[splashpot]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have any experience with PP 800 chips stacks. But, this guy has won $7k over two years (we don't know over how many SNGs). I don't see why we shouldn't believe him. I think there is a tendency in this forum to pooh-pooh any approach that isn't along STTF party lines.

[/ QUOTE ]
You probably think I'm just discarding his approach without putting any thought into it. I'm not. I really do think this is a truely terrible way to play.

And I do have reason to not believe he's made 7k over 2 years. My reason is that he told us how he plays. If someone told you they made 5k over 2 years by going all in every hand, would you believe them? Of course not.

[ QUOTE ]
In low stakes PS turbos, I imagine you could beat the game if you never started pushbotting before 100/200 level, but the larger chip stacks must make a big difference.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've played a few hundred stars turbos and the bigger stack size would make a huge difference. As far as making a parallel to this situation, it would be closer to waiting til the blinds get to 200/400 before going all in.

[ QUOTE ]
Please don't misunderstand. I don't think the guy is playing optimally. I just think that there is room at low buy-in SNGs to give up a few % of ROI and still be a winning player.

[/ QUOTE ]
And I agree. But this guy is clearly missing some fundamental concepts. If he doesn't understand this, I'd assume he has other leaks as well.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This constant means that there are certain strategies that are correct such a high percentage of the time, that it's horribly non-optimal to ignore them.

[/ QUOTE ]My point is that there is room between "non-optimal" and "losing".

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course there is. Not a single player in the world plays optimally. That's zero. Are we not posting here, however, to get as close to optimal as possible? An obvious un-optimal play should not be defended under any circumstance.

[/ QUOTE ]I was responding to the statement:
[ QUOTE ]
Your friend can't be winning if he doesn't do this.

[/ QUOTE ]
which left no room for middle ground.

I agree that most of us are here in an attempt to move our games toward optimal. But, telling a player who is playing non-optimally that he can't be a winning player isn't helping. I think we would do better to acknowledge that there are other (non-optimal) winning approaches.

[Freudian]

There are a lot of opportunites to play hands differently in SnGs. Raise or call with TT after two limpers in level 1 etc. And in games with deeper stacks or slower structure, the more we will see two strategies being close to equal. I know I play many hands and situations differently than the majority here. But I still have a high profitability. That is because I have the same approach to the single most important concept of SnGs: to exploit the tendency of my opponents to fold too often when blinds are high.

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
There are a lot of opportunites to play hands differently in SnGs. Raise or call with TT after two limpers in level 1 etc. And in games with deeper stacks or slower structure, the more we will see two strategies being close to equal. I know I play many hands and situations differently than the majority here. But I still have a high profitability. That is because I have the same approach to the single most important concept of SnGs: to exploit the tendency of my opponents to fold too often when blinds are high.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's as if you read nothing I wrote.

Fair enough.

Though I will add that I don't think knowledge about optimal pushing strategy is at all common. Because everyone here has some familiarity with the approach, I think we assume most SNG players do also. I doubt that is the case. This is sort of an advanced topic that very few players use. I see players who have less than 10BB in chips making an opening raise of 1/3-1/2 their chips all the time. And, this is when we're down to 3, 4 or 5 players.

[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough.

Though I will add that I don't think knowledge about optimal pushing strategy is at all common. Because everyone here has some familiarity with the approach, I think we assume most SNG players do also. I doubt that is the case. This is sort of an advanced topic that very few players use. I see players who have less than 10BB in chips making an opening raise of 1/3-1/2 their chips all the time. And, this is when we're down to 3, 4 or 5 players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Likewise, and you see people with 6xBB open-limping on the button and all sorts, although saying that I'm playing at the $5's ATM to build a BR and tune up my SNG play, so I wouldn't expect anything different.

The guy ISN'T playing optimally if he fears being called by JT, when he holds AQ. End of. YES he may still be winning, but not as much as he could.

[Karak567]

Your friend sucks at SNGs, then.

7 k over 2 years?

lol, yeah, impressive stats bud.

There are guys that pull that in a week here.

[Karak567]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that it is your objective to not get all of your chips in the pot unless you are sure you have the winning hand. SURE you have the winning hand. The object is not to go all in with AQ preflop with 750 chips when the blinds are at 50/100

[/ QUOTE ]

If you do not want to be called by AQ or JT, then you make me sad and you REALLY need to evaluate how you play SNGs.

I highly doubt that you are a winning player.

[pokerlaw]

in general, generalized statements like this suck.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
Your friend sucks at SNGs, then.

7 k over 2 years?

lol, yeah, impressive stats bud.

There are guys that pull that in a week here.

[/ QUOTE ]

How much he's made is irrelevant. How many he's played and how much he's made says more. Has he played 1000 10+1s or 5000 20+2s? Point is, given his statements, he has a lot to learn. And I don't want to hear any of this bcrap about different ways of playing being profitable. I mean, yeah, sure...but within reason.

[Karak567]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your friend sucks at SNGs, then.

7 k over 2 years?

lol, yeah, impressive stats bud.

There are guys that pull that in a week here.

[/ QUOTE ]

How much he's made is irrelevant. How many he's played and how much he's made says more. Has he played 1000 10+1s or 5000 20+2s? Point is, given his statements, he has a lot to learn. And I don't want to hear any of this bcrap about different ways of playing being profitable. I mean, yeah, sure...but within reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I just find it funny when people think they are throwing their e-peen around, when really, in reality, their e-peen is quite small.

I have 700 chips at 50/100 blinds with TT. I am in MP. It is folded to me. I.. don't push?!?

Disagree.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
$7,000/2yrs or $7,000/730 days = $9.59 a day. Your playing for lunch money?

[/ QUOTE ]

On the other hand, it's not a bad result for a hobby. Ask people who play golf or ski as a hobby what their +/- is for the last 2 years. I'm pretty sure our boy here has them crushed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a college student, and play when i can. I am by no means the best player i know, but i'm always interested in getting better. I feel, and have always felt that the strategy of trying to avoid all ins unnecessarily is a winning one. I'm not playing for 5 hours a day every day. I take breaks of weeks at a time. 7k over 2 years has helped to finance a lot of my college activities.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
$7,000/2yrs or $7,000/730 days = $9.59 a day. Your playing for lunch money?

[/ QUOTE ]

On the other hand, it's not a bad result for a hobby. Ask people who play golf or ski as a hobby what their +/- is for the last 2 years. I'm pretty sure our boy here has them crushed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a college student, and play when i can. I am by no means the best player i know, but i'm always interested in getting better. I feel, and have always felt that the strategy of trying to avoid all ins unnecessarily is a winning one. I'm not playing for 5 hours a day every day. I take breaks of weeks at a time. 7k over 2 years has helped to finance a lot of my college activities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Regardless, if, as you say, you are winning player playing this way, the only debate is how much MORE you could make by realizing this assertion is wrong.

I am not calling you a liar for saying you are winning...I am only saying you are definitely not maximizing your overall EV by sticking to this principle.

[tjh]

You know what I think...

I think we need to be clearer about why we do what we do.

The push strategy works in the mid to late game because they fold too much. If they did not fold too much then we would have to exploit some other mistake they make.

So in order to keep these "other strategies" from popping up it would help if we were clear about why our strategy works.

Our strategy works because the other players play too loose in the beginning and too tight in the middle and end. We can gain any ground that we lose by tight play in the beginning by being aggressive later on.

Suppose we sat down at a table of 2+2ers... Well then another strategy is likely to be optimal. I would say that we have a tendency to play tight early and this could be exploited. But...as long as there are fish in the sea we do not have to worry about that.

You know what also might apply to the original poster...
His definition of the nuts might be a little broad. He may support pushing with a broader range of hands than we think he is claiming. A lot of folks think that the semi-nuts are the nuts. He may be mis-stating a basic "be tight early" policy.

--
Tjh

[FlyWf]

How much or how little you make is entirely irrelevant. I've made more money from poker than you, does that make me magically right? Nope. What makes me right is: Anything but openpushing AQ with 7.5 BB is very, very, very bad(outside of a handful of extreme bubble situations). In the 800 chip games you're going to have a <10BB stack at level 4 an awful lot. As you won't be able to fold into the money and there's no guarantee of picking up aces in the remaining 25 hands of the tourney, you will need to push repeatedly, often with relatively crappy hands.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
You know what I think...

I think we need to be clearer about why we do what we do.

The push strategy works in the mid to late game because they fold too much. If they did not fold too much then we would have to exploit some other mistake they make.

So in order to keep these "other strategies" from popping up it would help if we were clear about why our strategy works.

Our strategy works because the other players play too loose in the beginning and too tight in the middle and end. We can gain any ground that we lose by tight play in the beginning by being aggressive later on.

Suppose we sat down at a table of 2+2ers... Well then another strategy is likely to be optimal. I would say that we have a tendency to play tight early and this could be exploited. But...as long as there are fish in the sea we do not have to worry about that.

You know what also might apply to the original poster...
His definition of the nuts might be a little broad. He may support pushing with a broader range of hands than we think he is claiming. A lot of folks think that the semi-nuts are the nuts. He may be mis-stating a basic "be tight early" policy.

--
Tjh

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever...He is ignoring the important concept of FE and how much EV that adds to your hand in a multitude of situations (before the blinds are 100-200 etc...). W/o getting into semantics over what constitutes "the nuts" we can already surmise that his style is inherently "wrong", meaning, that he is missing out on adding expected value.

[Karak567]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
$7,000/2yrs or $7,000/730 days = $9.59 a day. Your playing for lunch money?

[/ QUOTE ]

On the other hand, it's not a bad result for a hobby. Ask people who play golf or ski as a hobby what their +/- is for the last 2 years. I'm pretty sure our boy here has them crushed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a college student, and play when i can. I am by no means the best player i know, but i'm always interested in getting better. I feel, and have always felt that the strategy of trying to avoid all ins unnecessarily is a winning one. I'm not playing for 5 hours a day every day. I take breaks of weeks at a time. 7k over 2 years has helped to finance a lot of my college activities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, let us tell you, that your stategy is not a winning one and it sucks, a lot.

I suggest you start reading posts her on 2+2, familiarize yourself with ICM (independent chip model) and get Sit N' GO Power Tools (eastbay's program).

[ QUOTE ]


Whatever...He is ignoring the important concept of FE and how much EV that adds to your hand in a multitude of situations (before the blinds are 100-200 etc...). W/o getting into semantics over what constitutes "the nuts" we can already surmise that his style is inherently "wrong", meaning, that he is missing out on adding expected value.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no person on the planet who makes the right play every time, or for that matter always has perfect EV. So inherently everyone is "wrong" about their play. However, i believe strongly that the GOAL of sng's is to not have to put all of your chips at risk without what you believe is the best hand by a wide margin, whether it is the absolute nuts, or 2nd or 3rd nuts. I'm not going to fold 10s on a flop of Q 10 2. The idea is to keep yourself ahead enough of the time to make it absolutely profitable, instead of going all in with AQ against J10 early in a sng. There is just no need, especially if you believe you can outplay the person after the flop.

[citanul]

are you playing sngs in some kind of bizarro world where you start with deep stacks and the blinds go up slowly?

[splashpot]

I know you didn't really ask for our advice, but doesn't it strike you a little odd that not a single person who has responded to this thread agrees with you? Everyone thinks their strategy is a good one, but what separates the good players from the bad ones is the ability to accept criticism and alter your play and learn from it.

Keeping that in mind, I recommend re-reading the posts in this thread, reading a lot of other threads in this forum, and come to your own conclusion.

[Hornacek]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Whatever...He is ignoring the important concept of FE and how much EV that adds to your hand in a multitude of situations (before the blinds are 100-200 etc...). W/o getting into semantics over what constitutes "the nuts" we can already surmise that his style is inherently "wrong", meaning, that he is missing out on adding expected value.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no person on the planet who makes the right play every time, or for that matter always has perfect EV. So inherently everyone is "wrong" about their play. However, i believe strongly that the GOAL of sng's is to not have to put all of your chips at risk without what you believe is the best hand by a wide margin, whether it is the absolute nuts, or 2nd or 3rd nuts. I'm not going to fold 10s on a flop of Q 10 2. The idea is to keep yourself ahead enough of the time to make it absolutely profitable, instead of going all in with AQ against J10 early in a sng. There is just no need, especially if you believe you can outplay the person after the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine levels 1-3, but once the blinds get too high respective to your stack size, it becomes imperative to continue to acquire chips.

[sofere]

[ QUOTE ]
The push strategy works in the mid to late game because they fold too much. If they did not fold too much then we would have to exploit some other mistake they make.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fold too much??? At the 11s and 22s? I beg to differ. How many posts have you seen saying "Should I move up to the 55s because these donks at the 11s are calling my push on the bubble with QTo?"

[Hornacek]

[ QUOTE ]
are you playing sngs in some kind of bizarro world where you start with deep stacks and the blinds go up slowly?

[/ QUOTE ]

i think he's a bot and this thread is OBVIOUSLY rigged.

OT: Where the hell is "I Play G00t" when you need him? I need to laugh.

[Karak567]

[ QUOTE ]
are you playing sngs in some kind of bizarro world where you start with deep stacks and the blinds go up slowly?

[/ QUOTE ]

You better hope Citanul is in a good mood toda-

Oops, too late.

[BAK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your friend sucks at SNGs, then.

7 k over 2 years?

lol, yeah, impressive stats bud.

There are guys that pull that in a week here.

[/ QUOTE ]

How much he's made is irrelevant. How many he's played and how much he's made says more. Has he played 1000 10+1s or 5000 20+2s? Point is, given his statements, he has a lot to learn. And I don't want to hear any of this bcrap about different ways of playing being profitable. I mean, yeah, sure...but within reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I just find it funny when people think they are throwing their e-peen around, when really, in reality, their e-peen is quite small.

[/ QUOTE ]

He wasn't throwing his e-peen around, he was just attempting to refute the stated assumption that he must be a losing player.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
are you playing sngs in some kind of bizarro world where you start with deep stacks and the blinds go up slowly?

[/ QUOTE ]

You better hope Citanul is in a good mood toda-

Oops, too late.

[/ QUOTE ]

i might be in the worst mood i've ever been in while actively being a member of this board. i'm attempting to restrain myself from posting.

c

[bones]

I can't believe I just read this whole thread.

Fack...

[ QUOTE ]
I know you didn't really ask for our advice, but doesn't it strike you a little odd that not a single person who has responded to this thread agrees with you? Everyone thinks their strategy is a good one, but what separates the good players from the bad ones is the ability to accept criticism and alter your play and learn from it.

Keeping that in mind, I recommend re-reading the posts in this thread, reading a lot of other threads in this forum, and come to your own conclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate the civility, instead of just calling me a moron. Now, if you'll read the original quote, which spawned the 2nd and thrid quotes after discussion, I believe the OBJECTIVE is to not have to put your chips at risk without knowing you have the best hand. Do I always follow this straegy? Of course not, but I believe it to be the key to my success thus far. Am I still growing as a player? Of course, and I will certainly take into consideration the posts on this topic, thanks for your responses.

[Jbrochu]

My opinions:

[ QUOTE ]
"the key in sng's is to never have to go all in. every person who is serious about sng's will tell you that"

[/ QUOTE ]

We are quite serious here and most of us disagree with the statement.



[ QUOTE ]
"you can play hard with out putting all of your chips at risk"


[/ QUOTE ]

Impossible in poker tournaments of any kind, deep stack or otherwise, never mind STTs.




[ QUOTE ]
"you should NEVER have to go all in without the nuts before the blinds get to 100/200 unless you are desperately short stacked"

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess it depends on what he considers "desperately short stacked" when the BB is t200. I still think this is probably wrong anyway because in poker NEVER is almost never correct.

[ QUOTE ]
However, i believe strongly that the GOAL of sng's is to not have to put all of your chips at risk without what you believe is the best hand by a wide margin, whether it is the absolute nuts, or 2nd or 3rd nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

you can keep saying this until you're blue in the face, but you'll be just as wrong as you were the first time...

[bones]

[ QUOTE ]
i might be in the worst mood i've ever been in while actively being a member of this board. i'm attempting to restrain myself from posting.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://home.pages.at/taprobane/hoooooot.jpg

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, i believe strongly that the GOAL of sng's is to not have to put all of your chips at risk without what you believe is the best hand by a wide margin, whether it is the absolute nuts, or 2nd or 3rd nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, i keep hearing that, but no one is telling me why going all in without knowing you are winning is, in fact, a winning strategy.

you can keep saying this until you're blue in the face, but you'll be just as wrong as you were the first time...

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, i believe strongly that the GOAL of sng's is to not have to put all of your chips at risk without what you believe is the best hand by a wide margin, whether it is the absolute nuts, or 2nd or 3rd nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

you can keep saying this until you're blue in the face, but you'll be just as wrong as you were the first time...
yeah, i keep hearing that, but no one is telling me why going all in without knowing you are winning is, in fact, a winning strategy.


[/ QUOTE ]

you can keep saying this until you're blue in the face, but you'll be just as wrong as you were the first time...

[Hornacek]

Bones, those are impossibly fake breasts.

But also very nice /images/graemlins/laugh.gif.

Who's the chick?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, i believe strongly that the GOAL of sng's is to not have to put all of your chips at risk without what you believe is the best hand by a wide margin, whether it is the absolute nuts, or 2nd or 3rd nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

you can keep saying this until you're blue in the face, but you'll be just as wrong as you were the first time...


[/ QUOTE ]

you can keep saying this until you're blue in the face, but you'll be just as wrong as you were the first time...

[/ QUOTE ]

[citanul]

because ther'es no time to wait around for those sorts of sureties in this game.

that said, that is all that really needs to be said in this thread.

you guys all suck.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]


There is no person on the planet who makes the right play every time, or for that matter always has perfect EV. So inherently everyone is "wrong" about their play.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is obvious. But your theory is akin to saying 2nd pair is better than top pair and I will play 2nd pair stronger than top pair. IOW, you are missing a fundamental concept about shallow stacked, fast rising blinds SNGs that no long term player should ignore. Sure, if the blind to stack ratio remained at level 1 depth for long periods of time before 100-200 then what you are advocating becomes more and more correct. But we cannot ignore that this is simply NOT the case. [ QUOTE ]


However, i believe strongly that the GOAL of sng's is to not have to put all of your chips at risk without what you believe is the best hand by a wide margin, whether it is the absolute nuts, or 2nd or 3rd nuts. I'm not going to fold 10s on a flop of Q 10 2. The idea is to keep yourself ahead enough of the time to make it absolutely profitable, instead of going all in with AQ against J10 early in a sng. There is just no need, especially if you believe you can outplay the person after the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you are not going to be in a situation where you have the nuts or near nuts enough to make the above correct. You are missing something fundamental about the structure of online SNGs and I hope many other players share your view. Frankly that makes them profitable for the rest of us. So if you want to continue believing the way you do, be my guest.

[bones]

Elin Grindemyr. She likes making out with girls and pushing K8 from the SB with <8 bbs.

[citanul]

[censored] lawyers, always using 100 words where 10 will do.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
[censored] lawyers, always using 100 words where 10 will do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct...the sound of my own voice soothes me.

[Shilly]

Wow, maybe I should have tried harder to hijack this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
The push strategy works in the mid to late game because they fold too much. If they did not fold too much then we would have to exploit some other mistake they make.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. Proper push strategy works even when the other guy uses proper call strategy. It may work extra good becuase very few players know proper call strategy, but it would still work if they all had SNGPT fired up and at their disposal.

[ QUOTE ]
i'm attempting to restrain myself from posting.

[/ QUOTE ]
How's that going?

that's my mom!!!!

[FlyWf]

Yes, the objective is not to lose(??).

What you aren't getting is that the means to prevent showdown is pushing. If you 'play poker' or whatever with AQ with 7.5 BB, you're increasing the chances you have to show down a hand.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
[censored] lawyers, always using 100 words where 10 will do.

[/ QUOTE ]

AQ vs. JT = you HAVE the best hand, push

exactly 10, nice job

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[censored] lawyers, always using 100 words where 10 will do.

[/ QUOTE ]

AQ vs. JT = you HAVE the best hand, push

[/ QUOTE ]

Good holding...reversed and remanded

[barry111]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe I just read this whole thread.

Fack...

[/ QUOTE ]

[citanul]

thread over.

c