Anyone play loose while the blinds are cheap?

[Fraubump]

I don't hear much about this strategy, but it seems like if you've got a passive preflop table, then playing a lot of hands for the first round or two trying to get a lucky flop might be reasonable. This is obviously more viable when you have a high chips to blinds ratio, which is not true on Party, but is true on Stars (and not bad on UB).

[cferejohn]

This is a fairly common strategy, but as you say it relies on the table being fairly passive. It also requires you to be able to get away from flops that you only partly hit (i.e. a jack-high flop (none of your suit) with JTs) when there is alot of action.

Certainly this strategy makes all kinds of sense with small pairs, when the flop either definitely hits you (you flop a set) or definitely doesn't (you don't). With suited connectors, you run much more risk of hitting the flop just well enough to lose a lot of chips.

[TheGrifter]

So funny, I just wrote a long post addressing this same issue and IE decided to die just as I hit send. Since you already started the thread, I'll just recreate my thoughts here.

Basically I am starting to convince myself that the best strategy at low buy in SnG's is to play very loose preflop in the first couple of levels in hopes of doubling up. I know the prevailing opinion is that one should play tight and only be aggressive on premium starting hands early on as the feeling is an average or above average player can "outplay" others later on. My reasons for feeling differently are as follows:

1. The blind to chip ratio is such that the implied odds make many more hands playable. Even on Prima where you start with 1000 and levels 1/2 are 10/20 and 15/30 respectively it is very attractive to limp in.

2. Most tables are very passive early at least at the 10+1 level and so you can generally limp without fear of a raise even in early position. If the pot is raised it is generally the minimum and there are enough people coming along for the ride to make a call correct in most situations.

3. At the 10+1 level there are nearly always 2-3 players who have no idea what is going on and are almost guaranteed to have lost their stack by level 3, if you limp into more pots you greatly increase your chances of getting these chips and doubling up.

4. I have found that by doublng up early I can am almost guaranteed to make the money in the tournament and if I really push my advantage I can finish first better than half the time. I consider myself an average player overall so this strategy would probably be even more attractive for someone who is above average overall (although I doubt many of these people are playing 10+1)

5. Perhaps my biggest reason for wanting to double up early is to take away the chance that I may become short-stacked relative to the blinds before I get a premium starting hand. This can happen very easily especially if you lose just one pot and can create a desparate situation, I would rather finish 10th in a tourney than blind out in 5th.

6. By doubling up early on a less than stellar starting hand that might have flopped big you create an image that a couple of the better players at the table may remember, this increases the likelihood of your big hands getting paid off later. Also, by doubling up you will have a large stack and be able to play a bit tighter later on, doubling the deception value.

That's all I can think of for now but like I said I'm not entirely sure that a loose strategy early on is the best and I would much appreciate any input regarding the overall thought and my specific reasons. Thanks.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Frau,

I sometimes do this, depending on the table. You need a table which is: (a) passive pre-flop, so you can get into pots cheaply; and, (b) aggressive post-flop, so you get good implied odds.

But, as cferejohn said, you can only get away with this if you're disciplined and can get away from a flop that hits you just enough to give you a second-best hand.

Cris

[PrayingMantis]

One good thing about playing looser on early rounds, comes from the fact that on low buy-in SNG's, it's usually difficult to bluff people out of pots, even on later stages and near the money. People call call call (It's different on 20-30 buy-in as I've noticed). So, in order to build a stack before you're too low comparing to the blinds (certainly on 2 tables, where there will be more competition later on), you better have hands, real hands. If, then, you can get out cheaply when you don't hit, but charge heavily (which will probably happen, because people will call) when you do hit, limping with more hands at a passive table can be profitable, I think.

I try it sometimes. If I don't hit anything - it's not that I've lost too much (at least when it's a slow structure and deep stacks), and I can start playing tighter and more aggressive, hoping they WILL fold often enough when I put pressure.



PrayingMantis

[CrisBrown]

Hiya Grifter,

If you are good at reading players and their hands, if you are disciplined enough to get away from a hand that's only hit half-way, and if you pick your spots, you can certainly be successful playing a bit looser than is "correct." Some of the top pros -- Gus Hansen, Layne Flack, Phil Ivey, and Daniel Negraneu come to mind -- play very well this way.

Kurn's "fishy call" post was a good example, and I think you do need to make such calls occasionally, when the money is deep and you have the right situation. I also sometimes raise on "off" hands, as a blind steal but also for implied odds and later deception and intimidation if I hit the flop and end up shown down.

Why intimidation? Here's an example. In a $33 two-table SNG yesterday, it was folded to me in the CO with 22. This isn't usually a raising hand for me, but I decided to try a blind steal. The SB called, and the flop was 10-10-2. We ended up all-in, and my boat beat his set (he had T9s).

For the rest of that tourney, my reraises got a lot of respect, because people seemed to believe that no board was "safe" if I was in a pot. I was able to steal a few big pots with all-in reraises at the turn or river, on the image of that one full house. And as you say, I could tighten up, raise only on "real" hands, and get pre-flop action on them.

But all of those "ifs" in the first paragraph are important caveats, and I also have to rein myself in and realize that I'm not always going to make the right read, I'm not always going to pick the right spots, etc. In short, I'm not as skilled as a Gus Hansen, Layne Flack, Phil Ivey, or Daniel Negraneu, and I have to play within my limitations.

Right, William? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Cris

[TheGrifter]

Thank you for your reply Cris..

[ QUOTE ]

If you are good at reading players and their hands, if you are disciplined enough to get away from a hand that's only hit half-way, and if you pick your spots, you can certainly be successful playing a bit looser than is "correct."


[/ QUOTE ]

I think one of the reasons I find it easy to profit by playing loose preflop early on is that at the 10 dollar level there are always a few players who are very predictable (loose, calling stations) who will basically let you pick off their stack by calling pot sized bets on every street.

I feel that since these players are so predictable post-flop and almost always bust by the mid stages of the SnG it may be unwise to fold any hand that has a chance to flop big (except real long-shots like 10-3) if you are in late position with limpers.

[ QUOTE ]

For the rest of that tourney, my reraises got a lot of respect, because people seemed to believe that no board was "safe" if I was in a pot. I was able to steal a few big pots with all-in reraises at the turn or river, on the image of that one full house. And as you say, I could tighten up, raise only on "real" hands, and get pre-flop action on them.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is another big reason to at least mix it up early on, because there are going to be at least SOME players who are paying attention.

[ QUOTE ]

But all of those "ifs" in the first paragraph are important caveats, and I also have to rein myself in and realize that I'm not always going to make the right read, I'm not always going to pick the right spots, etc. In short, I'm not as skilled as a Gus Hansen, Layne Flack, Phil Ivey, or Daniel Negraneu, and I have to play within my limitations.


[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly have no delusions of having the postflop skills of any of these players and I agree that it is very important to be able to get away from hands like top pair weak kicker or small two pair, however with this discipline in place, at the lower levels, what is the best strategic approach to SnG's in your opinion? Tight/Aggressive early on or Loose and rather passive preflop (meaning if you try to limp and are raised, release any hand not worth re-raising)

I say strategic meaning ignoring the tactical decisions that you will make based on the conditions of the table(other than the assumption that the table is passive) and focusing specifically on what style of play will result in the greatest win % and 1st place finishes.

[William]

[ QUOTE ]
Right, William?

[/ QUOTE ]

Right Cris /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[CrisBrown]

Hiya Grifter,

[ QUOTE ]
At the lower levels, what is the best strategic approach to SnG's in your opinion? Tight/Aggressive early on or Loose and rather passive preflop (meaning if you try to limp and are raised, release any hand not worth re-raising)?

I say strategic meaning ignoring the tactical decisions that you will make based on the conditions of the table(other than the assumption that the table is passive) and focusing specifically on what style of play will result in the greatest win % and 1st place finishes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't answer that without knowing the structure, buy-in, and table dynamics. Sorry, but there's no one-size-fits-all strategy that will always work. And there's the issue of personality; what works for you might not work for me, and vice versa.

I realize this isn't the answer you're looking for, but I can't give you a more honest one. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Cris

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

At a loose-passive table, I will play loose early on only with position (CO & button) and pretty much be a rock elsewhere. My logic is that I'll likely get to see 2 flops per orbit out of position anyway in my blinds. I'd rather not bleed chips away trying to hit flops.

[Stagemusic]

I'm with Kurn on this one. As my skills have increased slightly /images/graemlins/grin.gif I can play a little looser with position on the CO or button but will generally be in auto fold mode the rest of the time.

My favorite comment from another player in a SNG happened on Party the other night. We were at level 3 or so and I was on the button and found A /images/graemlins/diamond.gifK /images/graemlins/diamond.gif. I raised to make it $250 to go (4x the BB) and a LAG who had the current chip lead with about T2200 called from the Big Blind. The flop comes 4 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 7 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif A /images/graemlins/spade.gif which I really liked a lot /images/graemlins/grin.gif. LAG makes a bet of T400 which is about 1/2 my stack. I put him on an A with a decent kicker and decide to just call (yes Cris, I thought about pushing in here /images/graemlins/grin.gif). Turn comes the J /images/graemlins/diamond.gif giving me the nut flush. LAG bets out with a minimum bet to trap which actually confirmed what I had put him on earlier and I push in for the rest of my stack. He calls and the river actually gives me the K /images/graemlins/spade.gif to beat him two ways. He showed the A /images/graemlins/club.gif J /images/graemlins/heart.gif and I take it down, doubling up and cutting his stack in half. A guy in MP who I have played a few times before said right after the hand to the LAG "Now look at what you did. You had to wake him up didn't you???". I almost died laughing. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[triplc]

Probably being a broker record here, given the quality of the replies thus far, but I always like to clarify my own thinking...so here goes.

The strategy that you employ should be dictated by a number of factors: table dynamics, skill level, personality, the cards you are seeing.

Table Dynamics: I have played tables where we had 3 people knocked out in the first hand, and I've played where we had all ten left after 40 hands (tight and passive). At the loose table, I just sit back and watch, and play super aggressive when I get a good hand. At a passive table, I will play more hands and limp in more because I can get away with it cheaply. Try limping in a few times at party in EP with maniacs all around you and before you know it half of your stack is gone.

Skill level: How well do you read your opponents? How well do you play postflop? The better you are, the better you know how to play marginal hands.

Personality: Some people prefer to play extremely tight, and others looser. Both can be successful. A very tight early image allows for more blind stealing later (assuming your opponents are paying attention, and that is a big if), while a loose image sets up big hands later. Both can be effective.

The cards. If you are seeing AA, followed by KK, followed by AK early and get some chips with them early, it's easier to let go the suited connectors, low pocket pairs, and Ax suited. For me at least, I start to get antsy when I'm not seeing cards and more likely to take a stab with "marginal" hands. Probably a leak...so that's what that hissing sound is.

Newbie talking here...this is more of a personal observation. Don't take as gospel.

CCC

[CrisBrown]

Hiya CCC,

[ QUOTE ]
For me at least, I start to get antsy when I'm not seeing cards and more likely to take a stab with "marginal" hands. Probably a leak...so that's what that hissing sound is.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very common leak, and one of mine, and it's a difficult one to plug. After all, you can't sit around forever waiting for the perfect combination of hole cards and flop, but by the same token I often get antsy before I'm really in dire straits.

Another of my common leaks is when I fail to call with a raggy hand that I should call (because of position, pot odds, etc.) and the flop runs it over. Now I'm more apt to call with a raggy hand that I shouldn't, and get myself in trouble.

An example from a $55 two-table SNG last night. I'm in the small blind with 96o and there are three limpers in the pot when it gets to me. I'm getting 9:1 on this call, and even out of position, I ought to protect my blind and call for a peek. Instead, I decide to pass.

And the flop is 9-6-6. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

Well, sure as the world, on the next hand I'm on the button with 98o, with a 3xBB EP raise and an MP call ahead of me. Now I'm only getting 5:2 on my call, and even on the button it's not a hand I ought to be playing in this spot. But I'm still muttering about the 96o I laid down last hand, so I call.

The flop is A-10-7, giving me an open-end straight draw. The EP raiser bets 4xBB (about half the pot), and the MP caller makes it 12xBB (almost the pot). So there's 26xBB in the pot, and it's 12xBB to me to call, with a possible all-in reraise coming behind me. With the ever- seductive words "implied odds" swimming in my brain, I call. EP calls and now there's 42xBB in the pot.

Turn is a J, giving me a straight, but not the nut straight. EP checks, MP pushes all-in, I call, and EP calls. EP has KQs (nut straight), MP has AT (two pair), and another 10 falls on the river to fill him up. I'm down to 250 or so chips and soon gone.

All on a hand I wouldn't have played but for my mistake on the previous hand....

Cris

[triplc]

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For me at least, I start to get antsy when I'm not seeing cards and more likely to take a stab with "marginal" hands. Probably a leak...so that's what that hissing sound is.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is a very common leak, and one of mine, and it's a difficult one to plug. After all, you can't sit around forever waiting for the perfect combination of hole cards and flop, but by the same token I often get antsy before I'm really in dire straits.


[/ QUOTE ]

Same here. I've had a very good run lately (last 6, 3 1sts, 1 2nd, 1 3rd and 1 6th), but in the one that I didn't place I only had two playable hands. On the first one (I forget what it was...something like TT, but the relevant thing is that) I have to muck it because it gets raised and reraised before me and I didn't have AA or KK. The second one I get KJs in the big blind folds to the button who limps in (we're only at 20/40 here and I still have around T600...no time to panic). I make a play, raising to 140, and he pushes all-in (has me covered). What hands he has i can beat I don't know...but I call. He turns over A7s. I get my K (woohoo), but he rivers an A and I'm gone.

Perfect example of making a play with marginal cards before you're really desparate. There's that hissing sound again...

CCC

[X-Calibre]

Here is my problem with this strategy. Yes you probably have the implied odds or even pot odds to call pre with 96 off. However, these kind of odds assume a large set of hands in order to account for variance, that is, if you had 96off 1000 times in a row with implied odds of 15:1 then yeah maybe make the call. But in a sitngo the money is real shallow and you are only talking about the first 2 blind levels. So even though you are getting implied 15:1 to make a call with 96 you wont have the money or time to make that call 15 times within one sitngo, i mean the first two blind levels only account for 20 hands. I think chips in the beginning are far more valuable then they are in the end and i'd like to save my chips for when i want to flop KT or T9, those seem loose to me.

[Phishy McFish]

I think it is a very effective strategy....right out of the gate....you can raise the T10BB to 50 or 75......then either get lucky on the flop or depending on if there are scare cards out there or all blanks you can make a pot (or near pot size) bet and everyone should fold unless THEY have the monster.......or know you for a history of such plays. Even if you get called you can take one more stab on the turn and might get out of it without showing your hand win or lose..........if you do get busted for a bluff or starting with less than premium you can use it to your advantage and still have plenty of time to play tight the rest of the way before the blinds are a concern.......even if you get knocked down to T600 (assuming you start at T1000).

[CrisBrown]

Hi X-Calibre:

[ QUOTE ]
But in a sitngo the money is real shallow and you are only talking about the first 2 blind levels. So even though you are getting implied 15:1 to make a call with 96 you wont have the money or time to make that call 15 times within one sitngo, i mean the first two blind levels only account for 20 hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's a mistake to look at it in terms of situations repeating themselves within a given tournament. Even in a multi-table tourney, there usually aren't enough hands for you to see the same situation more than twice. That's why you have to get a bit lucky to win a given tourney or SNG.

But over the course of hundreds or thousands of tourneys, situations do repeat themselves, and over time the outcomes will tend toward the statistical norm. That's the "life is one, long poker game" philosophy, and I think it's the best outlook. Over the course of your tournament career, your results will reflect the number of times you took made +EV decisions, and avoided -EV decisions.

Cris

[AleoMagus]

The problem though, is that it is hard to always know what really is, or isn't positive EV in the usual way.

Sure, I agree with what you are saying (the one, big long session) as it applies to ring games, but tournaments are different. Tournament chips are not real dollars.

As a hypothetical example of this, consider the following. First hand of a sng, you are dealt QQ against another player you know 100% (hypothetical, like I said) has AK. Well, if the AK pushes all-in, the queens have +EV to call. The problem is, if (hypothetical, again) you know from a lot of past sngs that your % for making the money is 60%. Well, you are now putting yourself in a position to bust on the first hand with less than a 60% chance of survival. A greater chance to win though? I'm not sure it is that great.

A better example might be bubble play. Suppose a similar scenario arises when there are four left and the stacks are about equal (t2500+) except for one guy who has only (t5). If another player with the same stack as you pushes in with his AK, I think calling with the +EV queens is a mistake.

There is also the fact that stack sizes change the actual value of the chips involved. If, for example, I had the AK with a huge stack, and a puny stack who I know has QQ moves in, I'll call everytime despite my -EV (because this actually is +EV when you consider the bigger value of short stacks).

Truth be told though, I don't money 60%, and I'd probably take my chances with QQ vs AK on the first hand of a sng. The biggest reason for this though, is that if I double, I have a much greater win %, and if I don't, my average time/tourney goes down (thereby increasing my $/hr, when you take into account the times I double this way)

Any thoughts?

Regards,
Brad S

PS - I am Shub314. I changed the name though because everyone kept getting it wrong. Shrub, Shlub,...

I also noticed that there already is a shrub so this avoids any confusion. Besides, I play online (Party) as Aleomagus so that might as well be who I am here.

[MicroBob]

a very interesting discussion imo.

TPFAP obviously recommends playing loose when the blinds are small.
but how small is small enough??
if you start with 10000 at the WSOP i suspect the first few rounds of blinds are pretty small.

on party, you start with 800 and they move from 10/20 to 15/30 to 35/50 pretty fast. so if you are playing loose and seeing flops and NOT hitting, then you'll find yourself down to 500 or so fairly quickly.

on stars, your 1500 becomes 1200 and is much more playable.

as a general rule, i do get in cheaply to see the flop when i can.
if it's passive enough i'll even take a chance with Axs or 33 from ep and if it gets too much pre-flop action i can always toss it.
now, if i limp in later from EP with KK i am disguising it a bit better because the last time i limped in i didn't have too much.
if the early limp-in gets checked down or i am able to take it to showdown it makes for decent advertising.

in co or button i'm in with anything decent for 1 or 2 BB. OR, I'm trying to steal the blinds if no one has entered yet.


here's a statement from one of the earlier posts that does not jive with my game though....

"I would rather finish 10th in a tourney than blind out in 5th."

this IS a common sentiment. it does not happen to be my sentiment.
i prefer to blind out in 5th because i feel i gave myself a chance.

also, playing loose in the early rounds does NOT have to mean you are increasing your chances to finish 10th.
if you toss away the so-so hands when faced with strength AND draw out some chips from the callers when you do hit then i don't see how you're increasing you're chances of finishing 10th.

of course, there are the ones you cant possibly see coming such as - you have JT and the flop comes JTT and you're opponent shows you JJ. you would be pretty likely to get knocked out in the very first hand of the WSOP with this one i suspect.
but i think there is a BIG difference between 'paying to see a few flops in early rounds' and 'putting your stack at risk in a CONCERTED effort to double-up early'.

with that in mind, i would probably toss the AK or QQ in the 'i know what he has scenario' if it was all-in pre-flop. it's rolling the dice for a double-up whereas i am HOPING that i have enough skill to pull it off as we go along.

i especially like the logic behind 'if i'm already placing in 60% of my SNG's'.
i also am not placing in 60%. but in these things there is just so much opportunity to 'out-skill' a couple of opponents that i hate putting my stack in on a roll of the dice.

what if i have Ah8h and the flop is Th7h2s.....do i call an all-in from a player who i am pretty sure has TT or just an over-pair??
what if i have 9s8h?? or even 9h8h?? (straight-flush draw).
it's actually very similar to the QQ vs. AK situation isn't it??

early rounds i might be pretty hesitant to make this call...depending on my feeling about the table (if i've had time to formulate one).


i don't take too many 10th's....and i still am not thrilled with myself when i do.
i've had farrrrrrr too many instances where i was about to get blinded out and i was able to comeback and place in the money (or even win the whole thing).
i know that i play too tight a lot of the time andprobably take too many 4th's and 5th's as a result (i'm working on that).
but as long as i'm still actually IN the tourney then i have a chance (cliche-alert).

i suspect this thread may help sway me to correct my game a little bit though so thanks for the interesting discussion.

[CrisBrown]

Hiya Brad,

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, I agree with what you are saying (the one, big long session) as it applies to ring games, but tournaments are different. Tournament chips are not real dollars.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably the biggest change I've made in my game has been (largely) ignoring survival and treating tourney chips just as I would ring game chips. Obviously that changes when I get close to the bubble, or in the money with someone close to busting and moving me up a spot, but until then I really don't worry about survival.

Sure, all other things being equal, I'd rather not be all-in, called, and covered. But if pushing my chips into the middle is the right decision, in terms of pot odds relative to my read of win percentages, I'm going to do it. If I bust, well, I busted with what I thought was the best of it, and -- if my read was right -- over the course of my tournament career, that's going to make me more money than it costs me.

I try to avoid the "small favorite or huge underdog" cases, moving in with small pairs vs. what I hope is overcards, or moving in with a middle Ace vs. what I hope is K-high or a weaker Ace, but sometimes even that can't be avoided. Last night, for example, I hadn't caught a single hand worth so much as a limp until the blinds hit 75/150, and by then I was down to ~1200. I caught 55 UTG, pushed in, and someone had TT. Oh well. I was going to be down to less than 7xBB in two hands regardless. You can't make chicken soup from chicken poop, so you do the best you can, and if it doesn't work ... *shrugs* ... you're not going to win every time.

Cris

[triplc]

[ QUOTE ]
"I would rather finish 10th in a tourney than blind out in 5th."

[/ QUOTE ]

As with all blanket statements made on these boards, this one rings hollow, and it shouldn't be anyone's sentiment who thinks that they are the best player at the table. That's not to say that I won't get my chips in early if I think I have much the best of it (or even with QQ vs. AK once in a while).

Imagine this scenario. I (6' 3" tall, can't jump or shoot) am going to play Shaquille O' Neal in a game of one on one. I get the ball out first. Who would you bet on in a game to 21? to 11? to 5? to 1? What I am trying to illustrate is that the shorter the game, the more it favors the less skilled player. If I have the ball in a game to 1, I might beat Shaq 4 out of 10 times. In a game to 21, I beat him never...

The same is true in poker. If I am playing TJ Cloutier, would I rather play him in a Party Poker $10 SnG with $800 chips and quickly rising blinds or the WSOP? Right now, I'd take the SnG.

Listen to Cris, folks. Don't take chances early unless your read gives you a clear positive EV situation. I'm not saying you shouldn't limp with the occasional suited connector or small pair, but do it cheaply, and run away if the flop doesn't hammer you. Tight, agressive means just that. Don't play (except for the occasional well-timed bluff or steal perhaps) unless you have the best of it and when you do...it should be an all-encompassing siege of your opponent. Make them pay to suck out on you.

CCC

[CrisBrown]

Hiya CCC,

[ QUOTE ]
Listen to Cris, folks. Don't take chances early unless your read gives you a clear positive EV situation. I'm not saying you shouldn't limp with the occasional suited connector or small pair, but do it cheaply, and run away if the flop doesn't hammer you.

[/ QUOTE ]

That isn't quite what I said, but thank you for the kind words. Basically, early in a tournament, I'm looking for situations that write their own scripts: big hands, late position, or big pot odds on blind hands that are easy to get away from if they miss. I don't want to have to make tough decisions early on, when I haven't yet gotten reads on the players, when the blinds aren't worth fighting for, and when I can't win yet but can certainly lose.

If I have a hand that's either a big favorite or a slight underdog, I'll take risks. If I have a hand that's either a slight favorite or a big underdog, I'll avoid risks. I'm not risk-averse -- you can't be and expect to win in NLHE -- but neither am I an adrenaline junkie. I want the reward to justify the risk; that's the very definition of +EV. If it doesn't, I'll walk away.

So ... do I play loose early? Yes, if the situation is right, if the reward justifies the risk. Otherwise, I'm going to tighten up and wait my turn.

Cris