(near) winner take all sngs'

[MadSci]

I play a lot of Party sngs' (at $10) with good results so far. I now plan on playing the big Saturday and Sunday tournaments (the $200 NLHE), entering by way of the one-table satelites. The satelites pay a free big tourney entry for 1st and your satelite entry back for 2nd. So basically winner-take-all. I've read that with such a payout schedule, one should play as if it was a live game, that is, fairly aggressive, take chips whenever you can, not the super-tight early normally played in tourneys.

My point is, I don't buy that. I think you still need to survive to the final 5 or so before making your move. Maybe my theory is only true in the low buy-in, maniac-rich environment provided by Party. What do ya'll think?

[Iceman]

[ QUOTE ]
The satelites pay a free big tourney entry for 1st and your satelite entry back for 2nd. So basically winner-take-all. I've read that with such a payout schedule, one should play as if it was a live game, that is, fairly aggressive, take chips whenever you can, not the super-tight early normally played in tourneys.

My point is, I don't buy that. I think you still need to survive to the final 5 or so before making your move. Maybe my theory is only true in the low buy-in, maniac-rich environment provided by Party. What do ya'll think?

[/ QUOTE ]

You should play it much more like a live game than a normal SNG. With a 50-30-20 payout, it makes sense to play very tight once you're near or in the money. The more chips you have, the less each one is worth, and vice versa. There are many situations with 3-5 players left in an SNG where action in a heads-up hand hurts both players in the hand, and benefits their opponent(s). It would often be correct to pass a 55-60% all-in chance, or even much better chances in extreme cases. Stacks 4000-3700-300(you). The first two move all-in. You should definitely fold AA here. When many of your opponents are too loose, you can often make the money by playing very tight and waiting for others to bust out.

In a winner-take all (the tourney you mention is really 90-10, but lets assume 100-0), you can never fold your way into the money, and action between other players always helps one of them and hurts the others in that hand. You would definitely call with AA in the example I gave above, and would grab a 60% all-in chance even if you were the second highest stack. You have to accumulate 8000 chips to win, and it makes sense to get involved early (when the bad players still have chips, and when the blinds are low enough to really use your skills). If you slowly blind off your stack waiting for premium hands and for others to be eliminated, it does you no good to be down to 600 with 4-5 players left. Now you'll need to repeatedly bet all of your stack on hands that are at best little more than coinflips, and you'll have to win money from people who know what they're doing.

[Prickly Pete]

In a regular SNG, you state

[ QUOTE ]
Stacks 4000-3700-300(you). The first two move all-in. You should definitely fold AA here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with that. You have an excellent chance to triple up here. And even if it's 7100-900, that's much better than 7700-300. Besides, say the 3700 stack wins when you fold AA. Now it's 300, 300, 7400 and you still haven't nailed down 2nd.

[Iceman]

[ QUOTE ]
In a regular SNG, you state

[ QUOTE ]
Stacks 4000-3700-300(you). The first two move all-in. You should definitely fold AA here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with that. You have an excellent chance to triple up here. And even if it's 7100-900, that's much better than 7700-300. Besides, say the 3700 stack wins when you fold AA. Now it's 300, 300, 7400 and you still haven't nailed down 2nd.


[/ QUOTE ]

Make it 3900-3900-200.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Iceman,

[ QUOTE ]
It would often be correct to pass a 55-60% all-in chance, or even much better chances in extreme cases. Stacks 4000-3700-300(you). The first two move all-in. You should definitely fold AA here. When many of your opponents are too loose, you can often make the money by playing very tight and waiting for others to bust out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have to call here.

If you win -- and you're a favorite with AA -- you have T900, and will be either heads-up (if the 4000 stack wins the side pot), or with a 3:1 edge over 3rd place (if the 3700 stack doubles through, leaving the former chip leader with only 300).

If you lose, you're out.

If you fold, you're at best a 7700-300 underdog heads-up, or at worst tied for a desperately short-stacked third, with no guarantee that you haven't just thrown away your best chance to get at least a few chips to threaten with.

Cris

[Iceman]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Iceman,

[ QUOTE ]
It would often be correct to pass a 55-60% all-in chance, or even much better chances in extreme cases. Stacks 4000-3700-300(you). The first two move all-in. You should definitely fold AA here. When many of your opponents are too loose, you can often make the money by playing very tight and waiting for others to bust out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have to call here.

If you win -- and you're a favorite with AA -- you have T900, and will be either heads-up (if the 4000 stack wins the side pot), or with a 3:1 edge over 3rd place (if the 3700 stack doubles through, leaving the former chip leader with only 300).

If you lose, you're out.

If you fold, you're at best a 7700-300 underdog heads-up, or at worst tied for a desperately short-stacked third, with no guarantee that you haven't just thrown away your best chance to get at least a few chips to threaten with.

Cris


[/ QUOTE ]

Make it 3900-3900-200 and you see my point.

[AleoMagus]

Yes, it is true that Winner take all plays like a normal ring game, but sometimes survival becomes important.

If, for example, you only intend on playing in one qualifier and you know that you are a lot better than your opponents. Sometimes if you play a much better game than your opposition, taking any edge can often mean passing up the possibility of outplaying players later.

When you consider that so many Party fish have such bad shorthanded games, it is often correct to survive in order to give yourself the best chance to face their weakest game (or perhaps show them your strongest game).

The thing is, if you just plan on playing these qualifiers until you win, then I'd still take any edge because then it becomes more like reloading in a ring game. Survival isn't important because you can always get in another. Sooner or later, if you are getting your money in with the best of it, you will double or triple up and have an even better opportunity to take advantage of the weaknesses I mentioned earlier.

Is it only top two that get paid? I thought third gets another qualifier entry also. Of course I have never played one so I might be wrong.

Regards,
Brad S

[CrisBrown]

Hiya Iceman,

The only time I would fold AA preflop would be "the Sklansky Scenario" -- satellite tourney with two or more seats to be won, on the bubble, with a smaller stack, and two players all-in ahead of me. In that situation, I can win a seat just by folding.

But in a winner-take-all situation, I'd have to push. In this situation, I have to win it all to win anything. So I don't think folding into a short-stacked heads-up matchup is the best possible use of AA.

Now, if it's KK, the story might be different. With two equal stacks all-in ahead of me, I might lay down KK, and take my chances heads-up. The difference is that one of them is probably on Ax, and any Ace on board kills my KK.

Cris

[Iceman]

"But in a winner-take-all situation, I'd have to push. In this situation, I have to win it all to win anything. So I don't think folding into a short-stacked heads-up matchup is the best possible use of AA."

With chip stacks of 3900-3900-200, I definitely play AA in a winner-take all situation, but I would fold it if the payouts were 50-30-20.

If I fold, I'm basically guaranteed second, for a payout of 30. In practice, it's maybe a bit lower because of the chance the other two players chop.

If I call and win, I get 600. It's still almost worthless in heads-up play if the opponent has any clue what he's doing. My EV in that case is about 31.7, if you assume we're equal heads-up players. But if I lose, I get 20. So you'd need a better than 85% chance of beating two opponents to make that call worthwhile, and AA doesn't have that (no matter what reasonable assumptions you could make about their range of holdings).

[Prickly Pete]

Changing it to 3900-3900-200 does make it right for a fold, but it's still fairly close. By my rough calculations (figuring AA will hold up 70% of the time), the EV of folding is $30.50 and the EV of calling is $28.05.

My only point is that folding AA in this type of tourney is almost never correct (I've never had a situation where I even considered it) and it takes this kind of crazy situation for it to be right.

I'm not badgering as I know you only meant it as an exception. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[DrPhysic]

Since I am not currently playing on Party, I have no comment.

I replied simply to note that I wish I had been bright enough to think up "MadSci". Wonderful Nym.

Doc

[MadSci]

[ QUOTE ]
... Sometimes if you play a much better game than your opposition, taking any edge can often mean passing up the possibility of outplaying players later.

When you consider that so many Party fish have such bad shorthanded games, it is often correct to survive in order to give yourself the best chance to face their weakest game (or perhaps show them your strongest game).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well put. In fact, this seems to be why I do better in sng than elsewhere, because the vast majority of players are EITHER too loose early or too passive late.

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is, if you just plan on playing these qualifiers until you win, then I'd still take any edge because then it becomes more like reloading in a ring game. Survival isn't important because you can always get in another. Sooner or later, if you are getting your money in with the best of it, you will double or triple up and have an even better opportunity to take advantage of the weaknesses I mentioned earlier.

Is it only top two that get paid? I thought third gets another qualifier entry also. Of course I have never played one so I might be wrong.

Regards,
Brad S

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks so much, Brad, the more aggressive strategy makes sense to me now. (And yes, they only pay top 2.)

[MadSci]

[ QUOTE ]
Since I am not currently playing on Party, I have no comment.

I replied simply to note that I wish I had been bright enough to think up "MadSci". Wonderful Nym.

Doc

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks! People say I look (and sometimes think) like a mad scientist. I take it as acompliment. /images/graemlins/cool.gif