Just how tight do you play during the early stages?

[VVildo]

I'll pretty much always raise with AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AK, AQ, AJ in the first few rounds of an SNG. I'll just limp in with any smaller pocket pair (hoping to get a set) or any suited ace (hoping to get a flush). I'm starting to think that this is way too strict of a starting requirement.

According to my calculations (which I have little faith in) my raising hands only make up 4.5% of all possible hands and my limping hands another 6.8%. So all together I only plan to play 11.3% hands, given that there's not a big raise preflop. I figure I really need to win at least one hand before level 5 on Party (100/200 blinds). That's a total of 40 hands. The expected number of playable hands in those rounds is around 4.5. I think this is why I've been getting eaten up by blinds so much lately, I only have four opportunities to win a pot before I get desperate.

I've been thinking of adding suited connectors to my list of starting hands, but I really don't know how to play them. At best I feel like I'm going to be drawing to a low flush or low straight after the flop comes. Even if I do hit 2 pair I'm easily scared out by a large raise.

What do you guys play?

[triplc]

Actually, I'd cross off a few hands from your raising list. AJ is a very dangerous hand against a full table. What do you do if you are reraised? You could try limping in, perhaps, from middle or late position, but I would probably muck AJ more than I play it. I'd also probably limp with AQ.

JJ is another tricky one, because you'll have a lot of players who will call your raise with Ax, and if an A, K, or Q comes on the flop, then you've given up a lot of chips.

Is this at Party, Stars, or elsewhere? At Party, you really can't afford to be raising with any hands other than AA, KK, QQ, AK and maybe AQs. There are too many loose callers out there waiting to bust your JJ, TT, etc.

I agree with limping with little pairs, because if you only hit one in an SnG before you bust out, you are likely to win a big pot with it.

Suited connectors I only like if they are in late position, with a few others in the pot, and preferable JT or higher...maybe 9T or 89, but nothing lower and only limping in.

Take a look at AleoMagus's post about Party 10+1 SnGs. If you are playing there, and at that level, then I think it offers a pretty good guideline, although I don't follow it to the letter.

CCC

[heyrocker]

I tend to take a different approach than triplc and other posters here. I will limp in the first 2-3 rounds with virtually anything promising - the later in position and the more people in the hand the looser my requirements get. On the flip side I will raise with almost nothing, I'm actually more likely to raise with something like TT or JJ than I am KK or AA. For one bet I will play any pocket pair, any suited connector, any suited ace or king, any connected high cards. What I am really looking to do is flop trips or better and double up early, not too tough since most of the time you get one of those hands in the first couple rounds some maniac will set himself right up for you. I feel that in an atmosphere like Party or Paradise playing the grind it out strategy is counter-productive. You never come in tenth, but your losses take a lot longer. I, personally, would rather double up early or get on with the next one. There was a poll a while back with the question "if you had the option to start 2/3 of your tourneys with double your money and one less opponent and in the other 1/3 take tenth place, would you do it?" and my response was an enthusiastic yes.

This obviously isn't for everyone, because I seem to be in the small minority playing this way, but in three months on Paradise I've turned $50 into $1500 with 42% moneyed and 35% ROI so it can't be all bad.

[heyrocker]

I should also note, in regards to my previous post, that this strategy is really only effective on the sites where you start with less and the blinds go up quickly IE Paradise and Party. If you tried using this strategy on Stars you would (as I have in the past) get creamed. I think this is why most people on the board have migrated to Stars, it rewards the patient game, and as you have noted the patient game gets murdered at the other sites. This just underscores how situational all this, and that you should be ready to adjust your strategy to your specific situation.

[bernie]

Sometimes ill limp with alot of stuff if im able to. Other times i've put my seat on 'sit out' and go take a shower. When i come back, the blinds are up maybe 2 levels and i've only lost maybe 50 chips out of my 1000. One time i came out of the shower and there was only 5 players left and 2 small stacks.

b

[*Ryan_21*]

I play it pretty much the same way untill about level 4. You say your hands that you're playing equal 11.3%, but I think you are forgeting times when you get in on the big blind free. Those times add up, espesially on a place like Party, where its so passive. I see no problem with adding suited connectors, I limp in with them to, but only in late position and only if its the minimum to call. Basically my strategy in the first 3 rounds is to try and break someone, without putting myself in danger of going broke. So, I limp in a lot and try to hit big flops. It really doesnt matter what happens in rounds 1-3 (unless you go broke) round 4 and on is when the blinds start to get significant. Then when I come in, Im not limping anymore Im raising when Im first in and since the blinds are bigger Im limping less with suited connectors and small pairs up front.

Ryan_21

[David BB]

[ QUOTE ]
I should also note, in regards to my previous post, that this strategy is really only effective on the sites where you start with less and the blinds go up quickly IE Paradise and Party. If you tried using this strategy on Stars you would (as I have in the past) get creamed. I think this is why most people on the board have migrated to Stars, it rewards the patient game, and as you have noted the patient game gets murdered at the other sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make sense to me. Why do you think playing connectors etc. early is better at sites where you have much worse implied odds?

[heyrocker]

The point is that when you start with less money and the blinds go up faster (Paradise and Party), you are under more pressure to double up early whereas when you start with more money and the blinds go up more slowly (Stars) you can take more time to choose your battles and wait for the premium hand.

Player base is also a part of this. You have way BETTER implied odds playing those hands at Party and Paradise because you are getting so many more limpers, and because when you hit you are very likely to get paid off in a big way. This is not true on Stars where you have a far more patient and tight player base that is far less likely to pay you off when you hit a monster and far less likely to provide the large base of limpers you want to see when you hold a hand like TJs.

[David BB]

I disagree completely, theres no pressure to double up at all! It is very possible to get a decent stack on the bubble without ever winning a showdown. Maybe your need to double up comes from you wasting your chips away playing too many marginal hands? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[heyrocker]

Well obviously a lot of this is style and how you prefer to play. I mean, I can't be "wrong" because I've been pretty successful (I know you didn't say that I was wrong.)

I moved into this style of play after seeing two things happen enough on Paradise that they bothered me.

1) I would play very tight until say round 4 or 5 (30/60 and 50/100 respectively.) Now I have a stack of say 800-900, the table has 5-6 people, and I'm facing 2-3 stacks of 2K-3K belonging to people who have doubled through kicking out the 4 or 5 that are gone, because people who die early on tend to do so going all in with their whole stack on one hand. Nobody likes this position (although I can win and have many times won here, its no fun which is where this thread started.)

2) In an attempt to get away from the above happening, I would play agressively in the early rounds with solid hands trying to slowly build my stack to a decent level. This never worked either though, because you are always getting enough callers that almost any hand is an underdog going into the flop. If I have AKs and its 5/10 and I push out 100 I'm getting five callers. This is no good either. Flop comes rags and who knows what is going on. Or even flop comes A96 and you're facing A9, or A6, or evern 69 suited. I have seen all these and worse.

So my style of play is an attempt to counteract both of these situations. It focuses on POST flop hands and play, because preflop anyone will come in with anything and its impossible to do anything meaningful. People in these SNGs will also very often severely overplay mediocre hands, which allows you a very good payoff when you hit something. It also focuses on getting a very large stack quickly or getting into another SNG quickly, rather than scratching and clawing to come in fourth (another situation I absolutely despise.)

So I play a lot of hands cheap early, and sometimes I still find myself shortstacked towards the middle, which is fine. I can play from there, I just would rather not. It works well for me and like I said its only how I play these particular games. Anyone who has been with me in a 2+2 SNG will know its a much different story there.

[thrillhouse]

[ QUOTE ]
I tend to take a different approach than triplc and other posters here. I will limp in the first 2-3 rounds with virtually anything promising - the later in position and the more people in the hand the looser my requirements get. On the flip side I will raise with almost nothing, I'm actually more likely to raise with something like TT or JJ than I am KK or AA. For one bet I will play any pocket pair, any suited connector, any suited ace or king, any connected high cards. What I am really looking to do is flop trips or better and double up early, not too tough since most of the time you get one of those hands in the first couple rounds some maniac will set himself right up for you. I feel that in an atmosphere like Party or Paradise playing the grind it out strategy is counter-productive. You never come in tenth, but your losses take a lot longer. I, personally, would rather double up early or get on with the next one. There was a poll a while back with the question "if you had the option to start 2/3 of your tourneys with double your money and one less opponent and in the other 1/3 take tenth place, would you do it?" and my response was an enthusiastic yes.

This obviously isn't for everyone, because I seem to be in the small minority playing this way, but in three months on Paradise I've turned $50 into $1500 with 42% moneyed and 35% ROI so it can't be all bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a similar style to HeyRocker and it also seems to work. I think that in the early rounds (for me on Party, mostly the 1st round, sometimes the 2nd also), that if you can get in cheap (limp) with drawing hands (suited connectors, Ax suited, and Kx suited) its worth doing. My thought process now turns to what I want to see with my cards, if I see a flop I like I play, if not I'll fold right away. I believe this method gives good implied odds in the early rounds where I'm preying off of my opponents mistakes.

However, I believe when you have a premium hands, you must raise a decent amount to get anyone who may be doing what I am out of the pot. Then when I see rags on the flop I can play much more safely. The size of the raise depends on how many limpers I have and my position.

I would love to hear any comments on how people think I play, because I feel like I am in the minority here too on this strategy. Of course I haven't mentioned how I change the strategy to deal with the Gap Concept, but I can tell you its really neat.
Peace Thillho out

[aces_full]

[ QUOTE ]
I tend to take a different approach than triplc and other posters here. I will limp in the first 2-3 rounds with virtually anything promising - the later in position and the more people in the hand the looser my requirements get. On the flip side I will raise with almost nothing, I'm actually more likely to raise with something like TT or JJ than I am KK or AA. For one bet I will play any pocket pair, any suited connector, any suited ace or king, any connected high cards. What I am really looking to do is flop trips or better and double up early, not too tough since most of the time you get one of those hands in the first couple rounds some maniac will set himself right up for you. I feel that in an atmosphere like Party or Paradise playing the grind it out strategy is counter-productive. You never come in tenth, but your losses take a lot longer. I, personally, would rather double up early or get on with the next one. There was a poll a while back with the question "if you had the option to start 2/3 of your tourneys with double your money and one less opponent and in the other 1/3 take tenth place, would you do it?" and my response was an enthusiastic yes.

This obviously isn't for everyone, because I seem to be in the small minority playing this way, but in three months on Paradise I've turned $50 into $1500 with 42% moneyed and 35% ROI so it can't be all bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

I play only at Paradise and in the $5 tournaments mostly. I'm right there with you on that strategy. I will play almost anything within reason in the early rounds. I find that I am a better player than the majority of my opponents, and if I double up early, I can literally coast to the money. I started loosening up after reading Super System. The part where he talks about "picking up" small pots and gambling with big pots is what I have adapted to my strategy. I have found that in NL in general my biggest winnings come from hitting draw hands and setting up a sucker to be doubled through.

Last week I came across the site winningonlinepoker.com and they have a strategy tailored to single table tournaments. Personally I think their strategy sucks and is wrong. They say that early in a SNG (8-10) players, you should play tight, tighter, tightest. Well I figure these people have a website, and they probably know more about poker than me, so I'll give it a try. It didn't work. If you play this way, in the words of Doyle Brunson, "You're gonna go like Broomcorn's uncle!". The idea of saving chips to outplay your opponents later is hogwash in my opinion. Playing this way gets me busted out right outside of the money. The best time to accumulate chips is when the price of admission is cheap. The problem as I see it is this, say the tournament gets down to 7 when the blinds are 30/60. The blinds go up to 50/100 and you don't get any good hands in the blinds. Now you find yourself UTG with AA. At this point, all your chips are going to the middle whether you like it or not. Common practice says raise 3-5xBB with this hand. Problem is that now half your stack is already in the middle before any cards fall, and the other half is soon to follow. Now against good players, that's not all bad. The big stack isn't going to call you down with the J /images/graemlins/club.gifT /images/graemlins/club.gif because he thinks it's his duty to eliminate you. In the $5 tournamnets, the big stacks are usually idiot gamblers who got lucky and doubled up early. Now that they have a big stack they play even worse. My observation is that they are not intimidated by any stacks smaller than theirs, and when you don't even have enough money to play a hand to the end, you are often screwed, regardless of your starting hand. One or two lost pots, and you are broke, out in 4th place, and really there's no difference between 4th and 10th- a loser is a loser is a loser, and we all know that.

However, and this is a big however, is that my strategy is situational. The real way to win tournaments is the ability to change gears, and to do it in a hurry. You have to play as tight or as loose as the situation dictates. Playing tight, tighter, tightest does have it's benefits. It is mandatory to play that way when your opponents are insane. If the average pre-flop bet is 100 chips in the first round, and players are going all-in at the drop of a hat, then it's better to sit back and wait for a few of them to self destruct before getting involved in too many pots.

[aces_full]

Major major point here. On sites where the blinds go up quickly, it almost dictates a more gambling style of play. In that respect, the maniac strategy is not far from correct in the early rounds of these events. What keeps the maniacs losers is they don't know how to retain their chip lead to the end. Since they don't fear going broke, they invest large amounts of chips on poor hands. Do this a few times, and they get broke.

If I double up early, I usually play very tight from then on until the blinds get big and a few players have been knocked out.

[funkymunkey]

I'm curious; what do the people who play tight think of this strategy? For instance, those who play in accordance to AleoMagus's recent Winning the Party $10+1 thread (or nearly in accordance), what do you think of this?

[AleoMagus]

I think it is possible to win this way

If you aren't a winner right now though, I think it will cost you a lot of money to learn to win this way

I also think that playing this way is not simple, and as such - more likely to be affected by a bad mindset. I'll bet that people who play this way experience some real bad streaks when they start tilting.

I also think that playing some of the suggested hands in a sng with poor structure is definitely wrong.

Limping with A6s (for example) is going to lose you a lot of money. You will end up with a flush about 1/30. If you pair your ace, you are likely to lose chips if you can't get away from it. Why would anyone want to invest more than 1/30 of their stack on such foolishness. This is to say nothing of the times that you will flop a four flush and waste chips drawing after it - to miss.

The first post of this thread actually indicates raising with AJ from all positions in the early rounds. Do I need to spell out the dangers there?

I think that you need to learn to play tight before you can start trying to loosen up. I think that new players will give themselves a lot more chance to learn by starting tight than by listening to this thread.

And while I do not think that winning players who play loose early are playing 'wrong', I would suggest that some of the reasoning being employed in their justification of this style is patently wrong.

Just my opinion (albeit one shared by all the winning players I actually know are winning)

Regards,
Brad S

[heyrocker]

I actually agree with everything Aleo said here. I also probably exaggerated a bit. I'm not limping with JQo or A6s every time it comes in front of me. And sometimes I am raising with other hands. It does however generally describe my attitude towards these events in general which is see a lot of promising hands cheaply when there's lots of company (IE all the time) and take advantage of the fish who will jump right into your boat. I really just wanted to show there are viable alternatives to the general "play super tight early, get agressive later" strategy and that people should think about it.

One thing I will say about playing this way is that when things don't work out, or say they work out but not as well as you hoped (low two pair, top pair weak kicker) then there is definitely a lot of thinking on your feet and judgment involved, but dealing with these situations is also a great learning experience whether you just dump them or try to make a move on someone or whatever.

[David BB]

[ QUOTE ]
Well obviously a lot of this is style and how you prefer to play. I mean, I can't be "wrong" because I've been pretty successful (I know you didn't say that I was wrong.)

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no doubt you're a great player and if my last post was a bit offensive I'm sorry - I meant it as a joke (although there might be some truth to it!).

I'm sure you realize that just because one strategy works it doesn't mean a different one won't work better.

The most important thing for me during the first 3-4 levels is just making it to the shorthanded game alive. This is because I have a far greater edge at that point, even if I'm somewhat shortstacked. When I get there I'm not looking to play passively and just cruise into the money, this is where I open up and start building my stack with minimal risk.


[ QUOTE ]
It also focuses on getting a very large stack quickly or getting into another SNG quickly, rather than scratching and clawing to come in fourth (another situation I absolutely despise.)

[/ QUOTE ]
In tournaments the chips you lose are worth more than the chips you win. Thats why survival is important.

I think its possible to achieve a significantly higher % in the money and ROI than you're getting by playing loose early. However you may end up making the same $/hour because, as you say, you often double up quickly or move on - but at least your results should be more streaky playing this way.


[ QUOTE ]
Major major point here. On sites where the blinds go up quickly, it almost dictates a more gambling style of play. In that respect, the maniac strategy is not far from correct in the early rounds of these events. What keeps the maniacs losers is they don't know how to retain their chip lead to the end.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is dangerous thinking in my oppinion /images/graemlins/smile.gif What keeps the maniacs losers is the fact that 8 out of 10 times they're one of the first to bust out of the SNG. Maniacs who get a big stack early have gotten lucky, thats all. We on the other hand try not to rely on luck! /images/graemlins/smile.gif


[ QUOTE ]
And while I do not think that winning players who play loose early are playing 'wrong', I would suggest that some of the reasoning being employed in their justification of this style is patently wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
My point exactly!

[aces_full]

I have to disagree. Certainly I would never suggest that any two cards are playable. You have to have starting cards that can make something, and the more money you invest in the hand, it better be the nuts. What I'm really talking about is drawing hands and small pairs. I will limp with low suited connectors and small pairs if the situation is right. That means in late position in an unraised pot where the chance is good that there won't be a raise behind me. Hands like AJ KJ KT AT and the like are still not very good hands, playable maybe on the button in an unraised pot.

The key is playing these hands after the flop. If I don't hit at least two pair, I'm going to check with the intention of folding. My action on the flop depends on the strength of my hand, as well as the situation. Needless to say if I catch a big hand at some point my goal is to get somebody to put all their chips in the middle, and believe me, in these tournaments, some gambler who has TP/TK against my straight probably won't hesitate to call. You have to be able to get people all in once in a while to make these types of plays work because they thrive on implied odds-you double through an opponent for one BB pre-flop. The other important point is that you need to pick up small pots. Taking advantage of blind stealing opportunities and making steal bets from the button on small pots are ways to get some chips that will allow you to play more drawing hands without risking your initial stack. Don't get me wrong, I'm still playing tight, voluntarily entering 20-23% of the pots, certainly not playing every hand.

[Slacker13]

In a no-rebuy situation I think your playing it correct. Though my favorite cards are the cards you don't play, suited connectors. I do like to put in some small raises early with suited connectors or small pairs and i hope to show them down just to put into peoples minds that I am capable of raising with anything. In the early stages you should be setting an image and trying to pull down a monster while only risking a small portion of your chips. But, for the most part you should be playing tight early. I can't count how many times I have been in the later part of stage 2 and there may be only 5-7 players left. It's ok to sit back and let the knuckleheads knock themselves out, you can't play aggressively or trcky anyway against a player who will play any two cards. But once we are shorthanded and the blinds are worth winning then I get very aggressive.