Beating the Party 10+1, Part 2

[benfranklin]

Recently, AleoMagus started a thread on this forum about the strategy to beat the 10+1 SnG's at party. Many other forum members contributed to what I thought was an excellent seminar on basic SnG strategy. I summarized that thread in outline form, and AleoMagus took the time to review and comment on my work. We present it here for your further review and comments.

PRE-FLOP STRATEGY

LEVELS 1-3

EARLY POSITION (Seats 1-7), play only a pair or AK 1. With JJ or lower, limp in.
--for tighter play, fold 66 or lower.
--for more aggressive play, limp only on Level 1; after that, raise or fold with 77 or better
--If re-raised up to 3BBs, call2. Open-raise 3BBs with AA, KK, QQ, AK; more if several limpers
--for more aggressive play, bet 200-300. When playing aggressively, you need to be prepared to also play the flop aggressively as you are investing more of your stack.
--If re-raised, go all-in (OK to raise all-in with AKo, AKs, but don’t call an all-in with it unless significant portion of stack already invested and one opponent only)

LATE POSITION
1. Raise at least 3BBs with 77 or better, 200-300 for more aggressiveness (limping with 77-JJ is always a good option)
2. also limp in with AQs, AQ, AJs, ATs, KQs, QJs, JTs if there are calls ahead of you, raise if there are not.
--Fold if reraised.
--AQs is marginal in early position but strong later
3. On the button, limping with hands like T9s, 98s, 87s, AJ, and KQ is an option, but requires experience.

Early rounds: AJo, KQo, ATo, KJo, QJo, JTo (and worse) are generally big trouble.

LEVELS 4-6
Open-raise (at least 3BBs, more if limpers ahead of you) from all positions with:
1. 77-AA, AK, AQ
2. AKs-ATs, KQs-KJs, QJs, JTs

LATE POSITION
Raise with KTs, QTs, KQ, AJ, if you are first in the pot
Raise with 2 cards J-A, T9s, 98s, or 87s if you have a good stack, LP, and no raisers already in pot.
Limp if there are already lots of limpers

DOWN TO 4 PLAYERS
Never enter a raised pot without AA, KK, QQ, AK unless raiser has ½ your stack or less.
If a small raise to you, go all-in with these hands and call with a few others (AQ, JJ, TT,)
-experienced players can enter pots with less, but good judgment is necessary
-If short stacked on bubble, you want to be first in the pot; bet big or all-in
-If shortstacked, push (if first in) with Axs, A7+, pairs
-When calling down shortstack all-ins, you want to have AT-AK and pairs 77-AA.
-If shortstack has 2BB or less, it is worth calling from BB with almost anything
-When playing with a huge stack, be careful of other huge stacks even with AK, KQs, JJ, etc….

General Prefop Considerations
-When calling a raise, you need a better hand than you needed to raise in the first place
-When a raise has already been called, you need an even better hand
-When in the small blind, you can limp with slightly worse hands than normal
-When calling min raises once already in for one bet, almost any calling hand is still playable


ON THE FLOP

EARLY STAGES
On the flop, raise the amount of the pot with the following, otherwise fold:
1. top pair with a good kicker
2. 2 pair (no pair on board), set, or boat
3. 4 flush with overcards or other possibilities (bottom/middle pairs, straight draws, etc…)
4. open-ended straight with lots of outs (3-flush, 2 overcards, etc.)

Open ended straights are highly overrated.

Play drawing hands aggressively (you need to have good stack to play a draw)
1. best to act last: bet the pot
2. consider semi-bluff in LP
3. if bet to you on flop is ½ the pot or less, raise to size of pot if you have large stack
--If re-raised, fold Do not slowplay monster hands, especially when draws are on the board.

Post-flop, all bets should be size of pot.
If any recommended bet (3BBs, pot, etc.) is 40% or more of stack, go all-in.

LATE STAGES
If short stacked, Level 5 and later, go all in or fold.
--Play only with pocket pairs, AK-AT, or KQs
--On button, aim to steal about 25% of blinds with hands like A7s-A9s, KTs-KJs.
--Play very tight with 4 left, much looser when in money.
--Don’t worry about second place: gamble for 1st, settle for 3rd.
--Don’t worry about attacking the short stacks. Quickly increasing blinds and their own loose play will take them out.
--With three players left, any piece of the flop becomes valuable. Do not be afraid to bet middle pairs if there is no reason to believe opponent has stronger hand. If there is a raise preflop and an ace or king comes on flop play cautiously

TURN AND RIVER
--The turn and river should be more easily played. The flop is where your most crucial decisions are made
--When you think you are beaten on the river, a fold to a small bet is usually a mistake unless you have no hand at all

GENERAL STRATEGY
-Top pair, top kicker is usually considered risky in NL, but Party’s structure forces aggressive play.
-Experienced players; if flop is rags and pot not raised ahead of you preflop, bet the pot.-AKo, AKs are good for an all-in bet, but not to call an all-in. AK or AKs all-in bets work best pre-flop so hand has full board to work with.
-If any recommended bet is 40% or more of your stack, go all-in.
-When holding middle pair, if flop is checked all around and turn brings no scare cards (3-flush on board, 3 straight on board, cards higher than your middle pair, etc…) play that pair aggressively on the turn. When raised, be prepared to abandon if you suspect a trap.
-Anytime you are prepared to check and call, it is better to bet in the first place-If you do decide to expand your play to include more creativity, this plan is tilt protection should you need to fall back on more straightforward play in rocky times.
-Anytime you get a bad beat, simply say “nh” or “gg” as the case may be

[AleoMagus]

here is a nice Word document version of this I came up with. It gets it nicely on one page for printing.

Beating the party $10+1 doc (http://www.aleomagus.freeservers.com/strategy)

Any comments would be appreciated as I have no doubt many successful players play very differently than this.

Regards,
Brad S

[VarlosZ]

I think that's generally very good advice. I play slightly looser preflop (because I'm confident I can stay out of trouble), but otherwise that's pretty close to how I play.

My only real gripe is that you have people open raising with 77-99 in the middle stages. Say you have T1,000 in level 4 (50/100); while it's important to steal the blinds when they go up, I would question the wisdom of putting in 300 with 77 in early position against low stakes PartyPoker players, who are notorious for making bad calls. In that case, shouldn't you revert to standard strategy for 77 (limp and hope for set), and raise all-in with it when you get short-stacked?

If you disagree, I'd be interested in your reasoning.


Regards,
Jer

[AleoMagus]

Yes, I think you are right.

I would usually not raise with 77-99 in early position on level 4. I might push with it if I had less than 800 chips but I doubt I'd raise 30% of my stack. This is true also of JTs, QJs.

I guess a good solution would just be to say:

In early position, push with 77-99 if shortstacked,
limp (or raise?)if stack is large,
pass if stack is around 8-12x BB.'

Similar advice would hold for JTs and QJs, but I don't like the idea of pushing shortstacked with less than a PP, Suited ace, or big king/Ace.

In late positions I'd definitely open raise 3xBB with these hands (or push if necessary)

Thanks.
Brad S

[TheBull]

I've been lurking here for months, but had to register and thank you for these guidelines.

It really helped plug some leaks in my PP play. I deviate from it slightly, but it's been a tremendous help to my bottom line.

Thanks again!

[Phil Van Sexton]

[ QUOTE ]
DOWN TO 4 PLAYERS Never enter a raised pot without AA, KK, QQ, AK unless raiser has ½ your stack or less.
If a small raise to you, go all-in with these hands and call with a few others (AQ, JJ, TT,)

[/ QUOTE ]

This is seems dangerous if taken literally. If raised, you would fold 90% of the time.

With high blinds and a 4-handed game, you would be guarenteed to lose to anyone who raised often but folded if reraised.

Does this apply only if you are not in the blinds? If so, that would mean this only applies when you are on the button in a 4 handed game. That's fine, but what do recommend if you are in the blinds?

[NotMitch]

I play a lot tighter than this but I agree with a lot of what you are saying and this is good guide. However players should be very careful with this piece of advice.

"-If shortstacked, push (if first in) with Axs, A7+, pairs"

When shortstacked you do need to push with these hands but since most of the time when you are called it will be by Ax a lot of the time you will be dominated. I would much rather push with KJo than A4s in most spots.

[AleoMagus]

How small an ace would you push with?

Perhaps I could just say A7+ and leave it at that? (that's probably all I want personally)

Bigger yet? A9+?

How big would you want a king to be in order to push in these situations?

Regards
Brad S

[fishhead]

What are everyone's thoughts about Axs? In a passive game, I limp with Axs almost all of the time, but maybe this is a big leak for me. The problem is that I limp with Axs, flop four to a flush and end up folding to an all-in raise. Is this too tight weak or should I not even limp with Axs in passive games?

(For background, I play in home SNGs with $60 buyins and blind structures fairly similar to Party.)

Any help on this would be great. Thanks!

[AleoMagus]

You make a good point about this only really applying to it's full extent on the button - and there it makes less sense anyways because you have the best position.

This has been the point which has received more criticism than any other and I am struggling with it a lot. Bubble play is hard and I could probably make a whole strategy guide on this subject alone.

I wanted to make a simple rule but I think it is gonna have to get more complex than that

I don't think that folding to 90% of the raises you get from Big stacks is terribly bad though. After all, you will not always get raised. You will often be the first one in and in Party 10+1, you will even see limpers.

Also, I made the important caveat that this only applies with players who have more than 1/2 your stack. Obviously if you have 2000 chips and the small stack raises the 200 BB with his last 600, you don't want to be letting go of 99.

Still, in the big blind slightly more liberal play might apply as you suggest. I was going to type a guideline here myself, but I'll throw it back at you

How will you play the bubble? Anyone?

Regards
Brad S

[AleoMagus]

Personally, I will never play Axs anywhere at any stage less than the final 3.

It just doesn't make any sense to in my opinion. Not with Party's structure anyways

It's 30-1 against making your flush (and chasing a paired ace is just gonna hurt you). At almost no stage is anyone's stack much more than 30x the BB so even if you do manage to bust someone, you are not getting very good return for you risk.

The worst thing that can happen is that you catch a flush draw because you are still 2-1 against making it, and you are bound to flush a lot of money down the drain with a nut flush draw. They look so promising, but they are really not.

If you absolutely can't let go of Axs, try to at least play it in the last 2 or 3 positions. Then you can probably at least outplay your opponents with it on the flop (free cards, semi bluffs, checked aces tell you that you might have the only ace, etc...)

Me, I'm just not playing them (...maybe A9s on the button...And A /images/graemlins/club.gif3 /images/graemlins/club.gif of course /images/graemlins/smirk.gif which I seem to have no willpower to let go of)

Regards
Brad S

[NotMitch]

Depends on the size of my stack and how likely I am to get called really (yeah I know like that helped). I need to do some thinking on the specifics but I will post my thoughts on it later, but if I am short enough to push with any ace I will push with any king as well. But for the guide I think A7+ is fine and feels about right.

[OPJayhawk]

I play the $10 SnG's too and have been doing pretty well.

I do pretty well with AK. My normal play with this hand if its in the early rounds is to hit it with a raise or open for $125 or $150.

I almost always get one caller. Very rarely do I get 2 callers and very rarely do I get zero callers although it does happen.

80% plus of the time regardless of the flop I come in for 200-250. Most of the time probably 80% plus the person you have isolated down to will lay down now.

If this doesnt work alot of times I will hit them again on 4th street for another $200 and again you will get a fair number of people who lay down here.

I like to give people opportunties to lay down and most of the time they will take one.

One other factor that I think really helps is just being friendly with people at the table. When it gets down to 4 or 5 and you're all in with a medium stack it just seems people are less likely to call you and would prefer to go after the guy who has been a jerk (if there is one at the table) or the guy who got lucky, or the guy who plays to slow.

I am certainly no expert but there things seem to be working pretty well for me.

OPJayhawk

[AleoMagus]

It's funny you know. The more I look at this guide, the more I loathe the whole concept of a 'guide' to playing poker

I know that it helps many players, but the answer you just gave:

[ QUOTE ]
Depends on the size of my stack and how likely I am to get called really

[/ QUOTE ]

is just too true in too many instances.

Still, I guess we are really only talking about Party 10+1 here so an algorithim for winning play is entirely possible.

Regards
Brad S

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
What are everyone's thoughts about Axs? In a passive game, I limp with Axs almost all of the time. . .

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you can do this as long as: (1) like AleoMagus said, you only do it from around back, and (2) you realize that if all you flop is a lone Ace, you've missed your hand.

[Phil Van Sexton]

[ QUOTE ]
Bubble play is hard and I could probably make a whole strategy guide on this subject alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree, but it would be worth the effort. Getting to the final 4 or 5 is simple. We can argue about how to play 66 at the 10/15 level, but seriously....if you have brain you are going to make the final 5 most of the time.

Once you are in the top 3, the blinds are so high that it really comes down to getting good cards. Other than saying to play aggressively, there's not much to add.

The real question is what to do when there are 4 or 5 left.

If you want know how I play the bubble, here is my plan....
Stealing the Blinds - Once I get to the final 4-5, I will immediately start raising 3xBB when I'm on the button or sb and it was folded to me. I want to figure out ASAP how easy people will give up their blinds. If they keep folding immediately, I'll drop down to 2xBB.

If they reraise, I'll probably call if its small. If I have a premium hand, of course I would move all-in.

I'll bet the flop if it hits me at all or if there's an Ace on the flop (since I raised, they'll think I have an ace). I'll usually bet the same amount as pre-flop (ie 2-3xBB). Most people would always bet the pot, but that's probably a lot of $. Just like pre-flop, you want to bet the minimum that will get them to fold. Most players will call any bet if they hit the flop, and fold to any if they didnt.

I will usually check it down on the turn and river, unless I have a monster. Since they called my bet on the flop, they have something and may well be trapping me.

Protecting the Blinds - I must admit I'm not the best here. I rarely try to protect my SB. I only have 1/2 a bet committed, and the BB is yet to act. It really depends on the raiser. If they keep trying to steal, you should try to reraise and steal their bet and the BB. I might do this with AA-88, AK-A9, KQ-KT, and possibly others if I had enough chips. If successful, this will discourage them from stealing...which will allow you to steal the BB yourself.

If you are in the BB, you cannot allow people to min raise you. If they min-raise, you must re-raise if at all possible. Once they get the message, they will have to bet at least 3xBB.

If I had to summarize....
- Try to steal as cheaply as possible. Try 3xbb right away, then drop to 2xbb if the blinds keep folding.
- Steal with any pair, any A, any 2 cards T or higher, and any suited connector. Add hands like K9, T9o, and occasional garbage if it's working well.
- If you raised pre-flop, bet the same amount on the flop if it hits you at all or an A flops. Then check the turn/river to avoid traps.
- Don't defend too much from SB, but be ready to reraise if people are stealing a lot with small raises and the BB isn't doing anything about it.
- Don't allow people to min-raise your BB. Reraise with any A, K, QJ, QT, JT, pair, or suited connector.
- Try to reraise rather than call. Calling doesnt really discourage blind stealers.
- If you are short stack, just try to get ahead of the other short stacks and stay there. You don't need to double or triple up.

[NotMitch]

[ QUOTE ]
It's funny you know. The more I look at this guide, the more I loathe the whole concept of a 'guide' to playing poker

I know that it helps many players, but the answer you just gave:

[ QUOTE ]
Depends on the size of my stack and how likely I am to get called really

[/ QUOTE ]

is just too true in too many instances.

Still, I guess we are really only talking about Party 10+1 here so an algorithim for winning play is entirely possible.

Regards
Brad S

[/ QUOTE ]


Brad,

Agree 100%. Poker is a game of situations and the outline provided will give a new player a great start towards being a winning player. But when it comes down to short handed play in a SnG it becomes more art than science, and the only way a new player is going to get comfortable in these situations is by playing them over and over.

Regarding the weak aces and pushing here is the reason Im more willing to push with kings sometimes. One of the things that can happen is that the opponent will fold so it doesnt matter what you have so lets ignore that. But when the opponent calls what does he have most of the time? Almost always from what I have seen an ace or a pair.

If he has a pair and you have overcards you are likely to be a small dog so there is really no difference if you hodl Ax or Kx.

If you both have an acesomeone is dominted and the smaller the ace is a huge dog. When pushing with a king you are unlikely to be dominated which means you are likely in a coinflip against hands that will call. The downside of course of pushing with a king is you are unlikely to be called by a hand that is dominated, so you do lose a little there.


Im not saying that Kx is better that Ax but given the range of hands you are likely to be called by a lot of times you are better off with a king. And FWIW I think I would like my kicker to be at least an 8 to get some protection from small pairs that will call. Hope this didn't ramble too much.

[AleoMagus]

I was talking a bit about this recently in a thread started by eastbay. He was running heads up hand rankings but not the usual hand ranking vs Random hand that you usually see

He ran this sim vs what he called the 'push hands'
He originally ran vs Any Ace and any PP

I realized immediately that this had something important to say about calling down shortstacked all-in on the bubble

I suggested he also run rankings vs Any Axs,A7+,PP, and suited broadway cards. They results were similar but slightly different

Generally, the only hands that are a favorite against a random 'push hand' are Pocket pairs 66+, and AT+

What this says about which hands you should actually be pushing with, I'm not sure exactly

I suppose I should get him to run a sim vs what I will call 'call down hands'. These will be exactly the cards he determined to be typical favorites

66+, AT+

Here is the thread I'm talking about if anyone wants to check it out.Personally, I think it is one of the best I've seen on this forum.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=592219&page=&view=&sb =5&o=

So, If eastbay sees this and is gracious enough to answer with some results, maybe we'll get a better idea

Regards,
Brad S

[AleoMagus]

In thinking about this myself, a couple things come to mind.

First, I suspect that the only hands which will have a positive expectation against 66+ and AT+ will be even better than these hands. Probably AQ,AK and TT+

This is not to suggest that we should wait for those hands to push when shortstacked. After all, we are usually hoping to not get called. A huge chunk of profit comes from stealing in these situations.

Still, hands like A4s will probably do much worse against these 'call down hands' than KJ (just as you suggest)

Regards,
Brad S

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
I was talking a bit about this recently in a thread started by eastbay. He was running heads up hand rankings but not the usual hand ranking vs Random hand that you usually see

He ran this sim vs what he called the 'push hands'
He originally ran vs Any Ace and any PP

I realized immediately that this had something important to say about calling down shortstacked all-in on the bubble

I suggested he also run rankings vs Any Axs,A7+,PP, and suited broadway cards. They results were similar but slightly different

Generally, the only hands that are a favorite against a random 'push hand' are Pocket pairs 66+, and AT+

What this says about which hands you should actually be pushing with, I'm not sure exactly

I suppose I should get him to run a sim vs what I will call 'call down hands'. These will be exactly the cards he determined to be typical favorites

66+, AT+

Here is the thread I'm talking about if anyone wants to check it out.Personally, I think it is one of the best I've seen on this forum.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=592219&page=&view=&sb =5&o=

So, If eastbay sees this and is gracious enough to answer with some results, maybe we'll get a better idea

Regards,
Brad S

[/ QUOTE ]

Brad,

You're asking a question I've been thinking about for some time now. Of course, being a math geek I've thought about it in a slightly different way.

The question I wanted to ask was: what happens if you choose a top % of the list, and feed it back into itself? what happens if you keep repeating that process? Does it settle into a stable list, or does it cycle around as hands which do well against the current top move up, and then hands which do well against those move up, etc.

One way to try this is to pick the top% that you want to feed back into the calculation. So let's say you start with the "vs random hand" rankings, then you pick the top half of those, and re-rank according to how well each hand matches up to that select list. Pick the top half again and repeat.

It's something I'll see if I can automate and try soon. I'll post the results in a new thread if I can make it work.

eastbay

[Iceyburnz]

I will definately try this out in my next 10+1 as my SNG results lately havent been to my liking.

[dana33]

[ QUOTE ]

The question I wanted to ask was: what happens if you choose a top % of the list, and feed it back into itself? what happens if you keep repeating that process? Does it settle into a stable list, or does it cycle around as hands which do well against the current top move up, and then hands which do well against those move up, etc.

One way to try this is to pick the top% that you want to feed back into the calculation. So let's say you start with the "vs random hand" rankings, then you pick the top half of those, and re-rank according to how well each hand matches up to that select list. Pick the top half again and repeat.


[/ QUOTE ]

Dammit, eastbay, you keep beating me to the punch! /images/graemlins/smile.gif (But I guess I can't complain, since it was your post which got me thinking about this stuff in the first place.)

I was wondering about the exact same question (but I have been too busy lately to work on my poker code and answer it for myself). I.e., do things converge if you keep re-ranking the hands against the top 50% in the prior iteration? And if they do, what does the final ranking even mean? Is this question just of interest to math geeks, or are there any practical implications?

In a heads-up all-in-or-fold match, I think the right way to think about hand rankings is this:

From the SB, since you are first to act and have no knowledge of what the BB has, you should choose to push with the top X% of hands as ranked against a random hand. From the BB, if your opponent has pushed, you should choose to call with the top Y% of hands as ranked against the hands he would push with. (X and Y will vary depending on the size of the blinds relative to the stacks and your opponent's specific strategy.)

For example, if you know that your opponent pushes with the top 50% of hands (vs a random hand), then you should choose your calling hands according to how they rank against these. If you know he's too tight and only pushes with pairs, then you should rank your calling hands against pairs. And so on.

Does this make sense?

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]

In a heads-up all-in-or-fold match, I think the right way to think about hand rankings is this:

From the SB, since you are first to act and have no knowledge of what the BB has, you should choose to push with the top X% of hands as ranked against a random hand. From the BB, if your opponent has pushed, you should choose to call with the top Y% of hands as ranked against the hands he would push with. (X and Y will vary depending on the size of the blinds relative to the stacks and your opponent's specific strategy.)

For example, if you know that your opponent pushes with the top 50% of hands (vs a random hand), then you should choose your calling hands according to how they rank against these. If you know he's too tight and only pushes with pairs, then you should rank your calling hands against pairs. And so on.

Does this make sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've thought along the same lines, but I'm not convinced it makes sense.

If your opponent folds, he folds, and it doesn't matter what hand you held.

The only times it matters what cards you selected was when he calls. And when he does call, you want to be holding something which does well against his calling hands. His calling hands aren't random. Therefore, pushing against random hands doesn't make sense, I don't think.

eastbay

[dana33]

[ QUOTE ]
If your opponent folds, he folds, and it doesn't matter what hand you held.

The only times it matters what cards you selected was when he calls. And when he does call, you want to be holding something which does well against his calling hands. His calling hands aren't random. Therefore, pushing against random hands doesn't make sense, I don't think.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm... I guess I was confining myself to "level 1" thinking. It seems you could get into an endless cycle of measures and counter-measures here. That is, you will rank your push hands against the hands he will call with. But he knows that, so he will rank his calling hands against the hands you will push with. But you know that he knows that, so you will re-rank your push hands against the hands he will call with based on his previous assessment of the hands you will push with. And so on.

Based on this, I'm all the more interested to see if there is any convergence of this process to a stable or semi-stable set of hand rankings.

[Canine K9]

Wow, this is a very good thread, thank you.

[Pitcher]

Hi Ben Franklin and AleoMagus,

Great summary. This will work at 10+1 and higher levels(certainly 30+3, that play almost exactly like 10+1). It is a good starting point for any level, from what I can see.

The reason for my post is to second AleoMagus' thoughts on Axs. This is a great hand in low limit ring games because you frequently get 2+ callers. In NL, this hand is only playable in two circumstances.
The first circumstance is very early on a very loose passive table. There are not too many of those, but if you find one, this hand has some value.
The second is late where the real value of the hand is the A. Being suited is just a little icing on the cake.

Pitcher

[Pitcher]

Hi Phil Van Sexton,

I like your post on bubble play
The point about stealing the blinds cheaply should be put in highlights. Many players defending their blinds do not differentiate between raise sizes, other than all in. If they play back at you, it is frequently alot easier to back off of a 2x raise than a 3x raise. (of course, that depends on stack size....)
I want to add a bit to this concerning defending the small blind. If you are going to defend your SB, re-raise to at least 3x or at least double the raiser, whichever is larger. The reasoning behind this is to completely discourage the BB from coming into the hand. If this bet takes it down you get their raise and the BB (a substantial pot this late in the tourney!). The value in this case is in this specific hand....although it may help you steal the BB's on future hands. At this point in the tourney, you are mainly playing for this hand because there might not be a future hand to worry about. I would not do this with less than KQ, or A-10 or better (and 88-AA)

Pitcher

Pitcher

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
Most people would always bet the pot, but that's probably a lot of $. Just like pre-flop, you want to bet the minimum that will get them to fold. Most players will call any bet if they hit the flop, and fold to any if they didnt.



[/ QUOTE ]

Man I think this is an EXCELLENT point that you never hear anyone mention. Why bet the size of the pot when you're pretty much trying to steal? A typical player during bubble plaly won't call a 1/2 pot sized bet but fold to a pot sized bet.

There are a lot of times where I'll have like AT or something on the button with 4 players left and the BB that called my PF raise will check to me when the board is 3 ragged undercards. Here I'll be tempted to bet the pot, but I usually stop myself and remind myself that the reason why I'm betting is to get my opponent to fold so I only need to bet the MINIMUM amount that will get this guy to lay it down, anything more and I have made a mistake.

I think pot sized bets are good when you have a strong hand and want to protect or get a loose call. But when you're trying to pick up a heads up raised pot on the flop with 4 or 5 people left and big blinds its usually not necessary, or wise.

What do others think about this? I think the whole "bet the pot" idea is pretty pervasive and I'd imagine a lot of people disagree with this approach.

[willie838]

tried this out yesterday, 3 tourneys, 6th, 4th, and second were my results. don't really blame the guide for them though.

the 6th place was bad luck, i was gettin lowstacked from sittin tight until the end, hole cards are 99 so i go all in from early, BB calls with AA.

4th place was an idiotic play by me which i deserved to lose on. free play from BB, flop top pair 8 with jack kicker. lose to a set.

2nd place, eh i shoulda took down first but i took a tough one headsup. hole cards AK. guy raised into me, i go all in. he calls Q7. i'm ahead on the flop kings vs queens, but he hits runner 7s to bust me with a boat.



i'm gonna keep tryin to use this because it did seem pretty effective, but i'll mix in some of my own play (hopefully smarter than my 4th place finish f up). seems pretty good so far.

[jakoye]

I'm trying to understand what exactly your betting pattern is. Are you saying that you make a pot-sized bet when you have the goods and a 1/2 pot-sized bet or 3xBB bet when you don't? Wouldn't that make your hand fairly readable to your opponents?

The advantage to always making a pot-sized bet is that it will be large enough that if someone raises you or even if they just call, you are likely beaten. Also, raising the same amount each time disguises your hand: your opponents will never know when you're bluffing and when your really have it.

But I am intrigued by your point about how you should only bet the "minimum" amount needed to get your opponents to fold. I'm just not sure that's wise because of the danger of giving away too much information about your hand. Of course, you could randomize your bets between two levels, I suppose, but that seems like a bit of work. Poker's already tough enough! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[blackaces13]

I'm saying I would usually only bet this amount when its bubble/steal time for the most part. However, this is also usually the time when I'm doing the most bluffing.

Hopefully in any single SNG I haven't played nearly enough hands for my opponents to have a read on my betting patterns. Also, and I think this is important, since the few flop bets I've probably made to this point have been pot sized (or larger) what does an opponent make of a now 1/2 pot sized bet?

It is easy to assume that he would sense it as a weakness, but it could just as easily be interpreted as strength and me trying to "sell" my hand. Add to this the fact that I still believe that a 1/2 pot sized bet (which is still fairly large at the Party level 4 or above) will still almost never be called unless I am behind and still provides me with valuable info for 50% off and it seems to me to be the superior play.

I'm not saying that this is the way to go but I'd like to hear arguments against it which take into account the fact that it is Party 10+1 and most opponents are fairly obvious and not very observant.

[jakoye]

I tried this last night and it seemed to work out for me. Of course it was only two tables, so no broad picture can be painted here. But, like you said, the pots are so big as the blinds rise, it doesn't seem to make much sense to be throwing 500 chips in a blind steal attempt when you could throw 250 and get the same result.

The question is, do you actually get the same result as you would if you had made a pot-sized bet? Are you more likely to get calls or reraises with a 1/2 pot-sized bet? Not sure if there are answers for those questions besides looking at your end results using this strategy and comparing them with your results using the pot-sized bet strategy.

I'm gonna keep trying it and I'll let you know where it takes me.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
It's 30-1 against making your flush (and chasing a paired ace is just gonna hurt you). At almost no stage is anyone's stack much more than 30x the BB so even if you do manage to bust someone, you are not getting very good return for you risk.

[/ QUOTE ]

You must mean on the flop, the odds of making a flush by the river are 10-1.


[ QUOTE ]
The worst thing that can happen is that you catch a flush draw because you are still 2-1 against making it, and you are bound to flush a lot of money down the drain with a nut flush draw. They look so promising, but they are really not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will have to respectfully agree to disagree, to me it depends on how many people are in the pot with you, if it's early on and you have 4 or 5 to the flop, you can stick 100 or so in, and easily get 2 callers (depending on the board). The players I've seen are only to happy to give their stacks away with a worse flush or top pair even.

Regards ML

[papa smurf]

Aleo, what is your win rate on 10+1's.
And why bet the pot with a monster hand ? is this only because of the type of players at PP ?

[AleoMagus]

With a (huge) monster hand I might not be inclined to actually bet the pot, but with hands like top pair I always bet close to the amount in the pot or more if I figure I have the best hand.

The reason that players tend to bet the pot on the flop is becasue you do not want to give any draws the correct odds to call, and betting the pot will usually do this. Technically, you could determine a more appropriate betting amount based upon any given board and what kinds of draws there are out there but the pot size tends to be a rough and ready answer that is usually correct if you figure yourself for the best hand.

Mike Caro has a good (free) audio lecture on Cardplayer.com about why he thinks players shouldn't bet the pot in big bet hold'em. It is worth listening to. Still, I think while he might be right about ring games, in tourneys survival is key and I just don't want a call with a vulnerable hand.

The reason why you should not check monster hands is that the most likely hands which are going to pay you off are draws of one kind or another and you want to make them pay while they still have hope and unseen cards to come. If you give them a free turn (for example), they will be less inclined to call a bet with only one card yet to come. Furthermore, as the pot gets bigger, players are less and less likely to get away from a hand and if you know that you have a lock, you want to gradually build the pot so that they become committed for all of their chips by the end (or a significant portion anyways)

These answers are (as ever) 'it depends' answers but should suffice as a basic explanation anyways.

My win rate at PP 10+1 after my last 200ish is about
~45% in the money
~19% 1st
~8% 2nd
~18% 3rd

for an ROI of just over 41% and about $4.50/t

My results are largely contingent on how much I play. I was playing 200+ each month at one point and was getting worse results and played less than 50/mo prior to that and was getting better results.

Keep in mind however that the strategy laid out in this thread in NOT how I acheived these results. I do play similar to this (especially in the early rounds) but on the bubble my play is a lot more complicated to describe and very dependent on a lot of other factors.

Followed close to the letter, I suspect that this strategy would be about break even or a small winner. You'd still need some prior ability to not make big mistakes on the bubble though.

Regards
Brad S

[AleoMagus]

Yeah, 30-1 is off, but I think we are both wrong about the odds

If you are dealt and two suited cards, the odds of: flopping a flush is 118-1
Flopping a four flush is 8.14-1

If you flop a 4 flush, the odds of completing that flush by the river are 1.86-1

this means that from preflop to river your chances of turning Axs into a flush are about 15-1 against.

A lot better than my first statement, but still not good in my opinion. I know a lot of people play draws like these and I know some even do it profitably, but I think it takes good judgement and you need big multi-way pots and position to make it worthwhile.

Regards
Brad S

[Wynton]

I just saw this thread, which is excellent, but had one question: does the logic here apply equally to the 1-table sitngo tournaments at pokerstars, which I understand starts with more chips and might progress more slowly?

I ask because I play tournaments exclusively at pokerstars, and have never tried party.

[AleoMagus]

I guess it depends

This guide is intended not to describe optimal play, but more to keep players out of trouble while making small profits relatively easy.

So, I'd say yeah... if you use this kind of plan at the pokerstars 5+.50 and maybe even at the 10+1, it might make a weak player better. Interestingly, the original recipient of this plan (when I first devised it) is still struggling at Party, but has since become a fairly long term winner at the small buy-in stars tourneys.

The fact is though, with stars structure, I would personally be playing more hands in the early rounds as you can afford to play hands that might pay off big. Hands like 87s which I would usually toss even in late position on Party's 10+1, I will certainly play on Stars. This has a lot to do with implied odds. With the deeper stacks on stars, I can make my hand and bust another player for 100x the cost of limping in. On party, I'm looking at little more than half that and I am already close to shortstacked which means I don't want to be playing speculative hands anyways. Add to this the fact that I will see a lot more hands each round and it means that you can afford to actually 'play poker' more.

Similarly, on stars early, if I flop a four flush and the stacks are still deep relative to the blinds, it's possible that calling a pot sized bet will only cost 45-60 chips. Out of a stack of 1500, I might decide to call if it is this cheap. I know I am not getting proper odds on this call, but if the flop is consistent with a player who will bust himself if I make my hand, those implied odds are too good to pass up. On party, I'm looking at much less payoff for these kinds of gambles and I'll avoid drawing hands a lot more.

Another big and important change would be your own willingness to get all-in with good, but not huge hands. On party, it is not uncommon to raise PF with a hand like AK, hit top pair top kicker on the flop and eventually take that hand to an all-in. Because a pot sized bet will likely be a significant portion of your stack anyways, if you are raised all-in it is probably correct to call unless the flop is overly uniform.

On stars, the really BIG pots in the early stages tend to go a bit more to hands like two pair or trips, so you should be a bit more cautious about taking top pair all the way. This requires some judgement I suppose, but it is definitely an important consideration.

On stars, the really great players will eat you alive if you use a 'plan' as straightforward as this guide is. It is pretty effective even 'as is' at the very small buy ins, but requires major changes the further up you go.

There are a great many players on this forum who could say a lot more about how stars need to be played differently. I myself play Party and the Party skins 90%+ of the time, whereas guys like Praying Mantis, Heyrocker, T Perkin, and many others play a lot more at stars.

If I were you I'd at least consider playing at Party a bit just to see how it is there. You might find that as bad as the structure is, it has a lot more profit potential in the long run. I go back and forth on this issue though. This month I like party I guess.

Regards
Brad S

[ddubois]

I read this thread before last week, remembered the advice therein, but did the dirty deed anyways. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

With an above average stack around level 4ish, 5-handed, I had A5s on the button, tried for a steal 3xBB, got called, flopped K44 two of my suit, semi-bluffed ~1/3rd of the pot, got raised ~2/3rd of the pot, called, picked up the gutshot with an offsuit 2 on the turn, I check, he pushed. I thought for a long time, figured he had a K, and hoped my 3, A, and suit outs were good. I don't think I really had the pot odds to call, but with so much in the pot I felt committed; it's either hit and go on to easily win money with a massive stack, or be short-stacked and playing aggressively with the worst of it. So I called and of course I missed. Turns out he called my preflop steal with A4s and hit trips. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

I did manage to double up twice with lucky desparation pushses and actually had a playable amount of chips, but stupidly maintained needless desparation-level aggression (tilt from the A5s mistake), and pushed on the button with KT. I ran into an ace and I was out.

Morale of the story: Don't let yourself get committed with draws. On the flop, consider the reverse-implied-odds of the turn call you'll have to make if you want to see the river!

[djcolts]

I'm a new poker player - I've played a Party for about 2 weeks. I've done OK with this strategy so far in 10+1 SNGs - but it seems that I'm shortstacked with 4 or 5 players left a very large percentage of the time. What kind of adjustments can I make to prevent this from happening? And, when I am shortstacked - I don't feel that I can wait for cards as good as the ones suggested in this guide - I ended up being forced to go all-in with any A or K by level 5 or 6 - no matter how weak the kicker.

[memphis_aces]

Hey DJ...its icon from over at FBGs...how are ya doing!

I've been on a pretty good run lately with SNGs, winning 3 of 4 $5/1 and both of the $10/1 I've played in the last couple days....and most of it is due to short-stacked and late round play.

The best advice I've pulled from this thread was that once you're in the money (top 3), go for first. Have it in your mind that you can win this tournament (and you usually can). Play VERY aggressively....steal blinds often with any decent hand and almost always reraise when raised (again, with any decent hand). It's AMAZING how most folks at Party seem to play like total sheep once it gets down to the final three. They play not to lose rather than to win.

Regarding your actual question...short stacked play....I happen to enjoy it. When I get down to around 300-400 chips at a Party tournament (and I do so about 30% of the tourneys I play in)....I'll tend to go all in with any decent hand. Be careful with this...make sure you're not going into a pot with too many callers (or potential callers).....and be careful when you have the chipleader still yet to call.

It varies a little based on how early/late in the tournament it is, as well. Earlier in the tournament (when blinds are 50/100 or less) you should just wait it out for a few laps...wait for a monster. Later in the tourney is when the desperate all-in or 3xBB Blind-steal is required (and more effective).

I'm at work so this likely rambles a bit....but hopefully you get the idea....

[sourbeaver]

Hi all,

I've been trying the strategy outlined in this thread for a couple
SNGs.

Obviously I have made some slight adjustements to better suit my style but nothing to disrupt results on a somewhat long basis.

The main problems I encountered were:

1. Not getting the hands to play, getting short-stacked
and having to push in with less-than-premium hands before
getting blinded out.

2. Since the strategy involves aggressive raising with
good hands, I find that if I get beat on 1 or 2 good hands in the 5-6 level, my stack becomes quite handicapped.

And so I am lead to believe that there is more luck involved in following a strategy that demands great hands (perhaps too tight), and demands that those few great hands stand against opposition, which they don't quite a few times. I find that we don't get to see many hands in a typical SNG when making it to the top 4.

This is not as much criticism as it is some thoughts I gathered while trying the strategy in 10$ SNGs.

I realise this has been pointed out earlier, I just thought I would say that this has been my experience as well.

It is important to point out that I play at UB, where the structure is not similar to that of Party's.
Perhaps ny requirements could be loosened up to adjust for longer levels/bigger starting stack.

Any comments would be welcome.
Thanks

[Keres]

I think the advice is on the little conservative side but this is the type of thing I'd print out and give to somebody who asked how to play the party $10sng.

In the first round - blinds of 10/15 - I'll play very loose. Hands like 6-7 suited from mid to late position. If the table is very passive I'll even play it from utg if I don't think a raise is likely. The object here is to hit a monster and grab a big pot or maybe take somebody out. At the Party 10SNG there are almost always 2 or 3 players who will make horrendous plays and get knocked out before the first round is over. They'll call an all in with Q-10 on a board of 10-6-6. Obviously don't play crap (Q-8o etc) but if you've got a hand with some potential its almost always worth playing. Once the blinds go up to 15/30 I tighten up considerably.

For this reason if you've got a hand like AK, you want to raise to 55-60. I'm not going to stick around with a speculative hand for that amount. A minraise to 30, I'll definitely stay put now that I know you're excited about your hand and know that if I hit the flop hard there's a good chance you're going to get busted - a lot of 10SNG players get too attached to their hands.

[colpres]

I’ve been playing 10 months. This is my first post, inspired by this thread to join the Forum. Armed with the guide, last evening I played 4 tournaments on Party:
1. Finish 5th: busted out in 4th Round, QQ all-in, get 2 callers, J-10-4-10-6, winner holds 10-3s (chat quote from winner: “Going for the flush, hit 3 10’s…Guess I was lucky”)
2. Finish 4th: by 5th round, when forced all-in, I have 350 chips to 3400, 2200, & 2050. AA in 3rd round in SB, all folded to me, won 200 total from BB
3. Finish 6th: lose half of stack when KK all-in, board comes K-7c-A-Qc-4c, opponent AJclubs wins w/flush, busted w/ QQ all-in when called by A-6o and A comes on turn
4. Finish 2nd: Only notable hand was 3rd round, my AKs all-in called by QJs in same suit, neither hand improves. Note no pair in this entire tournament.

The listed big pairs (QQ-lose, AA-win, KK-lose, QQ-lose) are the ONLY pairs I had, with 180+ hands played, so no decisions on small pair play. I also had AK twice, AQ once, AJ twice, and one KQs. Played for 1 draw – from BB, nut flush and gut-shot straight draw, but missed both. No other hand met the guide requirements in 4 tournaments. Averaged seeing 15% of flops, so I was in line w/ the guide estimate. However, getting free plays from BB with hands like J3o with 5 limpers increased flops seen. I was dealt 9-5 11 times!

I know it’s not much information, but did I misunderstand the guide recommendations? Is 1 for 4 in the money within expectations? Is this performance from bad decisions or bad cards? Getting 1 pair per 45 hands, or 10 recommended hands from 180 dealt, can you win a Sit and Go at this level with this strategy? (or any strategy?) I’ll be trying it at least six more times per the advice to try it 10 times, so feedback is welcome.

[sourbeaver]

I enjoyed reading your post and it does refer to my earlier discussion quite a bit. I find that we simply do not get to see enough of these good hands (as per the guide's terms) to play. Result is we don't get involved into enough hands to increase our stack, plus the risk of getting busted on the one hand we do choose to play is still high (keeping in mind that low buy-in SNGs will have some inexperienced players calling with mediocre hands). I believe the key resides in playing a bit looser in the first 2 or 3 rounds and try to flop a hand. There's really not many other ways around this. Let's not forget that more experienced players can "play" the flop and play the other players also, which adds to the stack.

Still, I don't know how I feel when I go bust holding QQ KK or AK (even AA sometimes). I know we're supposed to feel good when we bust out if we got in the pot with the best of it, but there are just so many bad calls that eat away at our probability of winning the hand, that it gets hard to take. Other times I find that the one or two good hands I get, I'll raise properly and get no calls, so I sit there with 100-200 more chips, having "wasted" that one big hand I'll get in the tourney. It's all a matter of getting in the top 3 with a respectable stack, but I find that's quite the hardest part, because I think my HU, 3-player play is good enough to get me some wins.

[Eder]

The type of SnG player I enjoy most at my table are the ones playing lots of speculative hands early. Either they get lucky and triple up and I get their chips later because most of them continue to play loose, or they don't hit and get even more aggresive the shorter their stack gets and I get the remainer of their chips sooner.

Of course better players play these speculative hands early as well , but theres not many good players in the $10 SnG's, and they'd normally beat me playing any two.

jmo

[colpres]

Updating the results, after going 0 for 3 with the guide, have now placed 2nd, 3rd, 2nd, 3rd, 2nd, 2nd for 6 money finishes in 9 tries. Thanks to all the contributors to this thread! By the way, one game I got zero pairs, no AK, AQ, or AJ, won only 3 hands in 71, but finished 3rd. Amazing.

[Scuba Chuck]

Aleomagus & company. Great thread. Learned as much here as I have anywhere on this site. Specifically, I now understand the meaning of "TIGHT." And also how to make a little cash.

Now that I've used these 'rules of thumb' with success, could you talk a little about some of the variance? Specifically, I am playing at Absolute Poker, and I am beginning to notice that the same players are consistently playing with large stacks early on. Is there anything going on there I should know about?

Thanks,

PS, if not, I am still comfortable taking their large stakes later in the game when it matters more.

[housenuts]

the reason they probably have large stacks is because they are "gamblers". you either see them with large stacks or you don't see them at all because they busted out. they will risk all their money early on on a coin flip.

[mart_ph]

[ QUOTE ]
Other times I find that the one or two good hands I get, I'll raise properly and get no calls, so I sit there with 100-200 more chips, having "wasted" that one big hand I'll get in the tourney.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't agree more with this. I've been sticking religiously to this strategy for about 39 sng's now. Admittedly mostly $5 on Paradise and not Party, but I think it suits better at Paradise as you start with 1000t.

Anyway, the main problem is definitely if you don't get any decent cards in the first few rounds, when you do raise every other player folds cuz they're so scared. But then you run the risk of someone hitting the flop with something like A4o if you're holding KK and you just limp in!!! /images/graemlins/mad.gif

For the last 39 I've been ITM 54% and ROI is 47% - with 6 wins, 9 second place and 6 third places.. with 7 on bubble.
I've also only finished in the places in 3 of the last 11 I've played.
So all in all, I spose I've got nothing to complain about.

The only hands I'm considering loosening up on are Axs within all rounds if I can get in late and cheap.

The other main problem is concentration. By playing so few hands I get distracted easily - even though I spend the time making notes on players. I think I may start playing 2 tables to force myself to pay attention more, before moving up to the $10 tables.

[tigerite]

The big hands always either win a little or lose a lot - it's what they do. Unless you get lucky enough for someone to have an almost-as-big hand at the same time as you. You win chips from steals and deceptive play, and lucky big blind hands, for the most part.

[paulish]

benfranklin and AleoMagus
thanks for the contribution. quality stuff. keep it up!

[sofere]

Thanks for the awesome post. Just curious, about what % of hands are good enough to see the flop on in each level. I'm just curious to see how this compares to how I have been playing.

Thanks again.

[Pepsquad]

Beautiful. Absolutely sensational work.

[marley81]

Everytime i play 10/1 PP, everyone plays tight as can be, and it seems like the blinds get 300/600 with 5 players left.. and everyone just hopes to survive, how can you avoid this? I seem to get chips early, but then I play solid-tight and eventually the blinds catch up with me.

[bigredlemon]

A just finished an entire SNG where I got only ONE hand I could call with. I flop percentage was actually sub-10%. I was blinded down to t300, and every one was eliminated except 3 others. I eventually pushed all in when I caught KTs and lost to A8.

I think the reason this works is that by the time you actually call a hand, there's nobody left. This also explains why in all the times i've tried this, I've almost always placed either 3rd or 4th, depending on how aggressive they were that day. I'm always a huge underdog chip wise by the end.

[El Maximo]

I normally play very few hands until Level 4-5. This is when you need to get aggressive. Start making steals based on stack size, number of player, your position, your hand, and the opponents range of calling hands. I think how you play levels 4-5 until you are in the money are the what seperates the good/average player from the great players. Post some hands and ask what range of hands the veterans would steal with. Figure out how they come to these answers. I think the guide is excellent but you most likely will need to open up your game some more when shorthanded. The guide keeps you out of trouble and is great when first starting out. But once you mastered playing tight in the early stages you need to improve your short-handed play.

[3rdEye]

[ QUOTE ]
A just finished an entire SNG where I got only ONE hand I could call with. I flop percentage was actually sub-10%. I was blinded down to t300, and every one was eliminated except 3 others. I eventually pushed all in when I caught KTs and lost to A8.

I think the reason this works is that by the time you actually call a hand, there's nobody left. This also explains why in all the times i've tried this, I've almost always placed either 3rd or 4th, depending on how aggressive they were that day. I'm always a huge underdog chip wise by the end.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm currently playing one in which I have yet to play a hand from any position other than the blinds.

Needless to say, half my stack is gone and I'm now a huge underdog.

[Mr_J]

I play reasonably tight early on but I never find myself getting too low on chips. When it's getting uncomfortable, make your move.

[citanul]

While it's nice that this thread is getting bumped and all, since it is a very nice thread, you people are killing it.

The subtext, if not the real text, of the last series of stupid assed messages in this thread is:

"You made a post that says if I read it and play in a certain way, I should beat the Party 10+1s. In my last 2 games, I've not won! Waaaaah. I want my money back. I get short stacked when I don't play hands! Waaaah."

Oh my god people.

Look at the actual text of the message that I'm posing in reply to.

"I'm currently playing one in which I have yet to play a hand from any position other than the blinds.

Needless to say, half my stack is gone and I'm now a huge underdog."

Is there any meat to that at all? You should be damned ashamed of yourself.

Look: The "beating the Party 10+1 system" works on a very simple premise set.

1) Using this system, you are very unlikely to Be broke in the first 4 players to get broke.
2) Using this system, you will either have lost a few chips due to blinds, or raising and then folding, limping and then folding, in the first couple of levels, or will be up chips due to the few hands you play being better than the average hands that others play.
3) Using this system, you will be amongst the small group of intelligently aggressive players at the Party 10+1 games. Thus, though you will likely be shortish stacked, you will be stealing enough to come back, and build a stack at the right time of the game.
4) When you are called, while stealing, you are often going to have the best hand, since well, these people are stupid for the most part.

There are a variety of reasons that the majority of the people who whine, whine about being too short stacked. They have mostly to do with not going for steals enough, or with enough "gusto."

Let's say you get to the final 6 players 90% of the time. If you start rolling the dice here, you're likely to make money. Since well, you only need to get in the money something less than half the time, and you only need to eliminate half the field to get in.

None of this is to say that there are not other styles, and things that you should know, to play the Party 10+1 game. It's just that the "beating the" thread is showing that EVEN using a very simplistic system, one should be able to beat the game. This system works, and if you are having problems with it a) you have a small sample set b) you are an idiot c) you haven't posted real questions about it enough.

Happy Hunting,

citanul

[poboy]

Wow that's a little harsh don't you think? Sorry if this is a little off topic but, why do people get so agitated when a newb asks a question? That is what this board is for after all? They are not idiots they just don't know any better yet. How would you feel if your child asked his teacher a question and his teacher replied that he must be an idiot, the child isn't an idiot he just hasn't been taught the answer yet. A few of the posters around here seem to have a real superiority complex or are just complete a-holes. Perhaps they were born with infinite poker knowledge ,must be nice. Most of us need to ask questions and have discussions in order to learn however. So when someone asks what can I do to prevent being short-stacked, is it better to call them an idiot or explain how stealing becomes very important late in the game? I generally consider you one of the better posters around here when it comes to poker content, but that last one doesn't add anything to this forum and just makes you look like a jerk.

[Sven]

Can anyone tell me where to find part 1? I have search and searched and can't find it. Thanks ahead of time...

[bigredlemon]

[ QUOTE ]
While it's nice that this thread is getting bumped and all, since it is a very nice thread, you people are killing it.

The subtext, if not the real text, of the last series of stupid assed messages in this thread is:

"You made a post that says if I read it and play in a certain way, I should beat the Party 10+1s. In my last 2 games, I've not won! Waaaaah. I want my money back. I get short stacked when I don't play hands! Waaaah."

Oh my god people.

Look at the actual text of the message that I'm posing in reply to.

"I'm currently playing one in which I have yet to play a hand from any position other than the blinds.

Needless to say, half my stack is gone and I'm now a huge underdog."

Is there any meat to that at all? You should be damned ashamed of yourself.

Look: The "beating the Party 10+1 system" works on a very simple premise set.

1) Using this system, you are very unlikely to Be broke in the first 4 players to get broke.
2) Using this system, you will either have lost a few chips due to blinds, or raising and then folding, limping and then folding, in the first couple of levels, or will be up chips due to the few hands you play being better than the average hands that others play.
3) Using this system, you will be amongst the small group of intelligently aggressive players at the Party 10+1 games. Thus, though you will likely be shortish stacked, you will be stealing enough to come back, and build a stack at the right time of the game.
4) When you are called, while stealing, you are often going to have the best hand, since well, these people are stupid for the most part.

There are a variety of reasons that the majority of the people who whine, whine about being too short stacked. They have mostly to do with not going for steals enough, or with enough "gusto."

Let's say you get to the final 6 players 90% of the time. If you start rolling the dice here, you're likely to make money. Since well, you only need to get in the money something less than half the time, and you only need to eliminate half the field to get in.

None of this is to say that there are not other styles, and things that you should know, to play the Party 10+1 game. It's just that the "beating the" thread is showing that EVEN using a very simplistic system, one should be able to beat the game. This system works, and if you are having problems with it a) you have a small sample set b) you are an idiot c) you haven't posted real questions about it enough.

Happy Hunting,

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]The problem is that by the time it gets to 6-handed, you're usually down to about 5-600 in chips, if not less. The blinds at 100, one or two bad steals and you're out of the game. And that's to say you even get enough hands to steal with. It only takes two revolutions then for your blinds to be halved, and it's not easy getting a hand tha's stealable with.

The more aggressive players have mroe than enough chips to bully you around, and can easily knock you off a flop if you miss. (Should we be calling our entire stack on the off chance he can't beat K high?)

[Big Limpin']

i disagree. it was necessary to remind them that just cause "the system" didnt win in a certain situation, doesnt mean it is broken.

I read his post, and sat there nodding, then the next post bashes it.

Take 2 posts.

Post A: YOU ARE IDIOTS. STOP POSTING.

Post B: YOU DONT SEEM TO BE UNDERSTANDING FULLY THE INTENT OF THE ORIGINAL POST. POSSSIBLE REASONS INCLUDE....AND HERE ARE SOME SUGGESTIONS TO HELP YOU.

Post A no good. Post B great.

Some games will simply not be winnable, no matter how good/bad you are. Period. You just dont get cards, or get them in situations where they end up 2nd best. If someone didnt have a hand to play in 50 hands, and is down to half his stack, i think it is very likely he would have NO stack if he decided to play it looser. IMO.

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that by the time it gets to 6-handed, you're usually down to about 5-600 in chips

[/ QUOTE ]

Run the ICM 6 handed with a chip count of 600 and see if your equity would give you a +ROI. If it does, compare it to your current ROI... you may be surprised.

Irieguy

[marley81]

what in the world is that, and where do you get it?

[poboy]

[ QUOTE ]
i disagree. it was necessary to remind them that just cause "the system" didnt win in a certain situation, doesnt mean it is broken.

I read his post, and sat there nodding, then the next post bashes it.

Take 2 posts.

Post A: YOU ARE IDIOTS. STOP POSTING.

Post B: YOU DONT SEEM TO BE UNDERSTANDING FULLY THE INTENT OF THE ORIGINAL POST. POSSSIBLE REASONS INCLUDE....AND HERE ARE SOME SUGGESTIONS TO HELP YOU.

Post A no good. Post B great.

Some games will simply not be winnable, no matter how good/bad you are. Period. You just dont get cards, or get them in situations where they end up 2nd best. If someone didnt have a hand to play in 50 hands, and is down to half his stack, i think it is very likely he would have NO stack if he decided to play it looser. IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you on this. The problem I had with his post is that it was more Post A and not enough B. To me it came across as the newbie says "Hey the system is broken" the more experienced player/poster says " No the system is fine you are just an idiot" where it would have been more helpful to say "No the system is fine let me try and explain the part you don't understand". That is all I was saying.

[bigredlemon]

[ QUOTE ]
If someone didnt have a hand to play in 50 hands, and is down to half his stack, i think it is very likely he would have NO stack if he decided to play it looser. IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that's an excellent point... we're playing tight and looking jealously at the big stack that is looser than a rapper's pants. We have to keep in mind that for each loose player that's the chip leader, there's 3 other looser players going home broke.

I was heads up with one player that was chip leader through the whole game, and he placed first (i was second.) We both ended up at the same SNG afterwards. He was the first player to bust out.

[bigredlemon]

I'd change this strategy one way: be aggressive early. Try to double up early and not be afraid of busting out early. If you can double up, you are almost guarentteed to be in the money if you play smart. If play good cards, you are more likely to double up than bust out, and you only need to do this once. After that, you watch everyone else play tight and get blinded away while you make the occasional steal to keep your stack size.

I think the crucial period is in the early game, when the fish are still around, and they aren't afraid to call with really bad pot odds.

[Scuba Chuck]

Irie, unfortunately neophytes (like myself) don't know what ICM is yet.

Are you saying that loose play with the 500-600 chip stack in the middle "bubble" period is enough fold equity to build a decent chip stack via blind stealing?

And, this is "preferable" over Big Lemon's idea of playing loose early to "double up."

[RcrdBoy]

Check this (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1169224&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1) post out.

The link for the ICM is in one of the posts, but this has some good discussion about ICM and other thought provoking topics.

Oh and to use the ICM you have to have Java installed on your computer.

[bigredlemon]

[ QUOTE ]
Irie, unfortunately neophytes (like myself) don't know what ICM is yet.

Are you saying that loose play with the 500-600 chip stack in the middle "bubble" period is enough fold equity to build a decent chip stack via blind stealing?

And, this is "preferable" over Big Lemon's idea of playing loose early to "double up."

[/ QUOTE ]
I've been thinking about it a little more, and figure: if you get a pair higher than 88 or AK, go all in, even if it's a ridiculously large raise given the blinds. Most likely it'll be a coinflip situation. It'll probably be a coin flip, and if you win, you're fairly guarenteed to double up your buy in. If you lose, tough luck. If everyone folds, sure you wasted a good hand. I've seen people go all in and get called with marginal hands ridiculously often at 10+1. The side bonus is that if you ever do hit a flop well and bet it out, they're more likely to think you're a manic fish and call you with the second best hand.

Given how tight aggressive everyone plays once it's down to the final 5, you're going to have to play coin flips sooner or later. It's just better to do it early. Plus, it's more time efficient.

[El Maximo]

This kinda of thinking always doubles me up when I catch big pairs early in an SnG. Limp with AA and get raised from MP or LP. I push all in only to be called by 88. I double up. And this is not a coin flip. Im a 80% favorite to win the hand.

[The Yugoslavian]

This is the thread you should be going to for a 'how-to' of using ICM. Dethgrind sums the whole process up nicely (and I ask several dumb questions in the process, /images/graemlins/wink.gif).

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1122239&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1

HELPFUL HINT: Please read all of the posts in the thread as well as other ICM threads (you can search for posts with 'ICM' in the subject field) to learn more about this wonderful tool.

[citanul]

Hello again,

First off, a little defense if any was needed of my last post. If you look, the person I responded to did not pose a question in any way. He simply stated "oh no, I'm short stacked again." Considering his original post, I think I gave an incredibly insightful and well thought out response. Hell, given any post, I think my post gave good insight into how you should think about the "Beating the ..." system.

Since I've got a bit of time on my hands at the moment, I thought I'd chime in, and hopefully help out...

A few responses to people who have posted very recently in this thread:

Poboy: "I generally consider you one of the better posters around here when it comes to poker content, but that last one doesn't add anything to this forum and just makes you look like a jerk."

Thank you. I have been trying to mix in a little strategy thought with my more numerous of late OOT contributions. I'm sorry that my post made you think less of me, I really am. I hope you understand my level of frustration with the non-question posed by the poster I responded to. I am going to try hard a bit here to post some more follow ups to the actual strategy to make up for some of the heavy handed/harsh criticism of earlier.

Sven: "Can anyone tell me where to find part 1? I have search and searched and can't find it. Thanks ahead of time..."

This (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=844952&page=0&view=collap sed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1) page has everything you are looking for and more. Enjoy.

bigredlemon: "The problem is that by the time it gets to 6-handed, you're usually down to about 5-600 in chips, if not less. The blinds at 100, one or two bad steals and you're out of the game. And that's to say you even get enough hands to steal with. It only takes two revolutions then for your blinds to be halved, and it's not easy getting a hand tha's stealable with.

The more aggressive players have mroe than enough chips to bully you around, and can easily knock you off a flop if you miss. (Should we be calling our entire stack on the off chance he can't beat K high?)"

A multi parter here: Others have responded that you should look at your "ICM results" for 600 chips 6 handed. This is along the right thinking, but doesn't clarify how you're play sounds like it is incorrect. The rest of your post has a thinking error to it.

Blinds at 50/100, you have 600 chips. There's no room there for "1 or 2 steals that go wrong" You should be all in or folding when you play a hand, with the exception of when you can limp with a Monster, KNOWING 100% sure, that you will be raised preflop, so you can get all in and called. So, now we've got that fixed. All in or fold, ok? Now, on to the next major problem:

"It's not that easy getting a hand that's stealable with." The simple answer to this question is "Yes it is, you get one every hand." Seriously. You get dealt 2 cards every hand. You're STEALING. If you do it with AA, do you call it stealing? No. That's because you're hoping not to get called, thus "stealing" the blinds, without having to show your cards. Now, the "ideal" set of cards to push with to "steal" the blinds is a set of hands that is usually going to be ahead when called. The not so ideal, but realistic set of hands to push with are hands that will be ahead, or hands that will be drawing very live, if called. Those are more frequent. Grab pokerstove, or go to www.twodimes.net (http://www.twodimes.net) and fool around with it. Check your pot equities. Fundamental Concept: Write out some algebra on a paper. Stack size = X. Dead Chips in pot =XY, (Y being a percentage of X, or whatever). Likelihood they call = P. Likelihood you win when they call = W. Clearly, since you win the dead chips 1-P of the time, you just need to check out some odds to see what edges you can afford to give up when called, since you aren't going to get called every time.

Lose the fear of getting called when you push. It's going to happen, and you're going to lose sometimes. But there's another game starting up soon. If you do the above algebra I suggested, and look and see how slim favorites most hands are against most other hands, you'll see what I'm talking about. Check the percentage of the time, and dead chips as a proportion of stack you need, for instance, if the probability you win when called is 35%.

I've been screwing around a bit in the 10s and 20s lately, so I have one last comment for this particular note before I move on to the next one:

"The more aggressive players have mroe than enough chips to bully you around, and can easily knock you off a flop if you miss. (Should we be calling our entire stack on the off chance he can't beat K high?)"

Well, there's two types who have stacks at this point. Aggressive lucky players, and good, tight players, who have gotten some hands in timely fashion to knock out aggressive stupid players. Don't have too much envy of the loosy goosies, but stay out of both classes of players way without thinking you have an edge. As I said, with a 6bb stack, you shouldn't be seeing many flops except from the blinds for free, if that happens, without being all in. No. Clearly don't go in with K high as a caller. But as the pusher! What about the chance taht you push with Q high and he can't beat that, or that chance + the chance he folds K2. Go broke over and over again as the aggressor. Don't do it as the caller.

Personally, I've taken to calling often in the situation as follows: I have Ax in the bb, with 5-6 bb. 5 or 6 handed, it's folded to the sb, who pushes, and he has a short stack. I've taken to calling often there. I'm usually right, and ahead. Though I'm trying to figure out lately if that means I was right in the call. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Big Limpin': "Some games will simply not be winnable, no matter how good/bad you are. Period. You just dont get cards, or get them in situations where they end up 2nd best. If someone didnt have a hand to play in 50 hands, and is down to half his stack, i think it is very likely he would have NO stack if he decided to play it looser. IMO."

This is very key. However: even when you don't get cards, that doesn't mean to give up. Start sliding that short stack in there when the time becomes right. Always remember: They could fold! Always remember 2: When they don't fold, they don't win 100% of the time.

bigredlemon: "I'd change this strategy one way: be aggressive early. Try to double up early and not be afraid of busting out early. If you can double up, you are almost guarentteed to be in the money if you play smart. If play good cards, you are more likely to double up than bust out, and you only need to do this once. After that, you watch everyone else play tight and get blinded away while you make the occasional steal to keep your stack size.

I think the crucial period is in the early game, when the fish are still around, and they aren't afraid to call with really bad pot odds. "

I don't think that the original document said not to do this. I'm not sure though, I don't think that it recommended playing scared. Particularly at the 10s, you can really get far by value betting top pair very good kicker, and by value betting, I mean going after a guy's stack completely out of proportion with the pot. Knowing the oppponent is nice, but in general, the players at the 10+1s are just giving chips away. Get that dead money while it's around. But like I said, I don't think that the original said not to value bet, or to not call when you think you have the best of it. It mostly says "don't gambool it up like the rest of the chumps, there's a reason they're losing money in the long run, and you're going to win it. It's because they go to far with bad hands."

"I've been thinking about it a little more, and figure: if you get a pair higher than 88 or AK, go all in, even if it's a ridiculously large raise given the blinds. Most likely it'll be a coinflip situation. It'll probably be a coin flip, and if you win, you're fairly guarenteed to double up your buy in. If you lose, tough luck. If everyone folds, sure you wasted a good hand. I've seen people go all in and get called with marginal hands ridiculously often at 10+1. The side bonus is that if you ever do hit a flop well and bet it out, they're more likely to think you're a manic fish and call you with the second best hand."

You should be going all in with way more than that with a short stack, but you're on the right track. Uh, maybe not if it's ridiculous compared to the blinds, I take that back. But hell, when you're under 10BB, go for it! "most likely it's a coinflip" is false. You will find in your career that the number of times you push 6 handed with AK and are called with A4 is larger than the number of times you are called by 88. You will also find that the number of times you push with A9 and are called by A4 is about the same as the number of times you are called by AK. But probably not if you are doing it in the correct position /images/graemlins/smile.gif Lots of novice players have a problem that centers on the following supposition: "whenever I push, my opponents will know exactly what I have, and then only call with the set of hands that gives them at leat fair pot equity." This is a big problem to get over. a) they will call with hands they shouldn't b) they will fold with hands they shouldn't, if they knew your cards. And hey, fundamental theorem says that every time they do that, you win!

"Given how tight aggressive everyone plays once it's down to the final 5, you're going to have to play coin flips sooner or later. It's just better to do it early. Plus, it's more time efficient."

Like I said, I've been screwing around with the 10s of late. You need to look at that last statement of yours real hard. From what I noticed, the players at the 10s curl up into a little ball of "I don't want to bubble out." There was entirely too much folding. A correct bubble strategy is a whole lot closer to "loose aggressive" than it is to "tight aggressive" in the traditional ring game senses of the words. Look at stacks, know your opponents, and know your position. Post hands. Statement: The 10s are a stealers paradise.

El Maximo: you are a bad person /images/graemlins/smile.gif

So yes, I hope that I added more to the discussion this time.

Post hands, and remember:

1) push, don't call
2) you don't need to have "a hand" to push
3) it's a long run game

citanul

[The Yugoslavian]

Dude, I *totally* just read your entire post, /images/graemlins/laugh.gif.

That is all.

[citanul]

i got in a typing groove, what can i say. get a bottle of wine in me and look at me go.

glad to hear it wasn't so intolerable you couldn't finish,

citanul

[AleoMagus]

Who would have thought I'd be posting in this thread again?

Anyways, I'll try to enlighten those who do not get what Irieguy is talking about here.

The ICM is basically a model which equates relative chip counts with dollar equity in a tournament. For example, in a 10+1 tourney, with each player starting at 800 chips, all players have a $ equity of $10 (assuming equal skill). Irie is suggesting that even if your stack does not grow, the loss of the four players will still result in an increase of $ equity (and thus, a positive ROI to that stage of the tourney).

Interestingly, running the ICM with 600 chips 6 handed does NOT show an increase in $ equity. Instead of $10 in equity, you will now have about $8.75 in equity. I still think Irie is correct though in his suggestion, even if that actual example was not a great one.

The reason why I think he is correct is because the strategy that I describe for the first three rounds is not a losing strategy against the average 10+1 player! You will tend to increse your stack against 10+1 players by playing this way, even if it doesn't always seem that way. The reason why you will tend to increase your stack (or at least maintain your stack) on average, is because occasionally you will double or triple up. When you factor in the times when you double up together with the times that you wind up with 600 chips (and even the times you bust), on average you should be increasing your stack slightly in the first three rounds or at least maintaining it.

Now I'm going to say this again another way just so I'm clear here.

This will not always happen. Often you will find no playable hands for the first thirty hands, or the ones that you do will be worthless as soon as the flop comes. In these SNGs, your stack will diminish to 600-700 chips... BUT, other times you will increase your stack, and sometimes you will double up. Overall, you will head into level four with an AVERAGE chip count of 800 or more. And it is now that we need to consider what the ICM has to say against 6-7 opponents. What the ICM has to say is that any time you maintain your stack, but opponents are eliminated, YOU MAKE MONEY! YOUR $ EQUITY RISES! Sorry to type in caps. I hate when people do that, but it felt called for here.

And now, we get to what is perhaps a more important point. The real skill differential involved in SNG play happens after level 3. What this means is that if you are playing a better game than the average 10+1 opponent, it is in your interest to survive to level 4 as your skill advantage here will translate to even more $ equity when you start outplaying your opponents (which is easy to do at that level with just a few well timed aggressive plays).

There is more to say, but I will see how this holds up for now. Comments?

Regards
Brad S

[sfwusc]

Yea if you dont catch cards early then you have this problem.

Play for races 6/5 you, and hope you get/stay lucky.

SFWUSC

[1C5]

Brad and citanul, I love your posts, just read them and they are a great help for a new SnG player. Thanks for taking the time to write them.

Next week I will be making my first venture into real money SnGs and this thread along with the awesome spreadsheet will be great assets to helping and tracking a beginners game. I almost feel bad about playing people who do not know about this forum. Almost. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[keikiwai]

I don't think you should worry about giving too much information away by only betting half the pot after a flop. Everyone's stack is down and it's logical for you to bet half the pot whether you have a good hand or not.

1) If you have a good hand, others can reason, you wouldn't bet the whole pot because it would get everyone to fold due to the size of the pot compare to their stacks. So, if you flopped a monster you would not bet huge to intice others to call.

2) If you have a so-so hand or are bluffing, half the pot is good to do this with, others could reason, since you're testing the waters without risking it all. However, if you're making a pure bluff half a pot is not good, since it could intice others to beat your bluff with not very strong hands.

Anyway, the others could think about it many ways, but what it comes down to is, a smaller bet is not necessarily a sign of weakness, since others can see or even raise you, while this is not true if you go all in.

Basically it works out well for you, you don't have to risk a giant pot sized bet to steal the blinds after the flop, and the others cannot necessarily read your hand.

The downside: if you srewed up others are given the chance to raise on you, which they would be less likely to do with a pot sized bet due to stack sizes.

Not sure, if this makes sense, but don't worry too much about giving away your hand in these situations is what I think.

Peter.

[Trainwreck]

Great stuff, I personally play a bit different.

Early on, I am willing to limp with a huge range of hands in LP in order to snap someone off.

Once I 2x-3x up early, I am basically not heard from until 5 people are left, except with group 1/2 hands.

This method for me at least, and I played 5/10 SNGs on other sites, worked well.
I quit playing them entirely though. I only 1 table and it just wasn't enough $.
1 tabling gives me full focus on the table which does help ME a lot with my method.
During the middle LULL, once I've 2x+'d up, I was making book on other players...

Sweetest one for me, was when I knocked out ALL 9 players.
Wish I had the history on it, was a year and a half ago, I love to reflect!

Important observation at that level:
People love to call AIs when they have TP any kicker on flop!
YMMV

>TW<

[EasilyFound]

This is for the folks who gripe about playing tight during early rounds, watching other players pick up early leads, and entering level 4 with something like 600 chips.

How many of you save your hand history and review it after you play? I play one or two or a handful of tourneys at day. I take the time to review the hand history of each one to review my play, see where my leaks are.

Next time you do that, take a look at the chip stacks of the three people who finished ITM when you started play at level 4. I bet you be surprised how often the people with lower stacks finish ITM. I know I was.

Here's an example from a tourney I just finished playing. Somewhere during level 4, these were the chips counts:

Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t50 (8 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Seat 1: (t860)
Seat 2: (t920)
Seat 3: (t585)
Seat 4: (t1670)
Seat 5: (t670)
Seat 8: (t1555)
Seat 9: (t1380)
Seat 10:(t360)

Seat #4 had accumulated about 2400 chips after the first three hands, hitting sets on the first two hands that turned into boats.

Seat #10 placed 1st. Seat #2 placed 2nd. And Seat #5 placed 3rd.

Seat #5 doubled up on a preflop push w/KK. Seat #10 tripled up when his preflop push later on ended up as the nut flush. And seat #2 was relentlessly aggressive, especially shorthanded.

Now you can say, "Well, they got good cards." But the point is that they were around to take advantage of the good cards when they came, and they had chips when they needed them. They made smart decisions during the later rounds. Good judgment alone, of course, won't win a tourney. You still need to catch cards. But you don't have to have a mountain of chips entering level 4 to finish ITM.

If you've read my other posts, you know I'm no poker wiz. But one thing I have learned, I don't worry about playing too few hands during rounds 1-3 and not accumulating chips.

The old addage is true: you can't win a tourney during the early rounds. But you sure can lose it in the early going.

[PokerAmateur4]

Thanks so much for this post. I play Empire 10+1 and a a little bit of 2 table of the same flavor. I've always done alright. Changing from the calling/raising many hands especially early for the aformentioned strategies I am playing far tighter, folding aqo from utg etc. level one. Sample size is quite small, a dozen or so, but already I believe I see a large diffrence, certainly in results, I've immedietly gone to 4 tabling. I'll keep everyone posted with anything insightful I come upon.

[PokerAmateur4]

levels 4-6 why not raise ajo but raise 10j, doesn't that have enough definition against being dominated and have a greater chance of winning then 10js?

[treeofwisdom7]

BUMP!

[ilya]

Is this the most popular thread in the history of 2+2?

[astarck]

I guess so. I didn't know this thread existed and was suprised to see it's at 4 pages.

Ridiculous.

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess so. I didn't know this thread existed and was suprised to see it's at 4 pages.

Ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'm almost certain it's not the most popular if you go by # of replies.
But I think it may be if you go by # of views.
Then again, all those quasi-philosophical debate threads that DS likes starting do tend to be insanely popular.

[dfscott]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess so. I didn't know this thread existed and was suprised to see it's at 4 pages.

Ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'm almost certain it's not the most popular if you go by # of replies.
But I think it may be if you go by # of views.
Then again, all those quasi-philosophical debate threads that DS likes starting do tend to be insanely popular.

[/ QUOTE ]

Embarrassingly, I think the "Nude pix of Shauna Hiatt" thread had the most views...

(You think I'm kidding but I'm not)

[citanul]

You guys need to get out of this forum more often. Or not. or something. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=683645&page=0&view=collap sed&sb=7&o=14&fpart=all&vc=1)

1748111 views so far.

citanul

edit: damn, df beat me here by like seconds.

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess so. I didn't know this thread existed and was suprised to see it's at 4 pages.

Ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'm almost certain it's not the most popular if you go by # of replies.
But I think it may be if you go by # of views.
Then again, all those quasi-philosophical debate threads that DS likes starting do tend to be insanely popular.

[/ QUOTE ]

Embarrassingly, I think the "Nude pix of Shauna Hiatt" thread had the most views...

(You think I'm kidding but I'm not)

[/ QUOTE ]

link please

Edit: naww, i can find it myself. OOT, right?

I should have known OOT would take this one down.

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
You guys need to get out of this forum more often. Or not. or something. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=683645&page=0&view=collap sed&sb=7&o=14&fpart=all&vc=1)

1748111 views so far.

[/ QUOTE ]

O

M

F

G

[dfscott]

[ QUOTE ]

edit: damn, df beat me here by like seconds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Zing!

But you put the link, so I guess we're even.

[Scuba Chuck]

Nice to know this thread has turned for the better.

From beginner poker strategy to schwing!

Scuba

[lastchance]

I have one big criticism about this guide. Once blinds hit L4, we start pushing, a LOT. The game becomes about who can get their money in first, and that's really important.

[CaptSensible]

Many suggestions I got when i first posted here last week was to be much more aggressive in my bubble play. I got blasted for not stealing blinds with K4suited. I found that being extremely aggressive in bubble play increased my win rate by almost 30%!! Of course, by the time we're down to 4 and I've gathered a good sense of the players and also take into consideration chip stacks, position etc..I'm still a very novice player and downloaded the word doc. I plan to study it intensively! Thanks so much!!