Plan of attack for moving up in tournaments

[jedi]

I've decided to separate my tournament bankroll from my regular ring game bankroll. Right now, I've got about $300 in the tournament BR and I'm trying to formulate a plan of attack for playing and moving up. I currently play mostly 10+1 SnGs at Party or 5+.50 at Ultimate Bet. I also try to get in a multi-table tournament every now and then. I've finished 2nd in one, which is where my $300 bankroll comes from.

What should I be doing? Just continue to play 10+1 tournaments? I took one shot at a 30+3 tournament at Party and failed badly, so I know I'm not ready for those yet, but how long should I be playing the 10+1s before I can consider moving up?

[Mike Gallo]

Jedi,
...I'm not ready for those yet, but how long should I be playing the 10+1s before I can consider moving

Just play. When you consistently beat the sng's at the 10 level then you can move up. I usually place in 6 of 10.

Concentrate on playing and gaining experience.

Enter some satellites for a bigger tournament. Play as many tournaments as you can and post some hands.

[George Rice]

I would add that $300 is not much money for $30+ tourneys. Better to play the $10+ until you build up your bankroll (to maybe $1000).

[William]

10$ sng are a waste of time. 20 or 30$ are just as weak. Try the 2 table ones at Stars. Train at the low buy-in multitables. They will teach you to be patient. And just believe in it. I started playing multi online at stars 4 months ago, and have won 12 multitables (20$ and up) and been placed among the 3 best over 20 times. Think big.
Good luck to you.

[jedi]

I'm not registered at Poker Stars yet, but will soon, after I get my Christmas Bonus at UB. Is there currently a bonus at Stars?

[HajiShirazu]

I think the play at 30/3 sngs at Party is just as bad, if not worse, than the play at 10/1 sngs. Of course, I am on a bit of a hot streak right now [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]. Then again, with people calling my 3-4x bb raise with AA with their A4o and then bluffing all in on the flop, it's pretty easy to get on a hot streak in these.
Why are sngs a waste of time? I find them fun and profitable, and they dont take nearly the bankroll that multi-tables or ring games require. If anything multi-tables are a waste for me. I usually end up spending 2-3 hours, doing well and making it pretty deep into the field, just to bust out on some crazy hand and get no money. I could be playing sngs/ring games and winning far more in the same period of time. Granted, with sngs, it's basically luck at the end, since most of the time the only play is all-in, but even here, some people are dumb enough to call an all-in with a hand like QJ.
It depends on what your ROI is, but I think 15 or 20 buy-ins is enough.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
10$ sng are a waste of time. 20 or 30$ are just as weak

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are contradicting yourself here. If 10$, 20$ and 30$ SNG are the same ("just as weak"), it makes perfect sense to play the 10$, and that is for two reasons:

1. Your bankroll is still not big enough for the higher buy-ins (see "gambler's ruin").

2. If you're not a good to perfect player, it is much more reasonable to improve your play at the lower buy-in's, rather than at the higher.

Hence, 10$ buy-in SNG's are a "waste of time" ONLY if you have big enough bankroll AND you are a good to perfect player.






PrayingMantis

[eastbay]

Move up when you've got 30 buy-ins. So, you're ready to play the 30+3's when you've got about $1k.

[McMelchior]

I realize this is a highly disputed point, but I'll still say in my experience (from Pstars) the $30 SNGs are easier to beat than the $5 & $10 SNGs.

In the low buy-in SNGs I'm consequently facing an opposition of 4 - 6 OUTRAGEOUSLY fearless & reckless adrenaline-driven players, more than eager to move in by the drop of substantially less than a hat. Having two, three or four of this type of players in any hand forces me to play for my whole stack (no small-bet poker possible), and the result is a very high variance: a large number of early position exits and a few instances, where I end up holding more than half of the chips going into the mid phases of the satellite. The problem is that I'm not being adequately paid off when I hit - winner still only gets 50% of the prize money.

The best game plan here, I've found, is to apply an extremely conservative strategy until most of these gamblers have knocked themselves out, and then attack when the blinds are substantial compared to the stacks. The problem with this strategy is that it leaves me with a relative brief window of time to play - I have approximately 20 hands to steal and fight my stack up to par (and remember, the remaining lucky players have added the goofs bankrolls to their own at this point) - or I'm basically toast.

Though still present, the number of adrenaline driven "play-money"-type players is much smaller in the $30 buy-ins, I have found. Fewer erradic suck-outs, meaning a wider window to apply solid play without being forced to stake my whole existence in the satellite each & every time.

I'm familiar with the counter-argument: "Why would other players bad play hurt you?", but I believe the answer is lodged in the structure of the satellites, with the aggressively increasing blinds, that very fast forces you into 'race' situations. The better players recognize the advantage of postponing the 'race' for as long as possible, while the reckless/fearless adrenaline driven players thrive on it, collectively reducing what skill-edge you might have.

Best,

McMelchior (Johan)

[Dalamar]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not registered at Poker Stars yet, but will soon, after I get my Christmas Bonus at UB. Is there currently a bonus at Stars?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno, I've played at Stars for a long time and I think the ONLY bonus I've seen is when they introduced a new payment method. No new player bonus, no referral bonuses.

Stars is chintzy.