First three SNGs

[smoore]

[ QUOTE ]
If you get the empty chamber, you expect to triple up. Is this a reasonable gamble at this point in the tournament?

[/ QUOTE ]

for $5? I can't turn that gamble down. QQ and triple up then just don't play a hand until level 5 if you don't have one. bust out? go register for another one.

P.S. try not to play a tournament with 20% vig. 10+1 is the way to go

[fujowpai]

But my example is too specific. In reality, with Queens, you are likely a small dog against two to prevail and probably only have a moderate equity edge over these callers (given no other considerations). As far as I can tell, anyone entering one of these "pacts" knowingly is making a mistake.

But as an innocent bystander, I'm now up against the one still alive, who has a substantial chip lead with only two complete orbits to go before I've paid out almost 40% of my starting stack to see cards. If I have position on this guy for only a couple of deals every orbit, I have a big problem.

The other thing that stands out in my extrememly limited sample are the ones who avoid any early confrontations. If you have a "live" one on your left, followed by a row of these tight guys, do you think it's sensible to steal from the cut-off in the early rounds?

[BradleyT]

[ QUOTE ]
In reality, with Queens, you are likely a small dog against two to prevail and probably only have a moderate equity edge over these callers (given no other considerations).

[/ QUOTE ]

Um? wrong.

[fujowpai]

Don't think so, huh?

I assuming players will put their tournament at risk on AA-QQ, AK-AJ, KQ. Given this assumption, I'm correct.

But that's kind of a side issue. Bottom line, I think going all-in early if not heads-up is a mistake.

The main point I'm trying to get at is the need for possible need for selective aggression early, rather than folding everything other than top five or six holdings in a structure of this type.

[rjb03]

As someone already mentioned, you should take 2:1 on a coinflip every time. There are also times where you will get called by two people who share the same overcard, one dominating the other, thus decreasing their odds of winning.

[lorinda]

Whilst it is worth it for a short time when honing your skills, you should either get to a site like stars and play $5+0.5 or move up to $10+1 as soon as you feel even remotely comfortable.

Nothing to add to what has already been said otherwise.

Lori

[fujowpai]

Thanks for the tip Lori. I am aware of the vig. These Party 5/1 games are simply my baseline for evaluating tournament behaviours. Up to this point, I've been strictly a cash guy. So far, I like it. It's kind of like a big cage fight.

Having played some more of these, I have no doubt that the strategy of waiting for premium hands in the 1st three levels is not suitable for this structure or level. As far as I can tell, you need to identify players to beat up on as soon as you can. These include the players who are itching to see cards as well as the guys waiting for the nuts. They seem to be pretty easy to spot. The live wires will pay most any price, and don't seem to mind sending good money after bad, and the tight guys will lay it down.

What's also interesting is the demoralizing effect on players of getting their stacks decimated, and how if they get low enough they'll make desperation plays. It seems a bit more extreme than in the cash games.

I'll be interested to see how things change with different structures and levels.

[AleoMagus]

[ QUOTE ]
I assuming players will put their tournament at risk on AA-QQ, AK-AJ, KQ. Given this assumption, I'm correct.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you are correct. QQ vs two players playing cards in that range will win 42% of the time.

so, 42% of the time you triple up.

In terms of expectation, that means this call is worth about +208 chips in the long run. This early in the tourney, I think $EV calculations don't change that much.

I'd be calling here. Especially because in truth, you should be adding some underpairs to your list of possible all-in hands. Play a few more low limit SNGs on Party and you will agree. They've watched too much WPT and think 77 is a monster.

[ QUOTE ]
But that's kind of a side issue. Bottom line, I think going all-in early if not heads-up is a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but not in this case.

Regards
Brad S

[fujowpai]

[ QUOTE ]

so, 42% of the time you triple up.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for your reply Brad.

42% is your probability of winning. You lose over half the time. This is as I said.

Your EV is a different matter. You have an equity advantage over your opponent, as I said and you reiterated. Is it big enough to justify going all-in against two certain callers? You say yes, I disagree. Note that in this case, you are initiating the suicide pact. If would be different if you could add in some probability of them folding or you were the one put to the decision.

Eric

[fujowpai]

Also, it should be obvious that in a tournament you haven't actually won anything if you win this battle. But if you lose, which is the probable outcome, you have given up your opportunity the win the war.

You may be right about the WPT-wannabes, but I still think it is a mistake, and I suspect that a more in-depth analysis would bear this out.