Gigabet's HH and our SnG Strategy

[Jman28]

Linky winky

[the shadow]

Step 5 Higher (First 4 Levels) W/ Gig's hand

Almost there with Success and Failure (Long)

[eastbay]

I agree. I just think it would be foolish not to strongly consider the context here which is significantly different from most games where we are looking to apply any strategy we might want to glean from the HH.

It is a very interesting HH, no matter how you slice it.

eastbay

[Jman28]

Obviously, everyone needs a little luck to win. I wasn't saying that if we can play like Giga did, we would always win. I'm just looking at strategy implications.

[ QUOTE ]

The play with the Q9 and the steal with 45 are classic plays or trapping a continuation bet/bluff.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that these are plays that you would've made? Or that they even would've entered your mind? Because I would've never considered calling that raise with Q9 myself.

[Jman28]

I think we are on the same page.

[john_]

thanks...

[EverettKings]

I think that part of the reason for Giga to even post this for us was to break out of the rigid walls established by a lot of the forum discussion. You can start a thread on "Beating the party step 5 higher", but Giga is saying that you really need a thread on "Beating party step 5 higher tournament #9721574298 vs players x, y, and z on the third hand of level two in seventh position with 1250 chips facing a 50 chip open raise from player jimbob with Q9o and players tony, sam, and ned to act behind you".

The point is, the majority of the time this is an easy muck for a hand like Q9o. That's what the rules say. But did the rules talk about this specific spot? No, so you can't assume that they're right. You have to analyze even the "easy" hands situationally, considering a boatload of factors, even if 99.8% of the time you end up making the same play.

At low levels, the rules work so well that you're better off spending that extra concentration on your other 15 tables on your quad monitor setup. You can kill the games with simple rules and simple plays. But the better the players get, the less your rules earn you, and the more you have to beat them with a brain instead of a checklist.

This is an amazingly dynamic game. It's a game of people and position more than a game of cards. Everyone knows that, but few understand it.

-Kings

[Apathy]

The stakes the type of competition, and most importantly the VERY steep payout structure had to play a big factor in those risky early decisions.

[shejk]

I can see a fold from AK against his Q9. That said, I don't see that fold in 90+% of the tournys I play, and it's certainly not there in a 10+1.

[the shadow]

Good point.

In a wide variety of fields -- avalanche safety, commercial aviation, credit scoring, etc. -- there are two approaches to making decisions: rules-based or knowledge-based.

Regardless of the field, participants in time-stressed, information-rich, repetitive tasks (sound anything like multi-tabling SNGs? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]) often develop rules-based systems to simplify decision-making. Moreover, novices are generally taught rules-based systems.

Rules-based systems have many advantages. They can be taught more easily. They lead to quicker decisions. They approximate an expert's knowledge-based decision-making. However, such systems suffer from limitations, including overlooking ambiguities and nuances in the data.

Knowledge-based decision-making is left for the big boys, who have gathered a base of experience sufficient to make judgment calls. What we see here is the difference between a "how to beat the party 10+1" rules-based system and knowledge-based decision-making by an expert.

The Shadow