New to Single table lovin it

[leykis]

I used to play primarily NL 6max cash games on party. I recently started entering in some multis because I thought it would be fun and I wanted to test my tourney game out and see how I fared. On tuesday I entered a 30+3 multi with 630 entrys and ended up finishing 2nd good for 3 grand. I played some single table tourneys after that and found that I really like the tournament format. I love to play no limit and the tournament format (single table of course) takes some of the variance out of the game when compared to NL cash games. So for the first time I really took an interest in reading some of the posts in the single table forum. I looked at the FAQ sticky and of course saw AleoMagus's guide to beating the 10+1's on party. After reviewing his guide I tried it out last night. I only played 10 10+1's but found that I did pretty well.

ROI=63%

I know the numbers are not statistically meaningful but I and obviously I am not at all dissapointed with the result but I did notice that of the tourneys that I did not cash it seemed to be that I ended up short stacked on the bubble because I literally played maybe one hand in the first 3 levels. So I have two questions. Has anyone had more success at this level by playing a little looser early? And is this formulaic strategy also valid at the 20+2 or 30+3 levels?

Thanks!

[fujowpai]

I also have just started SNGs after being a solely cash player, and I too think they're great. I've found them (in my limited sample) to be much more consistent than the cash games, presumably because everyone shares the same pressures.

As for formulaic play, I'm unconvinced, and I think you nailed the reason why. You said you were short-stacked on the bubble because of not getting good cards. The "formula" says play tight. You probably could easily work out the numbers for how often you can expect quality hands in 3 or 4 orbits of the button and get a glimpse of your long term expectation using this method.

I see better opportunities to "play the players" than at cash games, and you have 30-50 deals to get it done. In cash games, you can always recover from a misstep. I am beginning my single-table career under the assumption that characterizing and reading the players, your position, and your relative stack size is much more important than in cash games, and that your actual cards are more of an afterthought.

Eric

[The once and future king]

Yea, you have just started so it will be a good idea to follow the advice of the above poster and igonore the advice of players who have been grinding it out on the SNG's for months and years.

Also your ROI is likely to be half what is now after you have played 200+.

[fujowpai]

Before I get my head handed to me, I want to point out that I didn't say a formulaic approach was "wrong" or Brad's (among other's) fine work is without merit. I'm like everybody else, I want easy-to-follow guidelines. But from my experience -- very expensive "lessons" -- I've concluded that guidelines can be misleading and are only useful as a jumping off point for doing your own thinking. Other players may have a completely different take.

Eric

[Phill S]

the thing is, with anything to do with poker there is no one answer.

the tight fomula approach is just one approach, if you have one and it works, great.

the main advantage of the system is that you avoid marginal decisions in a hand where you didnt need to be in to begin with. it lets the 'maniacs' knock themselves out, then you start playing. if you happen to knock one out and double through, great, if not its no big deal.

im not sure, i think it was Eastbay, or maybe Aleo (Brad) who said that 80% of all chip movments happen after round 4. this makes a lot of sence when you think about it, and in practice it means that hands played in levels 1-3 are of very little importance.

you can fold hands up to (and some include) AQ as the risk reward is stacked against playing the hand in the first place. you cant win a game this early, only lose it.

Phill

[byronkincaid]

The more i think about it the more i think sngs are addictive. If i'm right it's pretty good news for good players.

[leykis]

[ QUOTE ]
The more i think about it the more i think sngs are addictive. If i'm right it's pretty good news for good players.

[/ QUOTE ]

This occured to me as well. The low buy in amounts with the potential big return will get the gambling addicts every time. It is a lock to make money off of something that people will get addicted to. Just ask the tobacco companies and drug dealers. (not to mention the poker sites themselves [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] )

I actually dont even know why I am complaining about bieng short stacked on level 4 or 5. Of the 5 tourneys that I didnt cash, I busted out with A9s (very short stacked) against A2s (also very short stacked) on the bubble when he made his flush. Cant complain there. And the funny thing there is that early on the same guy limped from UTG with A2o and I decided to call from the button with K10o. The flop had an A and when he cheked it to me I took a stab and bet the pot. He called and we checked it down. That cost me a few chips that probably would have made the difference between 4th and at least 3rd in the later stages. So I guess that answers my original question. Please flame me for complaining about a strategy that seems to guarantee a 40% to 50% return. After a 65% ROI session.

l8r

[AleoMagus]

I highly doubt that strategy will get you a 40-50% return if you aren't already recognizing opportunities to make well-timed steals and handling tricky situations on the flop well. Actually I don't really think I believe a 40-50% return is possible these days for less than a very exceptional player.

The bubble play guidelines in that guide are fast becoming useless in my opinion. That is not to say they are terribly bad, but you could do a lot better just by continuing to read this forum and drawing some conclusions.

As far as comments about other approaches, well, I think that is valid. I tend to play looser than the guide recommends early on and I think as players get better, they naturally and correctly will start to do that. This is especially correct on a site where you get a decent starting stack (like stars).

The thing is, my biggest flaw as a poker player is that I used to be a pretty serious blackjack player [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]. This is to say that I like a very simple system or strategy for play and that guide definitely has elements of that weakness in it.

Surprisingly, it seems that poker can be won this way at low stakes, but it really isn't great poker. I'm thinking about the recent thread where a poster asked about whether to push against an early sizeable raise with AK, or to simply call and try to trap, etc...

My immediate response was - Push. Simple, easy, no trouble. Not much thought involved and I'm positive it's +EV at the stakes I play.

Really great players tend to answer differently. They want to call and see a flop and outplay an opponent. They want to get every ounce out of their skill advantage, and they do.

This is actually a really Sklansky-esque concept

Just because something is +EV, that doesn't mean it's the best move

There are other options, and many of them will produce even better results. That guide is not about 'best' results, it is about easy options.

Still, it's a good start, as many have testified, but you will probably outgrow it somewhat. More likely, if you are getting good results, you are already filling in blanks with previous poker experience or just deal with tricky situations well.

Regards
Brad S