Harrington On Hold'Em: Continuation & Probe bets in SNGs

[pastabatman]

Hi,
I just read Harrington On Hold 'Em (loved it). One thing that stood out in the book for me was the discussion of continuation and probe bets. Under certain conditions, when the flop doesn't hit you well, Harrington suggests a range around 1/2 the pot for such bets. Should such plays be used in good SNG strategy, when you the flop doesn't hit you well? Sometimes? Never?

Usually, I haven't done so well when I've tried them, but my sample size is small, and I very likely mis-applied them at least some of the time. Also, it seems like trying this kind of thing can eat up your stack quickly. Maybe you should save it until you're ITM, or only when you've got a big stack?

Should I study them harder, or just forget about them when playing SNGs?

Thanks,
Pasta

[spentrent]

I haven't read the book but it seems like advice that applies more to big multi-table tournaments where starting stacks are considerably bigger relative to the blinds for many more hands. In fact it sounds like great ring game advice.

[lacky]

It's good poker and therefore it applies to sng's. If you fold or check everytime the flop misses you, you are weak-tight, the easiest type player to play against. BTW, weak-tight discribes the majority of non-LAG players in the mid priced sng's in the early rounds.

Steve

[lorinda]

weak-tight discribes the majority of non-LAG players in the mid priced sng's in the early rounds.

It also describes the winners, and this post just made me call 100 UTG with 47s

Lori

[lacky]

Lori,
I have a ton of respect for you, but I find it hard to believe you are advacating playing a predictable fit or fold style.

[ QUOTE ]
this post just made me call 100 cold UTG with 47s


[/ QUOTE ]

I admit I'm pretty tired, but you lost me here. I have no idea what that means.

Steve

[lorinda]

I don't necessarily think that weak-tight early is the BEST formula for success, but it certainly recieves too much scorn. It is not a losing formula in the mid limits as long as you play well late on.

I cunningly had "Reply" positioned over my call button. The 47s was nothing compared to the AA vs JJ loss the next hand anyway [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Lori

[spentrent]

[ QUOTE ]
It's good poker and therefore it applies to sng's.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with this assertion. So here's a counter-example. To me, an SNG is a metaphor for a poker career where your stack is your bankroll.

Say you're on your LAST 200 bucks and you face a decision to play for a 6 to 1 pot on a 5 to 1 shot for every last penny. Calling is FANTASTIC POKER but you have an 80% chance of going FLAT BROKE and nobody loves you.

[lorinda]

As for the predictability, I would certainly mix it up at a game with regulars in.

I recently started using pokertracker for SNGs to check out one or two things that had me interested, and in 397 tourneys I have only met two people 10 times, my third most common opponent has played me 6 times.

Lori

[lorinda]

I haven't read Harrington (In fact I've hardly read anything [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] ) but it might be interesting to find what he says about hands as you approach the money.
A SNG afterall is a tourney where you start off only seven places away from the cash.

Lori

[parappa]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read Harrington (In fact I've hardly read anything [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] ) but it might be interesting to find what he says about hands as you approach the money.
A SNG afterall is a tourney where you start off only seven places away from the cash.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

That's volume 2! [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img] Volume 1 is more like full-table MTT stuff, though it is really good. We're all waiting like little birds for Volume 2 for him to dump it all in! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]