Anyone play loose while the blinds are cheap?

[Fraubump]

I don't hear much about this strategy, but it seems like if you've got a passive preflop table, then playing a lot of hands for the first round or two trying to get a lucky flop might be reasonable. This is obviously more viable when you have a high chips to blinds ratio, which is not true on Party, but is true on Stars (and not bad on UB).

[cferejohn]

This is a fairly common strategy, but as you say it relies on the table being fairly passive. It also requires you to be able to get away from flops that you only partly hit (i.e. a jack-high flop (none of your suit) with JTs) when there is alot of action.

Certainly this strategy makes all kinds of sense with small pairs, when the flop either definitely hits you (you flop a set) or definitely doesn't (you don't). With suited connectors, you run much more risk of hitting the flop just well enough to lose a lot of chips.

[TheGrifter]

So funny, I just wrote a long post addressing this same issue and IE decided to die just as I hit send. Since you already started the thread, I'll just recreate my thoughts here.

Basically I am starting to convince myself that the best strategy at low buy in SnG's is to play very loose preflop in the first couple of levels in hopes of doubling up. I know the prevailing opinion is that one should play tight and only be aggressive on premium starting hands early on as the feeling is an average or above average player can "outplay" others later on. My reasons for feeling differently are as follows:

1. The blind to chip ratio is such that the implied odds make many more hands playable. Even on Prima where you start with 1000 and levels 1/2 are 10/20 and 15/30 respectively it is very attractive to limp in.

2. Most tables are very passive early at least at the 10+1 level and so you can generally limp without fear of a raise even in early position. If the pot is raised it is generally the minimum and there are enough people coming along for the ride to make a call correct in most situations.

3. At the 10+1 level there are nearly always 2-3 players who have no idea what is going on and are almost guaranteed to have lost their stack by level 3, if you limp into more pots you greatly increase your chances of getting these chips and doubling up.

4. I have found that by doublng up early I can am almost guaranteed to make the money in the tournament and if I really push my advantage I can finish first better than half the time. I consider myself an average player overall so this strategy would probably be even more attractive for someone who is above average overall (although I doubt many of these people are playing 10+1)

5. Perhaps my biggest reason for wanting to double up early is to take away the chance that I may become short-stacked relative to the blinds before I get a premium starting hand. This can happen very easily especially if you lose just one pot and can create a desparate situation, I would rather finish 10th in a tourney than blind out in 5th.

6. By doubling up early on a less than stellar starting hand that might have flopped big you create an image that a couple of the better players at the table may remember, this increases the likelihood of your big hands getting paid off later. Also, by doubling up you will have a large stack and be able to play a bit tighter later on, doubling the deception value.

That's all I can think of for now but like I said I'm not entirely sure that a loose strategy early on is the best and I would much appreciate any input regarding the overall thought and my specific reasons. Thanks.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Frau,

I sometimes do this, depending on the table. You need a table which is: (a) passive pre-flop, so you can get into pots cheaply; and, (b) aggressive post-flop, so you get good implied odds.

But, as cferejohn said, you can only get away with this if you're disciplined and can get away from a flop that hits you just enough to give you a second-best hand.

Cris

[PrayingMantis]

One good thing about playing looser on early rounds, comes from the fact that on low buy-in SNG's, it's usually difficult to bluff people out of pots, even on later stages and near the money. People call call call (It's different on 20-30 buy-in as I've noticed). So, in order to build a stack before you're too low comparing to the blinds (certainly on 2 tables, where there will be more competition later on), you better have hands, real hands. If, then, you can get out cheaply when you don't hit, but charge heavily (which will probably happen, because people will call) when you do hit, limping with more hands at a passive table can be profitable, I think.

I try it sometimes. If I don't hit anything - it's not that I've lost too much (at least when it's a slow structure and deep stacks), and I can start playing tighter and more aggressive, hoping they WILL fold often enough when I put pressure.



PrayingMantis

[CrisBrown]

Hiya Grifter,

If you are good at reading players and their hands, if you are disciplined enough to get away from a hand that's only hit half-way, and if you pick your spots, you can certainly be successful playing a bit looser than is "correct." Some of the top pros -- Gus Hansen, Layne Flack, Phil Ivey, and Daniel Negraneu come to mind -- play very well this way.

Kurn's "fishy call" post was a good example, and I think you do need to make such calls occasionally, when the money is deep and you have the right situation. I also sometimes raise on "off" hands, as a blind steal but also for implied odds and later deception and intimidation if I hit the flop and end up shown down.

Why intimidation? Here's an example. In a $33 two-table SNG yesterday, it was folded to me in the CO with 22. This isn't usually a raising hand for me, but I decided to try a blind steal. The SB called, and the flop was 10-10-2. We ended up all-in, and my boat beat his set (he had T9s).

For the rest of that tourney, my reraises got a lot of respect, because people seemed to believe that no board was "safe" if I was in a pot. I was able to steal a few big pots with all-in reraises at the turn or river, on the image of that one full house. And as you say, I could tighten up, raise only on "real" hands, and get pre-flop action on them.

But all of those "ifs" in the first paragraph are important caveats, and I also have to rein myself in and realize that I'm not always going to make the right read, I'm not always going to pick the right spots, etc. In short, I'm not as skilled as a Gus Hansen, Layne Flack, Phil Ivey, or Daniel Negraneu, and I have to play within my limitations.

Right, William? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Cris

[TheGrifter]

Thank you for your reply Cris..

[ QUOTE ]

If you are good at reading players and their hands, if you are disciplined enough to get away from a hand that's only hit half-way, and if you pick your spots, you can certainly be successful playing a bit looser than is "correct."


[/ QUOTE ]

I think one of the reasons I find it easy to profit by playing loose preflop early on is that at the 10 dollar level there are always a few players who are very predictable (loose, calling stations) who will basically let you pick off their stack by calling pot sized bets on every street.

I feel that since these players are so predictable post-flop and almost always bust by the mid stages of the SnG it may be unwise to fold any hand that has a chance to flop big (except real long-shots like 10-3) if you are in late position with limpers.

[ QUOTE ]

For the rest of that tourney, my reraises got a lot of respect, because people seemed to believe that no board was "safe" if I was in a pot. I was able to steal a few big pots with all-in reraises at the turn or river, on the image of that one full house. And as you say, I could tighten up, raise only on "real" hands, and get pre-flop action on them.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is another big reason to at least mix it up early on, because there are going to be at least SOME players who are paying attention.

[ QUOTE ]

But all of those "ifs" in the first paragraph are important caveats, and I also have to rein myself in and realize that I'm not always going to make the right read, I'm not always going to pick the right spots, etc. In short, I'm not as skilled as a Gus Hansen, Layne Flack, Phil Ivey, or Daniel Negraneu, and I have to play within my limitations.


[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly have no delusions of having the postflop skills of any of these players and I agree that it is very important to be able to get away from hands like top pair weak kicker or small two pair, however with this discipline in place, at the lower levels, what is the best strategic approach to SnG's in your opinion? Tight/Aggressive early on or Loose and rather passive preflop (meaning if you try to limp and are raised, release any hand not worth re-raising)

I say strategic meaning ignoring the tactical decisions that you will make based on the conditions of the table(other than the assumption that the table is passive) and focusing specifically on what style of play will result in the greatest win % and 1st place finishes.

[William]

[ QUOTE ]
Right, William?

[/ QUOTE ]

Right Cris [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[CrisBrown]

Hiya Grifter,

[ QUOTE ]
At the lower levels, what is the best strategic approach to SnG's in your opinion? Tight/Aggressive early on or Loose and rather passive preflop (meaning if you try to limp and are raised, release any hand not worth re-raising)?

I say strategic meaning ignoring the tactical decisions that you will make based on the conditions of the table(other than the assumption that the table is passive) and focusing specifically on what style of play will result in the greatest win % and 1st place finishes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't answer that without knowing the structure, buy-in, and table dynamics. Sorry, but there's no one-size-fits-all strategy that will always work. And there's the issue of personality; what works for you might not work for me, and vice versa.

I realize this isn't the answer you're looking for, but I can't give you a more honest one. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Cris

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

At a loose-passive table, I will play loose early on only with position (CO & button) and pretty much be a rock elsewhere. My logic is that I'll likely get to see 2 flops per orbit out of position anyway in my blinds. I'd rather not bleed chips away trying to hit flops.