Re: How bad would it be to fold every hand on levels 1-3 in a 10+1?
 

[ QUOTE ]
reverse implied odds because you probably have the best hand on the flop and even charge any draw enough to make it a bad pot odds call, but do not have the judgement required to let go of the hand after that, even if the draw should come.


[/ QUOTE ]
I read somewhere once "The joy of NL is being able to crush implied odds". To do this, bet an amount larger than:(size_of_pot + minimum(my_stack, his_stack)) * his_odds_of_sucking_out. If you do this, it's not possible for your opponent to make a correct call, and mathematically, it doesn't matter if you pay him off after his draw has hit, because you've already charged him too high a price.

(The exception is his draw has a large number of outs or the pot is sufficently large, then it might be that there is no anount you can bet. Logically, if he's actually a favorite to win because he has something like an open-ended straight flush, you can't push him off it.)

Re: How bad would it be to fold every hand on levels 1-3 in a 10+1?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I read somewhere once "The joy of NL is being able to crush implied odds". To do this, bet an amount larger than:(size_of_pot + minimum(my_stack, his_stack)) * his_odds_of_sucking_out. If you do this, it's not possible for your opponent to make a correct call, and mathematically, it doesn't matter if you pay him off after his draw has hit, because you've already charged him too high a price.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's just the thing though. With the stack sizes in a SNG, this almost always means a flop all-in if you have raised preflop.

Regards
Brad S

Re: How bad would it be to fold every hand on levels 1-3 in a 10+1?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Can one be a winner with a strictly push/fold SNG game

[/ QUOTE ]

Seem to remember bringing up this point about a year ago and you laughing at the idea. I shall expect an autographed copy of the book in recompence [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: How bad would it be to fold every hand on levels 1-3 in a 10+1?
 

[ QUOTE ]
That's just the thing though. With the stack sizes in a SNG, this almost always means a flop all-in if you have raised preflop.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not really true. It probably means overbetting the pot, but it doesn't necessarily mean all-in. Lets say you raise 100 with AA and get one caller for 225 in the pot. Your stacks are now 700. The flop comes up two-toned so if you guess he might have a flush draw versus your AA, he has a likelihood of getting his 9-outter by the river 35% of the time. Betting anything higher than 324 will kill his implied odds. Win or lose, you've won your Sklansky dollars when he calls.

I'm not saying this is the correct way to play (althought it might be if your opponent is a fish who will call any price on any draw without odds). I am only claiming that if your own play lacks no self control and if you play so poorly that you always give stack-sized implied odds to any draw, then it is possible to make bet sized in a way as to combat this flaw.

You can do the same with pre-flop bets: If you have a big pair, and can't let go of it post-flop, then bet enough pre-flop so that no one has implied odds to look for a set versus you. I.e. bet over 1/7th of your stack. If you have KK and can't let go when an ace flops, bet 1/3rd of your stack. And so on.

Naturally with this system you will get yourself in a situation where your bets are too large and are only called by better hands, but hey, poker isn't easy. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: How bad would it be to fold every hand on levels 1-3 in a 10+1?
 

It would be bad.
Very bad.

Playing the first couple of levels properly is profitable. Not playing any hands is not profitable.

Therefor...

Some stats,

just from a random, smallish set, I know, but the point is that you're going to double up oftenish when you *do* play a hand, that you shouldn't throw away those hands.

from my 179 10s:

level 1: hands: 1744, BB/hand .07, Chips won: 7060
level 2: hands: 1674, BB/hand .06, Chips won: 12,721
level 3: hands: 1584, BB/hand .02, Chips won: 5,231

Not remarkable results or anything, but they "prove" the point.
I don't play well, didn't play those tournaments espeically well, but was noticably up on all 3 of the first 3 levels. So there's very likely something to be gained by not folding.

This is a question often arisen by players who have the problem "i wind up with a short stack too often while playing as recommended in the FAQ."

citanul

Re: How bad would it be to fold every hand on levels 1-3 in a 10+1?
 

Showing how small the sample is, my winnings in lvl 1-3 had now jumped 45 to $422 thanks to a few morons early in my last set of 4.

Re: How bad would it be to fold every hand on levels 1-3 in a 10+1?
 

I agree with this. If you fold every hand in levels 1-3, you lose 20% of your stack. Now if you were going to lose more than that by playing hands, this may be a good strategy.

With people willing to bet and call a lot of chips with any kind of hand on any street, these rounds can be tricky to play. It is possible to get in trouble , but also possible to pick up a lot of chips.

With a lot of lose callers, I will value bet strong hands and call or limp with speculative hands that play well with 4-way action or more,