Tightening up wrong for low-limit SNGs?
 

So I have found a wealth of information on here, I cut ans pasted over 50 pages of information that I thought was very valuable into a word doc, read it 5 times in total, edited it down into a super file that I really studied and thought, "Man, I'm gonna go whip some serious ass tonight!"

I know that my records at SNGs are from a small sample size, but I do well thus far. I'm a winning player (after 6 months not being one) for over 18 months now. I actually make a nice living playing B&M MTTs everymonth or so, and then online at night. Again, I know about variance, and that you shouldn't be results oriented, but my last 10 SNGs have featured only ITM in one, for third place. I've never had 3 where I didn't cash previously. What have I been doing differntly? Trying to use a combination of the strats I read in here, which made perfect sense as I read them. I end up 7/8 in chips on level 4, having won small pot as consolation for playing a lot tighter than usual.

I again want to reiterate that I understand variance, and that short term results aren't what to seek. I am trying to find out, if in fact, I'm playing overly tight for these low level ($5.50s) SNGs. (I want to get 500 SNGs at this level before I move up, I think.) I stayed at $.05/.10 NLHE for a long time after I was doing well, I just want to be sure that I'm a good SNGer where i am before I go up. Any ideas?

Re: Tightening up wrong for low-limit SNGs?
 

"I just want to be sure that I'm a good SNGer where i am before I go up"

Play ALOT of sngs and/or post hand histories. Either the results will let you know or the posters here will.

Re: Tightening up wrong for low-limit SNGs?
 

You've been a winning player for 18 months, and you've never gone out of the money for three SnG's in a row?

[ QUOTE ]
Again, I know about variance, and that you shouldn't be results oriented, but my last 10 SNGs have featured only ITM in one, for third place.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you don't know about variance if you are concerned about the ROI of your last 10 SnG's. If you are worried about your last 500, come back and we can talk.

If you think you may be playing too tight, play looser and see where that gets you, or post hands to get a second opinion.

Re: Tightening up wrong for low-limit SNGs?
 

But should I loosen my starting Reqs early in the SNG? I read the MTT strat form from Darse, Moneymaker's SNG guide, and msot of the other stuff in the FAQ thread here...too tight for $5.50 SNGs?

Re: Tightening up wrong for low-limit SNGs?
 

Elsewhere I stated that I played mainly ring games until the last week or two. I never liked SNGs, and I rarely, if ever played them. I've recently discovered them and how fun and profitable they can be. They are very differnt from the NLHE rings games that I am used to playing.

Yes, I understand variance. I'm not asking it is possible this is due to variance, I'm wondering if I am playing too tightly for $5.50 SNGs, and possibly for the $11 SNGs that I want to move up to soon. I am wondering this, becasue I've felt a little uncomfortable, and like I was keeping myself in a bad position by playing so tight, as long-term issue, and not solely becasue of the previous 10 SNGs. Most of what I read is from the FAQs in this thread, and I was basically, for example, calling raises with ONLY AA, KK, QQ, AKs/u and AQs for the first 3 blind levels.

Can we get a reply on that idea? If I had Poker Tracker, which I think I'm going to buy, along with some SNG software, I'd prolly be able to give better information.

Side issue: Is SNG software vital before I move up to $55 SNGs? RIght now I track results and ROI and so on via Excel.

Thanks for the input everyone, I really appreciate it.

Re: Tightening up wrong for low-limit SNGs?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Elsewhere I stated that I played mainly ring games until the last week or two.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I missed that.


[ QUOTE ]
...I was basically, for example, calling raises with ONLY AA, KK, QQ, AKs/u and AQs for the first 3 blind levels.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am not an expert on the really low level SnG's, but it doesn't sound like a big flaw in your game. However, by the 2nd and 3rd level you should be able to lower your standards for some preflop raisers. I imagine there will be a lot of very LAG preflop players at the 5's, and I should think you could punish them with less-than-premium hands and decent post flop play.


[ QUOTE ]
Is SNG software vital before I move up to $55 SNGs?


[/ QUOTE ]

No, not vital at all. The consensus around here seems to be that posting hands and thinking is the best way to make sure you are playing right. Personally, I use poker tracker to keep track of my SnG's, and I find it very practical and saves me some time, but it is certainly not vital.

Re: Tightening up wrong for low-limit SNGs?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Elsewhere I stated that I played mainly ring games until the last week or two. I never liked SNGs, and I rarely, if ever played them. I've recently discovered them and how fun and profitable they can be. They are very differnt from the NLHE rings games that I am used to playing.

Yes, I understand variance. I'm not asking it is possible this is due to variance, I'm wondering if I am playing too tightly for $5.50 SNGs, and possibly for the $11 SNGs that I want to move up to soon. I am wondering this, becasue I've felt a little uncomfortable, and like I was keeping myself in a bad position by playing so tight, as long-term issue, and not solely becasue of the previous 10 SNGs. Most of what I read is from the FAQs in this thread, and I was basically, for example, calling raises with ONLY AA, KK, QQ, AKs/u and AQs for the first 3 blind levels.

Can we get a reply on that idea? If I had Poker Tracker, which I think I'm going to buy, along with some SNG software, I'd prolly be able to give better information.

Side issue: Is SNG software vital before I move up to $55 SNGs? RIght now I track results and ROI and so on via Excel.

Thanks for the input everyone, I really appreciate it.

[/ QUOTE ]

A friend of mine has been making a similar transition, and also ran into a few problems. I watched him play and saw a few distinct problems, which might possibly be similar to yours. His biggest problem wasn't so much his tightness in the early stages, but the lack of change in the later ones. When the blinds grew to significant amounts compared to the stack, 50/100 and up, he didn't adapt his play for more aggressive blind stealing. In a similar vein, he didn't change his play sufficiently as the players dropped, such as when only 6 players were left. Another issue, which became apparent in our discussions, was that he still approached them much like ring games. I told him the goal in a sit and go is simply to eliminate his opponents, and of course make it to the last three. This no doubt seems obvious, but it changes a number of decisions compared to a ring game. In a tournament, you'll lay down a decent hand just to let your opponents kill each other off. Again, this is clear, but when your thoughts are geared towards simply maximizing your stack such as in a ring game, you can lose sight that your tournament equity (of making the last three) will grow considerably with each opponent knocked off.

Albert

Re: Tightening up wrong for low-limit SNGs?
 

[ QUOTE ]
...I was basically, for example, calling raises with ONLY AA, KK, QQ, AKs/u and AQs for the first 3 blind levels.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am not an expert on the really low level SnG's, but it doesn't sound like a big flaw in your game. However, by the 2nd and 3rd level you should be able to lower your standards for some preflop raisers. I imagine there will be a lot of very LAG preflop players at the 5's, and I should think you could punish them with less-than-premium hands and decent post flop play.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is definitely wrong. You tighten up more in L2 and L3 because you have less chips to hit a flop. And note, I reraise with AA-JJ, AK, AQ in the right spots here. The hands you call raises with are PP's hitting a set, and they really want you to have a stack behind.

As for playing tight, you really don't have the odds to hit a lot of suited connectors. You don't want to play AJo in EP. You don't like playing bad cards without huge implied odds.

That said, most of the standard advice on this forum is too tight (including mine), especially if you know how to play postflop, which you probably do after playing ring games.

Play good implied odds situations, raise with decent hands folded to you in LP. But remember, calling a raise means a large portion of your stack, so you can't be loose there. And you really don't want to waste chips early.