Is a fast start necessary?
 

It seems in the final tables I've reached on PokerStars I've doubled up within the first 20 minutes of the tournament. It seems the first 20 minutes is crucial for me. If I don't hit a big hand I slowly drop to around 1,100 chips and then am forced to push if my cards run dead and the blinds hit 50/100.

In multitables where you go far (top 25, out of a field of around 1,500) do you guys generally get off to really fast starts?

Re: Is a fast start necessary?
 

You know, it really varies for me. Usually I like to have about 6000 by first break, but I've gotten into the money with stacks as low as 1000 at first break, and as high as 14,000. Bigger stack makes it more likely though, but as long as I have at least 10x the bb, I can do fairly well. Lower than that, I'm taking alot more risks than I'd usually take, higher stack, I'll make my steals, but don't usually put myself in a situation to knock out alot of chips.

Re: Is a fast start necessary?
 

I've been playing orthodox, by the book, tight early, loosening up later, etc. and its frustrating. nine times out of ten I hover ~average, and have to fight the entire tourney to stay alive. The only times that I stay comfortable are when I have nice pockets/flops, at least 2/hr. Im considering adopting a more LAG style, at least in the micros. That way I either bust out early, or have a nice stack early.

Thoughts?

Re: Is a fast start necessary?
 

with 1100 in chips with the blinds at 50/100 your still not under tons of stress to make a move...the button could stil go around 7 times before you went bust...do you think the fact that when you made the final tables you did double up in the early rounds perhaps makes you put more pressure on yourself to make a big play then is necessary ?

Re: Is a fast start necessary?
 

I think a big question you should ask is why is your stack dwindling those times you don't make a move. You don't need a double up to not bleed.

Re: Is a fast start necessary?
 

[ QUOTE ]
with 1100 in chips with the blinds at 50/100 your still not under tons of stress to make a move...the button could stil go around 7 times before you went bust...

[/ QUOTE ]

Just wow...by the time you do double through you still won't have enough chips to make a move.

Re: Is a fast start necessary?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think a big question you should ask is why is your stack dwindling those times you don't make a move. You don't need a double up to not bleed.

[/ QUOTE ]



no you dont need a double up, but if you're not getting hands, you're gonna bleed. its like a sng when you have <600 chips in L4... tight play leads to this.

My question is when I get borderline hands, like QJo... do I play them? almost certainly in late position if Im opening, but middle? Do I call a 3xbb raise with them? I think all this talk about being tight early is messing with my head, but its kinda crazy to be TAG the whole time, and end up having to push/fold since you hover at 10bb's after 2nd break.

god that was a ramble. sry

Re: Is a fast start necessary?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've been playing orthodox, by the book, tight early, loosening up later, etc. and its frustrating. nine times out of ten I hover ~average, and have to fight the entire tourney to stay alive. The only times that I stay comfortable are when I have nice pockets/flops, at least 2/hr. Im considering adopting a more LAG style, at least in the micros. That way I either bust out early, or have a nice stack early.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

I used to do it that way, but now I have loosened up a little (play buy ins 10 and lower mostly) to take advantage of the weak players that are plentiful. I'll either lose to something painful, get a bad read on a player and lose, or end with a nice chunk of chips.

Re: Is a fast start necessary?
 

[ QUOTE ]
with 1100 in chips with the blinds at 50/100 your still not under tons of stress to make a move...the button could stil go around 7 times before you went bust...

[/ QUOTE ]

The blinds won't go up during these seven revolutions of the button?

Re: Is a fast start necessary?
 

No, a fast start is certainly not necessary. I've had tournaments in which it was smooth sailing from the start, early double ups and whatnot, and lucky enough to not get sucked out on the whole way, and I've had tournaments in which I pretty much did nothing until I was forced to by my stack, and won my next few coinflips into the final table.