Party Speed Tourneys----Game Strategy

AceKQJT · #1 10-08-2004, 03:39 PM

I've been wanting to discuss these things here lately, so I'll try to post something as a matter of discussion. Many of the responses in this forum have become simple one-liners that have little value to anyone. Mostly attempts of the poster to bolster the general opinion that he (the poster) should be listened to and not questioned.

I see a lot of responses similar to: "Don't play, it's a crapshoot"; "...what are you doing playing that structure?"; etc.

So aside from the fact that you may not in the least be interested in playing one of these tourneys (I refuse to play 7-card stud, but there is a strategy for it), what wisdom can you offer in terms of strategy?

I guess that we first assume that the variance will be extremely high in this type of structure. I haven't played one yet, but I plan on playing one to see if I can adjust to the game.

In my mind, tempered aggression is your friend. I suppose the game should be played as if you were playing a short table...a little more loose-aggressive pre-flop. Slightly looser post-flop, but not overly so. I think one should be slowplaying less. You are going to be betting more draws than normal (although some of you should notice no difference), so that needs to be tempered with value-betting your good hands as well.

Just a few thoughts to get things going.

--Casey

redart · #2 10-10-2004, 02:13 PM

Thinking that it would be fun to play a tournament in under 2 hours. I gave it a whirl. Forget the exact numbers, but about 900 entries. Down to 200 players top 120 pay, I have about T8500 average T4500. Just got through the blinds at 500/1000. Well the game SLOWS down. At 3 minutes/blinds we don't even play a hand at some levels. The next time the blinds come my way its 5000/10,000 and I lose in the BB. Finish ITM, but half of the table had under T1000. Just waiting out the blinds with the new time bank at PP.
If you want to play, watch the clock and keep a sense of humor about the whole thing

Vince Lepore · #3 10-10-2004, 02:38 PM

To be successful - pos ev - in this type of tourney you must play fast early trying to accumulate a reasonable stack - if you reach your goal you then stall until in the money - once in the money you pay particular attention to clock and stall or play accordingly.

Vince [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

AceKQJT · #4 10-10-2004, 07:21 PM

That is a very interesting outlook. I didn't realize it before, but I can certainly see where stalling early with a big stack should kill off a lot of competition. I'm gonna give it a whirl, I'll let you know how it turns out.

--Casey

ace_in_the_hole · #5 10-10-2004, 02:52 PM

From watchingt hese tournaments, it seems that a lot of players were concerned about the blinds being more than their stack, but in reality the main factor is the stack size of the person you play the hand against. It seemed to me that people disregarded this and were just complaining about the blinds.

Punker · #6 10-10-2004, 07:33 PM

"In my mind, tempered aggression is your friend. I suppose the game should be played as if you were playing a short table...a little more loose-aggressive pre-flop. Slightly looser post-flop, but not overly so. I think one should be slowplaying less. You are going to be betting more draws than normal (although some of you should notice no difference), so that needs to be tempered with value-betting your good hands as well."

My experience was that naked aggression is your friend. Open every pot you play for your stack and hope for the best and try to accumulate enough chips to force others to play before you. There was little to no post flop play in the one I tried.

Che · #7 10-10-2004, 10:18 PM

Casey-

[ QUOTE ]
"Don't play, it's a crapshoot"; "...what are you doing playing that structure?"

[/ QUOTE ]

My thoughts were similar to these when I first heard about speed tourneys. As I thought more about it, I realized that it's basically a gap concept game.

I decided to play one last night to blow off some steam after an off day at the tables and discovered that I was correct (i.e. understanding of gap concept issues is key) and that there is virtually zero postflop play. I ran into AA with KK as the bubble approached and did not money.

However, I think the skilled player who can adapt to the structure could achieve a very nice $/hour rate at this game IF he can handle the extreme variance.

So, I will be playing a lot of these (2-3 per week, hopefully) since I think high variance is the friend of the well-funded above average player.

I'll try to followup with more observations as my experience with speed tourneys grows...

Che

Vince Lepore · #8 10-10-2004, 11:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
realized that it's basically a gap concept game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that's funny! I hope Sklansky reads this.

Vince [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Che · #9 10-11-2004, 12:28 AM

Vince-

If you think my statement is misguided, direction and education would be much more helpful than derision.

Even a short explanation of why the statement is funny would be appreciated. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Thanks,
Che

AlwaysWrong · #10 10-11-2004, 01:35 AM

It seems like you need some looser variant of Sklansky's move-in system, which is basically all about the gap concept. This seems like it's clearly a structure where you'd want to just have some bot decidining when to go all-in... probably not much actual thought involved.

And I think he was laughing with you not at you [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]