Beating the Party 10+1, Part 2

[RcrdBoy]

Check this post out.

The link for the ICM is in one of the posts, but this has some good discussion about ICM and other thought provoking topics.

Oh and to use the ICM you have to have Java installed on your computer.

[bigredlemon]

[ QUOTE ]
Irie, unfortunately neophytes (like myself) don't know what ICM is yet.

Are you saying that loose play with the 500-600 chip stack in the middle "bubble" period is enough fold equity to build a decent chip stack via blind stealing?

And, this is "preferable" over Big Lemon's idea of playing loose early to "double up."

[/ QUOTE ]
I've been thinking about it a little more, and figure: if you get a pair higher than 88 or AK, go all in, even if it's a ridiculously large raise given the blinds. Most likely it'll be a coinflip situation. It'll probably be a coin flip, and if you win, you're fairly guarenteed to double up your buy in. If you lose, tough luck. If everyone folds, sure you wasted a good hand. I've seen people go all in and get called with marginal hands ridiculously often at 10+1. The side bonus is that if you ever do hit a flop well and bet it out, they're more likely to think you're a manic fish and call you with the second best hand.

Given how tight aggressive everyone plays once it's down to the final 5, you're going to have to play coin flips sooner or later. It's just better to do it early. Plus, it's more time efficient.

[El Maximo]

This kinda of thinking always doubles me up when I catch big pairs early in an SnG. Limp with AA and get raised from MP or LP. I push all in only to be called by 88. I double up. And this is not a coin flip. Im a 80% favorite to win the hand.

[The Yugoslavian]

This is the thread you should be going to for a 'how-to' of using ICM. Dethgrind sums the whole process up nicely (and I ask several dumb questions in the process, [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]).

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...mp;o=&vc=1

HELPFUL HINT: Please read all of the posts in the thread as well as other ICM threads (you can search for posts with 'ICM' in the subject field) to learn more about this wonderful tool.

[citanul]

Hello again,

First off, a little defense if any was needed of my last post. If you look, the person I responded to did not pose a question in any way. He simply stated "oh no, I'm short stacked again." Considering his original post, I think I gave an incredibly insightful and well thought out response. Hell, given any post, I think my post gave good insight into how you should think about the "Beating the ..." system.

Since I've got a bit of time on my hands at the moment, I thought I'd chime in, and hopefully help out...

A few responses to people who have posted very recently in this thread:

Poboy: "I generally consider you one of the better posters around here when it comes to poker content, but that last one doesn't add anything to this forum and just makes you look like a jerk."

Thank you. I have been trying to mix in a little strategy thought with my more numerous of late OOT contributions. I'm sorry that my post made you think less of me, I really am. I hope you understand my level of frustration with the non-question posed by the poster I responded to. I am going to try hard a bit here to post some more follow ups to the actual strategy to make up for some of the heavy handed/harsh criticism of earlier.

Sven: "Can anyone tell me where to find part 1? I have search and searched and can't find it. Thanks ahead of time..."

This page has everything you are looking for and more. Enjoy.

bigredlemon: "The problem is that by the time it gets to 6-handed, you're usually down to about 5-600 in chips, if not less. The blinds at 100, one or two bad steals and you're out of the game. And that's to say you even get enough hands to steal with. It only takes two revolutions then for your blinds to be halved, and it's not easy getting a hand tha's stealable with.

The more aggressive players have mroe than enough chips to bully you around, and can easily knock you off a flop if you miss. (Should we be calling our entire stack on the off chance he can't beat K high?)"

A multi parter here: Others have responded that you should look at your "ICM results" for 600 chips 6 handed. This is along the right thinking, but doesn't clarify how you're play sounds like it is incorrect. The rest of your post has a thinking error to it.

Blinds at 50/100, you have 600 chips. There's no room there for "1 or 2 steals that go wrong" You should be all in or folding when you play a hand, with the exception of when you can limp with a Monster, KNOWING 100% sure, that you will be raised preflop, so you can get all in and called. So, now we've got that fixed. All in or fold, ok? Now, on to the next major problem:

"It's not that easy getting a hand that's stealable with." The simple answer to this question is "Yes it is, you get one every hand." Seriously. You get dealt 2 cards every hand. You're STEALING. If you do it with AA, do you call it stealing? No. That's because you're hoping not to get called, thus "stealing" the blinds, without having to show your cards. Now, the "ideal" set of cards to push with to "steal" the blinds is a set of hands that is usually going to be ahead when called. The not so ideal, but realistic set of hands to push with are hands that will be ahead, or hands that will be drawing very live, if called. Those are more frequent. Grab pokerstove, or go to www.twodimes.net and fool around with it. Check your pot equities. Fundamental Concept: Write out some algebra on a paper. Stack size = X. Dead Chips in pot =XY, (Y being a percentage of X, or whatever). Likelihood they call = P. Likelihood you win when they call = W. Clearly, since you win the dead chips 1-P of the time, you just need to check out some odds to see what edges you can afford to give up when called, since you aren't going to get called every time.

Lose the fear of getting called when you push. It's going to happen, and you're going to lose sometimes. But there's another game starting up soon. If you do the above algebra I suggested, and look and see how slim favorites most hands are against most other hands, you'll see what I'm talking about. Check the percentage of the time, and dead chips as a proportion of stack you need, for instance, if the probability you win when called is 35%.

I've been screwing around a bit in the 10s and 20s lately, so I have one last comment for this particular note before I move on to the next one:

"The more aggressive players have mroe than enough chips to bully you around, and can easily knock you off a flop if you miss. (Should we be calling our entire stack on the off chance he can't beat K high?)"

Well, there's two types who have stacks at this point. Aggressive lucky players, and good, tight players, who have gotten some hands in timely fashion to knock out aggressive stupid players. Don't have too much envy of the loosy goosies, but stay out of both classes of players way without thinking you have an edge. As I said, with a 6bb stack, you shouldn't be seeing many flops except from the blinds for free, if that happens, without being all in. No. Clearly don't go in with K high as a caller. But as the pusher! What about the chance taht you push with Q high and he can't beat that, or that chance + the chance he folds K2. Go broke over and over again as the aggressor. Don't do it as the caller.

Personally, I've taken to calling often in the situation as follows: I have Ax in the bb, with 5-6 bb. 5 or 6 handed, it's folded to the sb, who pushes, and he has a short stack. I've taken to calling often there. I'm usually right, and ahead. Though I'm trying to figure out lately if that means I was right in the call. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Big Limpin': "Some games will simply not be winnable, no matter how good/bad you are. Period. You just dont get cards, or get them in situations where they end up 2nd best. If someone didnt have a hand to play in 50 hands, and is down to half his stack, i think it is very likely he would have NO stack if he decided to play it looser. IMO."

This is very key. However: even when you don't get cards, that doesn't mean to give up. Start sliding that short stack in there when the time becomes right. Always remember: They could fold! Always remember 2: When they don't fold, they don't win 100% of the time.

bigredlemon: "I'd change this strategy one way: be aggressive early. Try to double up early and not be afraid of busting out early. If you can double up, you are almost guarentteed to be in the money if you play smart. If play good cards, you are more likely to double up than bust out, and you only need to do this once. After that, you watch everyone else play tight and get blinded away while you make the occasional steal to keep your stack size.

I think the crucial period is in the early game, when the fish are still around, and they aren't afraid to call with really bad pot odds. "

I don't think that the original document said not to do this. I'm not sure though, I don't think that it recommended playing scared. Particularly at the 10s, you can really get far by value betting top pair very good kicker, and by value betting, I mean going after a guy's stack completely out of proportion with the pot. Knowing the oppponent is nice, but in general, the players at the 10+1s are just giving chips away. Get that dead money while it's around. But like I said, I don't think that the original said not to value bet, or to not call when you think you have the best of it. It mostly says "don't gambool it up like the rest of the chumps, there's a reason they're losing money in the long run, and you're going to win it. It's because they go to far with bad hands."

"I've been thinking about it a little more, and figure: if you get a pair higher than 88 or AK, go all in, even if it's a ridiculously large raise given the blinds. Most likely it'll be a coinflip situation. It'll probably be a coin flip, and if you win, you're fairly guarenteed to double up your buy in. If you lose, tough luck. If everyone folds, sure you wasted a good hand. I've seen people go all in and get called with marginal hands ridiculously often at 10+1. The side bonus is that if you ever do hit a flop well and bet it out, they're more likely to think you're a manic fish and call you with the second best hand."

You should be going all in with way more than that with a short stack, but you're on the right track. Uh, maybe not if it's ridiculous compared to the blinds, I take that back. But hell, when you're under 10BB, go for it! "most likely it's a coinflip" is false. You will find in your career that the number of times you push 6 handed with AK and are called with A4 is larger than the number of times you are called by 88. You will also find that the number of times you push with A9 and are called by A4 is about the same as the number of times you are called by AK. But probably not if you are doing it in the correct position [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Lots of novice players have a problem that centers on the following supposition: "whenever I push, my opponents will know exactly what I have, and then only call with the set of hands that gives them at leat fair pot equity." This is a big problem to get over. a) they will call with hands they shouldn't b) they will fold with hands they shouldn't, if they knew your cards. And hey, fundamental theorem says that every time they do that, you win!

"Given how tight aggressive everyone plays once it's down to the final 5, you're going to have to play coin flips sooner or later. It's just better to do it early. Plus, it's more time efficient."

Like I said, I've been screwing around with the 10s of late. You need to look at that last statement of yours real hard. From what I noticed, the players at the 10s curl up into a little ball of "I don't want to bubble out." There was entirely too much folding. A correct bubble strategy is a whole lot closer to "loose aggressive" than it is to "tight aggressive" in the traditional ring game senses of the words. Look at stacks, know your opponents, and know your position. Post hands. Statement: The 10s are a stealers paradise.

El Maximo: you are a bad person [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

So yes, I hope that I added more to the discussion this time.

Post hands, and remember:

1) push, don't call
2) you don't need to have "a hand" to push
3) it's a long run game

citanul

[The Yugoslavian]

Dude, I *totally* just read your entire post, [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img].

That is all.

[citanul]

i got in a typing groove, what can i say. get a bottle of wine in me and look at me go.

glad to hear it wasn't so intolerable you couldn't finish,

citanul

[AleoMagus]

Who would have thought I'd be posting in this thread again?

Anyways, I'll try to enlighten those who do not get what Irieguy is talking about here.

The ICM is basically a model which equates relative chip counts with dollar equity in a tournament. For example, in a 10+1 tourney, with each player starting at 800 chips, all players have a $ equity of $10 (assuming equal skill). Irie is suggesting that even if your stack does not grow, the loss of the four players will still result in an increase of $ equity (and thus, a positive ROI to that stage of the tourney).

Interestingly, running the ICM with 600 chips 6 handed does NOT show an increase in $ equity. Instead of $10 in equity, you will now have about $8.75 in equity. I still think Irie is correct though in his suggestion, even if that actual example was not a great one.

The reason why I think he is correct is because the strategy that I describe for the first three rounds is not a losing strategy against the average 10+1 player! You will tend to increse your stack against 10+1 players by playing this way, even if it doesn't always seem that way. The reason why you will tend to increase your stack (or at least maintain your stack) on average, is because occasionally you will double or triple up. When you factor in the times when you double up together with the times that you wind up with 600 chips (and even the times you bust), on average you should be increasing your stack slightly in the first three rounds or at least maintaining it.

Now I'm going to say this again another way just so I'm clear here.

This will not always happen. Often you will find no playable hands for the first thirty hands, or the ones that you do will be worthless as soon as the flop comes. In these SNGs, your stack will diminish to 600-700 chips... BUT, other times you will increase your stack, and sometimes you will double up. Overall, you will head into level four with an AVERAGE chip count of 800 or more. And it is now that we need to consider what the ICM has to say against 6-7 opponents. What the ICM has to say is that any time you maintain your stack, but opponents are eliminated, YOU MAKE MONEY! YOUR $ EQUITY RISES! Sorry to type in caps. I hate when people do that, but it felt called for here.

And now, we get to what is perhaps a more important point. The real skill differential involved in SNG play happens after level 3. What this means is that if you are playing a better game than the average 10+1 opponent, it is in your interest to survive to level 4 as your skill advantage here will translate to even more $ equity when you start outplaying your opponents (which is easy to do at that level with just a few well timed aggressive plays).

There is more to say, but I will see how this holds up for now. Comments?

Regards
Brad S

[sfwusc]

Yea if you dont catch cards early then you have this problem.

Play for races 6/5 you, and hope you get/stay lucky.

SFWUSC

[1C5]

Brad and citanul, I love your posts, just read them and they are a great help for a new SnG player. Thanks for taking the time to write them.

Next week I will be making my first venture into real money SnGs and this thread along with the awesome spreadsheet will be great assets to helping and tracking a beginners game. I almost feel bad about playing people who do not know about this forum. Almost. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]