Pocket 10s in BB, 1st level of 10+1 Party

[Scuba Chuck]

Yugo and Irieguy, very good points. Your points are very obvious, and yet they are not. There is much for the $10+1ers to learn to become successful at higher levels. I'm sure this issue will come to light at some point for some, and for others it will not.

At the same time, I concur with their point of view, or rather Adanthars point of view. It is a $10+1. Let them risk their stack against Ax, where they are a 70/30 favorite, and are willing to risk the showdown. Most learn from their mistakes, not from others guidance. When the thirst to learn becomes strong enough, they will come and drink from the fountain of knowledge you are presenting here.

In the meantime, u gotta love the fish out there!

[Elektrik]

Those who still believe raising in this spot is +$EV need to reread this thread carefully. The Yugoslavian and Lorinda were kind enough to spell it out for you. I suggest you go back and read their advice until you understand why raising is not your best option here.

[SuitedSixes]

I look at it this from a psychological standpoint. People hate to fold PP especially "premium" ones (tongue in cheek). I love when I get a free shot with a hand like TT in the BB. It is one of those hands that you love to play even though you know it really isn't very good . . . it just looks good like Q [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]8 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].

When the flop doesn't come with a T in it you can fold it much more easily having not invested anything extra in it.

But if you raise to 150 and the Q comes, then what? Then you convince yourself all of the reasons why your TT is still good and so maybe you'll lead out and try it pick it up right there so you make a 1/2 pot bet and get a call. You decide that you'll just check the turn, when it isn't a T, either but a J so you check, and the villain checks too. Well, that was unexpected. So the river still doesn't bring a T so you take another stab at the pot with another 1/2 pot bet and get called and see AQ take your chips.

Now at somepoint you're probably going to have to take a stand with something far less premium than TT.

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]

Now at somepoint you're probably going to have to take a stand with something far less premium than TT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me put my chips in with 2-3o 4-handed on the button. I'd take that over pocket 10's in level 1 with 5 limpers any day.

This thread is funny because it contains both the secret to beating SNGs, and examples of the play that makes them beatable... and few can tell which is which.

Irieguy

[bball904]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the question should be, What would Dan Harrington do with KJs?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL...

OK, maybe may stand on this leans towards Harrington's advise in HOHE, but I like his views and have shown possitive results using this line.

Pulp [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I must be missing the joke here. Most everyone seems to be conceding that the T150 raise here is a bad play, yet Harrington cites an example in his book where he made this exact play (10x raise from the big blind after 5 limpers) in the early stages of a major tournament and stated that KJs meets his minimum requirements to make this play.

Now if KJs meets Harrington's requirements in the near exact scenario, shouldn't there be more gray area in this discussion of TT?

[/ QUOTE ]

To be more precise, check out the problem on page 297 of HOHE. It at least brings up an interesting take on this issue.

The set up is that it is the "first hand" of a single table tournament. You are in the BB with JJ. Five players limp and it's on you (sound familiar). He goes on to say that the jacks are most likely ahead at this point, but will not be against five players after the flop. So it is "critical to raise" to slim down the field. He also states that you must raise enough to either win the pot right then or get it to heads up (he actually raises 10x the blind in his example).

So at least concider what is being said here. I may not have many posts or have a popular stand, but if Harrington plays this line, maybe there something to it.

Pulp [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, that is an even better example. I haven't gotten that far in the book yet. Harrington actually advocates a 20x raise here in this example.

I'm riding the fence on this issue because I truly feel it is a gray area issue where you make the play or don't make the play depending on whether you feel there is a maniac willing to call. At 10+1, which I've never played, it may well be that you will see a caller too often to use the play. What amazes me though is how adamant some of the regular posters are about how bad this play is. I think the ultra-tight mentality in the first 3 levels sometimes goes too far on this forum.

[BigDave]

[ QUOTE ]
I look at it this from a psychological standpoint. People hate to fold PP especially "premium" ones (tongue in cheek). I love when I get a free shot with a hand like TT in the BB. It is one of those hands that you love to play even though you know it really isn't very good . . . it just looks good like Q [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]8 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].

When the flop doesn't come with a T in it you can fold it much more easily having not invested anything extra in it.

But if you raise to 150 and the Q comes, then what? Then you convince yourself all of the reasons why your TT is still good and so maybe you'll lead out and try it pick it up right there so you make a 1/2 pot bet and get a call. You decide that you'll just check the turn, when it isn't a T, either but a J so you check, and the villain checks too. Well, that was unexpected. So the river still doesn't bring a T so you take another stab at the pot with another 1/2 pot bet and get called and see AQ take your chips.

Now at somepoint you're probably going to have to take a stand with something far less premium than TT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, what he said.

What I don't get is why risk 150 to win 75 this early in the tourney. That just does not compute with me. That is the goal here right, to win the 75 in the pot without a confrontation? You scare off most of the hands you want to see like lower PP's and Axs. At this point, does it even matter that you hold TT? Where do you draw the line with this play?

This early on, I am playing JJ for set value. The potential amount of chips that can be won when you do hit the set against 5 limpers far outweighs the 75 that I give up when I just check and fold when I don't hit.

Make this level 3 or 4 or change your TT to QQ in level 1 and I like the play.

[morgan180]

[ QUOTE ]


This thread is funny because it contains both the secret to beating SNGs, and examples of the play that makes them beatable... and few can tell which is which.


[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I question whether I should quote this and call it out further but this is so true. The one reason why I posted what on the surface is such a *ho-hum* hand.

[Phil Van Sexton]

[ QUOTE ]
Now if KJs meets Harrington's requirements in the near exact scenario, shouldn't there be more gray area in this discussion of TT?

[/ QUOTE ]

HoH is such an great book. So much so that I was concerned that readers of this book might make the games tougher to beat. Clearly, I was wrong.

His advice is great, but easily misinterpretted. There's a big difference between the first round of a major tournament and level 1 of a party SnG.

I can't even imagine the damage the Volume 2 will cause since it contains a large section on "making moves".

If anyone sees me making this play with TT, I give you the authority to close my party account immediately.

[realbad101]

I will again swim against the tide here a little bit more...

The following is true only for low buy in's like 5+1 and 10+1's. The higher limits are outside my expertise.

I was there once with you all, playing only premium hands until level 4 or so. Then I started experimenting. I started opening up my starting hand requirements and loosening my raise requirements. Keeping in mind the following principles...
1) Strict adherence to the Gap concept. Only call a raise with a hand that you would raise yourself (reraise situational).
2) Play position. Buy buttons. Etc. The better your position, the more aggressive you can become.
3) Punish the limpers. Way too much limping in the early rounds. 4-5 players to the flop. Take advantage of this weakness.

I started noticing 2 general trends. Many players played quite tightly and would fold unless they the flop hit them hard. Aggression pays off.

Also, I noticed that there are usually a couple of quite loose players that will call off their stack on high variance draws.

So this left me with 2 trends.
1) I was busting out in 7-9th place much more often.
2) I was getting to bubble time with the chip lead much more often.

The end result, better than where I was before, I am 50% ITM and 40% ROI. I don't think that my sample size is high enough to solidify my position just yet, but I will see if this strategy pans out over the longer term. (By the way, how many tournaments is considered a good sample size?)

Thus my advocacy for the aggressive approach of raising TT to 10x BB. In practice, aggression has payed off in the early rounds.

[morgan180]

[ QUOTE ]
2) Play position. Buy buttons. Etc. The better your position, the more aggressive you can become.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being in the BB is about the worst position you can have after the flop, no?

[ QUOTE ]
3) Punish the limpers. Way too much limping in the early rounds. 4-5 players to the flop. Take advantage of this weakness.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's all fine and dandy but the only limpers that are going to stay with you are overcards that can out-flop/draw TT.

Now I don't always play TT like this. Last night I was in a 10 SNG and got dealt TT in the CO level 3 with blinds 25/50. There were 3 limpers ahead of me I raised to 150, of course got two callers (which just goes to show how ineffective this "thinning" thought is at these low levels) and the flop came all rags so I bet out after it being checked around and took it down.

I think that specifically in this instance: from the BB, out of position, in early levels, with 5 limpers, agressive play with this hand is just not a formula for success.