Switching gears in low stakes Party SNG (5-20$)

[unfrgvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Unforgiven, the HH you posted is a great example of where you are bleeding chips. The worst part of this hand is that you won. Now your ego is involved "hey, I can win this, why shouldn't I play them?" Heck, why not limp in for just 30 chips with 78s, or 89s, why does it matter that it's 34s, or you're on the button? It's possible that this style of play will work, but IMHO, this is a leak in your game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly respect your opinion. There were a lot of variables at work, and they all had to be in my favor for me to play the hand.
1. I could close the action with a call. If I was in the SB I fold.
2. A lot of callers, giving me a good price for the call.
3. A hand that is either gonna hit or miss. Makes for easy post flop decisions.

I'm not advocating that people play hands like this. I have been taking some chances like this and I think so far it is a winner. Of course, in the one long poker game I may find that this is not true long term.

[ArturiusX]

I like the 34s call.

Worst case, you lose 30 chips, not the end of the world.

Best case, you can put a maniac all-in and grab his stack; perfect to begin stealing on level 4.

I will sometimes limp with T9s, and ATs and above (raise with AK) in the early levels.

Very small loss when it doesn't hit, potenitially big payout when it does. Straights are well disguised in sngs.

[bismillahno]

[ QUOTE ]


Another thought, I see this continuously, but if you're on the button with 33, and there are 5+ limpers in front of you, then it pays to limp. If there are fewer limpers it doesn't pay. Statistically, you only hit your set 1 in 8 times. That means you need 8 players in the pot for this to be a positive net result. 5 + you on the button, with the BB and SB is a good number. All too often I see even the newer 2+2ers asking me why I didn't limp in with 44 or something. If you're playing the $55s, where you start with 1,000 chips you can gamble with this a little, but with 800 chips, IMO, you're just bleeding.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well I suspect this comment was at least partly inspired from a question I asked you a few days ago, and I'm still unsure. TIme for a little maths I think (new at these calculations).

Lets assume the situation is as you stated, 33 on the button, level 1, in a 10+1 SnG, unraised pot, with one limper in front of you, for simplicity everyone involved has 800 chips.

Assuming you don't get raised out of the pot, 15 will let you see the flop.

~ One in 8.5 times you'll hit your set.

In that situation, lets say 20% of the time you bust, to set over set, a flush etc. It may be slightly higher than that, but you won't go broke every time either, so the EV component of losing with a set is (.2*800)/8.5 = -18.8, for ease of figures, lets call it -20.

When you don't hit on the flop, you're EV still isn't 0, you can win by having no one else improve at all, hitting on the turn or river...

Lets give a conservative fudge of +5 for this EV component.

This means you're at -30 chips, to be made back in the 1 in 8.5 times you hit (in those situations you win).

Or, you need to win (30*8.5/.8) = 320 (rounded) in those situations you get paid off.

You're guaranteed 60 chips already, so on top of that, you need to win 260 from the 3 other players in the pot with you, or roughly bust one of them 1/3 of the time to break even. Of course, there are situations you can pick up another 100 chips or so, but not bust any other players. I don't have exact figures to back this up, but I'd say you'd get paid off at least that often in 10+1's, (I've played about 500), with people taking their TQo to the fences on a T 5 3 flop.

Getting raised off the pot is a problem, but you'll see the flop for 15 more often than not here, and in many situations, being raised here (assuming its small enough to keep you in) dramatically increases your implied odds, as they're much less keen on letting go of their hands.

Anyway, I think you have a good point about bleeding chips with pairs early, but with position and low blinds, I think even one limper is enough to make it a +EV play, and I certainly don't think you need 5. The numbers do get steadily better as the number in the pot increases though. That changes a lot as the players get better, and your chances of getting paid off get worse though.

If my logic (or maths) sucks, please flame away...

[Scuba Chuck]

I think your point is clear. First point is you know the risks/downfall of limping from early position. Next is you clearly have defined this as a cheap way to see the pot, focusing on level 1. Frankly on level 1, I believe you can limp with a large array of hands without causing much serious damage to your chipstack.

This needs to be taken with a grain of salt though. No matter how big the bet on the flop, it is an autofold if you missed your set. My strategy is only to limp in with baby pairs and lower middle pairs only when I have extra chips.

This is the reason why. My middle play skills (level 4+) are solid, IMHO, and why would I want to risk any chips that will lose me folding equity. 550-650 chips on level 4 is a workable stack. If you know how to work it. Anything below 500 chips you're waiting for a premium hand because you will get called by anyone.

[A_PLUS]

[ QUOTE ]
A+,

What is the benefit to playing in multiway pots, unless you're holding a sleeping monster (like pocket pairs)?

[/ QUOTE ]


We will have to agree to disagree here. Hands like JTs, Kjs, KQs. I want cheap and multiway (and me acting last).

rational: a raise brings only good callers, which may dominate me, and with shallow money may pot commit me. What I want is 5-6 people (and their money) in the pot. This is early on, with blinds at 30 or lower. Calling a 30 bet with KQ from the button, when you stand to win 150-200 chips and are likely a favorite is a good proposition. Pot odds can be overdone with shallow money. But you have to see the rational of paying 30TC with a 25% of winning 150 vs. raising 150 chips to win 250 @ 65%.

I got carried away with the talk about "seeing the flop" later on. It sounded good, but I checked my hand histories and I was raising or folding 90% of the time[at level 4 and beyond]. Only seeing the flop when 2+ callers and I had a SC higher than JT.

In games where players call raises too often, I will NEVER limp with a high PP. I couldnt disagree more. I may do this on occasion at a tough agressive game, where players understand the gap concept and my UG raise will get no action, but thats it. I dont want 5 people seeing a flop and not knowing wether someone caught 2 pair. I want them heads up for a lot of chips.


So my question to you.

How would your strategy change if you lifted the Party SNG structure to a live game that took 4 hours. Your strategy is most probably optimal (or close) for multitabling. But what if you only played one game a night? Would you change anything? I have been trying to think of my game in more "improve my poker" not just "improve my SNG ROI"

Thoughts?

By the way, the PP and AX advice was right on. I'll save them for Ultimate bet and their deep money. Thanks.

[Scuba Chuck]

I knew you were going to disagree with me. And before your post, I originally intended to just say "C'est La Vie."

But you brought up a series of hands that give you an edge, and there are books out there written by poker professionals to support your decision.

[ QUOTE ]
We will have to agree to disagree here. Hands like JTs, Kjs, KQs. I want cheap and multiway (and me acting last).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think if you are playing a ring game, or at a site like poker stars where you have a significantly larger chip stack, it is correct play to limp with this hands, and perhaps even raise.

At Party Poker, this is absolutely untrue. Chipstacks are not deep enough, 800 chips that is, to risk folding equity in later rounds. IMHO, folding these hands, and learning to implement folding equity in level 4 and 5 will give you a far more commanding chip lead, and higher ROI over time.

In response to:
[ QUOTE ]
How would your strategy change if you lifted the Party SNG structure to a live game that took 4 hours

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an impossibility. The Party Poker blind structure is built for swift games. You cannot lift this structure into a live game that will last 4 hours.

A+, I see where you're stuck. I hope you're able to differentiate a Party Poker, super low stack, quickly raising blind structure, as a different poker animal. A lot of hands that you would normally play because they do provide edges is a leak in this structure.

Now as is true in most classrooms, we have gotten off the subject. Is anyone going to continue the homework assignment?

[Scuba Chuck]

I can only help those that want to be helped. If you think that my advice about limping or capping mini raises is not leaking chips then that's your preragative.

If you think this game is about you can put a maniac all-in and grab his stack, then that's your choice.

But before you go on listening to all the posts that disagree with me, ask your self the following questions:

Do you want to PLAY poker? Or,
Do you want to be a winning poker player?

It's that simple guys.

[bismillahno]

Ok, I thnk we're closer to the same page here than I thought. The specific comment in your original post seemed to suggest you needed absolutely perfect conditions for small pairs which I just wanted to show wasn't absolultely necessary.

No arguments with anything else you've said, and you've definitely shown me I've been playing them a little beyond what I need to.

cheers

[Cheeseweasel]

Assume that you turn up your A7s and raise all-in.

BR = t650
Blinds = t100/t50
Hand = A7s
#_ahead = 5
#_limpers = 0

You will be called only by hands that are equal to or better than yours, 147 out of 1225 starting hands = .120 = %_call

Your probability of winning given that you are called is = .357 = P|call

The probability that you will be called by one or more opponents is 1-((1-%_call)**(#_ahead)) = 1-((1-.120)**5) = .472 = P|opponents

Fold_equity = (1-P|opponents)*blinds = (1-.472)*t150 = t79

All-in_equity = (P|opponents*P|call*(blinds+BR))-((P|opponents*(1-P|call)*BR) = (.472*.357*(t650+t150))-(.472*(1-.357)*t650) = -t62

Total_equity = fold_equity + all-in_equity = t79-t62 = t17

EV = total_equity/BR = t17/t650 = 2.6%

I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

[A_PLUS]

Scuba,

Thanks for the advice. Deep down I know you are mostly right.
I am just at the "turning point" of my poker quest. I began playing too tight, opened up, had much more success, then overdid it. I am just working on finding my happy medium.

anyway, thanks