Alternative Strategy

[TwoOuter]

First off, let me say that I've only played about 300 sngs total on Stars and Party and only up to 30+3. I'm up a grand total of $322, and this figure is inflated from an incredibly lucky 2nd place finish a couple days ago in a 30+3. In other words, these comments are based on very little evidence or success.

I've seen people winning using something similar to Aleo's strategy. Undoubtedly, very tight and aggressive seems to be the way to go in all forms of poker. But I've noticed another strategy, one that I also discussed with a player at Party who employs it, and I wonder what others think.

The basic idea is this:

1. Gamble early. Especially in 10+1s and 20+2s, there are often 2 or 3 players who clearly have no idea what they're doing and their chips are up for grabs. Often you can get in for T15 or T30 and get paid off big if you catch. Players using a tight strategy might not call pre-flop for 15 or more hands, and they've lost the chance to load up at minimal risk (assuming they play well post-flop).

2. Take on very tight players who come in with moderate raises. Often in the early rounds, a T200+ raise means big pocket pairs, and a smaller raise means A-K or smaller pockets. Tight players seem to play flop or drop with A-K and small pockets when overcards hit, and will fold to most boards for a 3x bb bet if they don't hit an A, K, set or extremely good draw. Use their predictability against them.

3. Go for the steal often, both pre- and post-flop, when you're down to 4 or 5 players who are playing tight/scared in order to get in the money.

4. Limp in on occasion with monsters in the later rounds. Often you'll get raised, or have the blind checker betting or calling bets with TPTK when you've got a bigger pocket pair. There are a lot of inexperienced players out there. And while I'm no conspiracy theorist or pattern-mapper, it sure seems like you get dealt big pocket pairs far more frequently than usual when you get down to 3 players and the powers that be want the tournament to wrap up.

Comments? Derisive laughter? I'm open to anything.

[t_perkin]

[ QUOTE ]

1. Gamble early. Especially in 10+1s and 20+2s, there are often 2 or 3 players who clearly have no idea what they're doing and their chips are up for grabs. Often you can get in for T15 or T30 and get paid off big if you catch. Players using a tight strategy might not call pre-flop for 15 or more hands, and they've lost the chance to load up at minimal risk (assuming they play well post-flop).


[/ QUOTE ]

A few players advocate doing this, but I can't think of any names off the top of my head. MOST GOOD players think that this is a bad idea, even if you double up you are not home and dry. The chances of you losing a big pot occaisonally are relatively high, as are the chances of you busting out altogether.

[ QUOTE ]

2. Take on very tight players who come in with moderate raises. Often in the early rounds, a T200+ raise means big pocket pairs, and a smaller raise means A-K or smaller pockets. Tight players seem to play flop or drop with A-K and small pockets when overcards hit, and will fold to most boards for a 3x bb bet if they don't hit an A, K, set or extremely good draw. Use their predictability against them.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is definately not a good idea. You are going to lose a lot of money doing this for not a lot of gain.

[ QUOTE ]

3. Go for the steal often, both pre- and post-flop, when you're down to 4 or 5 players who are playing tight/scared in order to get in the money.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes so long as you don't find that you are bubbling all the time. There is a reason people tighten up on the bubble. Make sure you respect their raises. If the blinds are large then you may find yourself commiting your whole stack far to often and sooner or later you are gonna get smacked out.

----

If you are winning and winning consistently then great. But you need a lot of tournaments to be sure, especially with higher variance tactics such as you have laid out in your post.
If you find urself starting to lose then examine your game good and hard and you will probably find that you have to become more tight and aggressive.

Tim

[La Brujita]

Just a couple of thoughts. It is not a bad idea to take some chances early if you are in good position. The general point I wanted to make is the strategies you discuss in points one and two might work better with deep money and where you have a read on the players. On the internet with no read and shallow money it can be difficult. Also, if you are a moderately winning player but not a great player you are putting a lot of pressure on yourself to make tough decisions.

Point three has a lot of merit.

Point four, don't limp with big hands in a multiway pot. Don't limp from late position. There is some merit to limping with AA from the button as is well discussed in PLNLH.

There was a thread earlier where people suggested limping with QQ. I personally would NEVER and I mean never limp with QQ from any position unless hu.

All that being said, I have been knocked out on a few occasions four handed when someone holds KK and AA and dind't raise before the flop. I was left shaking my head but couldn't tell you if it was a good or bad play.

Sorry for the somewhat random thoughts.

[NotMitch]

[ QUOTE ]
There is some merit to limping with AA from the button as is well discussed in PLNLH.


[/ QUOTE ]

You mean first on the button not multiway right?

[La Brujita]

Yeah first on the button, I would never never limp if there was money in the pot.

[David BB]

Whenever I see an otherwise good player limp late in a tournament you can be sure I'm not taking any chances unless I flop very well.

Anyway, I only agree with #3. The rest of your tactics are very naive in my oppinion.

[triplc]

It seems that you are implying that limping in late in a tourney is an inherently bad play. I am probably in the minority, but I have never believed in the "always raise or fold" idea late in a tourney. But I also don't believe in any statement regarding poker that serves as a catch all without talking about the situation at that time.

First, I think the idea of throwing away any part of your poker toolbox is a bad idea. Limping late in a tourney can be an excellent play, if for no other reason than to keep you opponent guessing. Why did he limp? Is he trying to get a cheap look at a flop? Is he trapping me? I don't do it often (which might be what you're talking about as a bad play), but I do it enough just to throw a change up now and again.

I love to limp against very aggressive players when I have a big hand (AA definitely, KK, QQ, AK not as much), because I want a reraise so I can then push in or reraise.

I'll also limp occasionally with inferior hands just to let my opponent know that I am not above sneaking in for a cheap look myself.

I believe that the toughest players to play against are the ones who are unpredictable. If I take one play (limping) out of my toolbox, then I am making myself inherently more predictable, am I not?

CCC

[BradleyT]

You've got a 6% chance to make a flush by the river with your J7s. 5% if you don't stay in on one of your suit boards (a 3 flush), so you're pissing away well over half your stack for a hand that might not even be the best by chasing with "any two suited".

This isn't a race to the finish. You do have enough time to sit and wait for big hands that will get you paid off regularly (if you play SnG's regularly).

[David BB]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems that you are implying that limping in late in a tourney is an inherently bad play.

[/ QUOTE ]
Correct.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't do it often (which might be what you're talking about as a bad play), but I do it enough just to throw a change up now and again.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly what good does that do?

[ QUOTE ]
I love to limp against very aggressive players when I have a big hand (AA definitely, KK, QQ, AK not as much), because I want a reraise so I can then push in or reraise.

[/ QUOTE ]
You can trap an aggressive maniac that way, not a good aggressive player. As I said, if I see an otherwise good player limp my alarm bells will be ringing and you can be sure I won't try to raise him out pre-flop. Were talking shorthanded with big blinds here. This play is best saved for early in an SNG on a generally aggressive full table.

[ QUOTE ]
I'll also limp occasionally with inferior hands just to let my opponent know that I am not above sneaking in for a cheap look myself.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure they appreciate it.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that the toughest players to play against are the ones who are unpredictable. If I take one play (limping) out of my toolbox, then I am making myself inherently more predictable, am I not?

[/ QUOTE ]
Theres nothing wrong with being a little predictable now and then - especially because raising is such a powerful play late in an SNG. You're simply giving up too much equity and leaving it all to chance by not raising.

[gigahurts]

I agree being unpredictable is good.... I played in a $20+$2 stars SNG last night. When the bubble broke and three people remained, my stats were:

You were dealt 60 hands and saw flop:
- 6 out 9 times while in big blind (66%)
- 2 out 10 times while in small blind (20%)
- 3 out 41 times in other positions (7%)
- a total of 11 out of 60 (18%)
Pots won at showdown - 0 of 0 (0%)
Pots won without showdown - 8

tight. aggressive. T3410
bonus points for never showing a card?

after it became heads up, 10 minutes later we both got pocket pairs when he just slightly had me covered by less than a small blind, i was in the SB and pushed with 77 (i wish i raised instead i made a mistake), he called with 99, 2nd place fine for me.... Final stat was 98h 26 flops, 2 of 4 showdowns, 19 wins no showdown.

late in the game, I did limp, and bet, and win.. but I didn't do it often... from 3 left to the end, I saw 15 flops, and won 11 without a showdown, and 2 with, no way I had the cards every time...