My Early Bust-Out Theory -- Tell me if I am wrong?

[Hood]

[ QUOTE ]
Whilst I can see where you're going with your strategy there is a problem and that is because its fits so nicely with mine. I.e. *I* won't be the one taking you on with those marginals early on. One of the other loosies will, or a player with very strong values. Either way you are making your survival chances very bad, or about evens. Classic small favourite or big dog.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the 'small fav/big dog' is rather misleading with knowing how frequently you won't get called, the amount in the pot and the size of your stack, and how frequently you'll be a small fav/big dog. If you're a small fav often enough, and don't get called often enough, then it may outway the change you'll be a big dog. I think this is what the OP is getting at.

[ QUOTE ]
If you do get through, then what are you left with? The better players, who've preserved their chips (and I agree you may have a lead). They are not going to be so easily caught out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree here. Firstly, I think a lot of the time you won't be left with 'better players'. I've seen some really atrocious play heads-up on the 10+1s time and time again. If you're up against 8 or 9 bad players, at least one 'bad player' is going to get ITM.

[ QUOTE ]
I certainly don't need a big chip lead to win

[/ QUOTE ]

No one 'needs it', but it helps

[ QUOTE ]
and given the way you play I can now see a big pile of chips with one of the 'looser' players, so naturally I (and I expect the others too) are targetting your stack. This now makes you and even smaller favourite because of this implicit collusion. You may be a coin-flip favourite against one of us, but against three you're up against it.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you target a big stack? How do you target a loose player? How can I been a 'even smaller favourite' by winning more chips early on?

[ QUOTE ]
Typically what I find happens is that a player in your position then gets over turned, and gives a healthy chip lead to a stronger player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what you're doing here is making the assumption of "well you're playing loose early on and a lot of bad players play loose early on so you must be a bad player. You'll lose your stack to a better player later on". Remember that the OP is still 'good player', and there may not be any 'stronger players' on the table.

[ QUOTE ]

Having said all that, I'm not saying your approach has no merit, and certainly if the payout structure is only rewarding first place, then you are more correct. However sit-n-go's by their very nature reward survival, and therefore I can't agree with your theory that 10th place is less profitable than 4th. If I'm in fourth (and lets reduce all future hands to a coin toss) then I have a 1 in four chance of winning. in 10th it is one in ten... which place do you prefer to be in?


[/ QUOTE ]

The OP is talking about finishing in 4th. If you've gone out in 4th place, then you've got a 0 change of winning. SNGs only reward survival if you get ITM.

[ QUOTE ]

I guess as well, you're kind of assuming its the big stack that will win predominantly. I disagree simply because with the much high blinds near the end, a few steals can suddenly have the short stack back near level terms. It is much more about timing and good bluffing at this stage that knicks the money.


[/ QUOTE ]

I find having lots of chips is a huge advantage around the bubble. Everyone else is scare of going out forth and I end up pushing pretty much every hand and picking up the blinds. It's amazing how passive players get.

[Hillbilly Cat]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you target a big stack? How do you target a loose player? How can I been a 'even smaller favourite' by winning more chips early on?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I'd correctly assessed you as a weak player, and you find yourself with big-ish stack cos you took a bit of a gamble early on, then naturally I want to get involved in a pot with you more often if I can.

By 'targetting' I mean exactly that, trying to get into a position where I can deprive you of that stack.

When the game rewards survival I pick my fights as carefully as I can...

I agree, on my own, I can't guarantee that, but in any form of poker its not just my responsibility. If there's several of us, playing poacher, and trying to get heads up with the looser/weaker player, then whats happeining is that we're *implicitly* colluding to take him out. If he now finds himself in a position where players think he's a soft target, then he's going to get played with more, and thus theres a higher probability that one of us is going to have the better cards.

He becomes an even smaller favourite because of this, not because of the size of his chip stack per-se. I'm just assuming he has a bigger stack now cos of his earlier play.

If I only get one decent hand I'd like it to be up against him. My implied odds are bigger, my chances of succcess are higher, and given he's a loose player, my chances of picking off his bluffs are also higher.

Some people play poker from a very technical standpoint (and have no criticism of that approach) I don't, at least not as much. I rely more heavily on reading hands/people. I am always trying to 'engineer' positive situations for myself, the cards are simply one aspect of that. If he's looser the I may be able to get away with lower values myself. If he's too aggressive I can try and pick him off.

I agree though that what you've highlighted in my comments is a lot of assumptions on who and what the other player is about. But I still say, using the strategy I employ, I would much rather be up against this chap later in the tourny, no matter how successful he's been up till now.

In a tourny I'm not so sure about pushing small edges early on. I think tournies *are* about taking risks, but they should be *very* calculated. Typically it only takes a few opporuntites to walk away with the money. I can afford to wait, pick my moment and pounce.

Hope that helps

[EarlCat]

The biggest problem I see pushing so early is the fact that you're up against so many more hands--and thus a higher probability someone is holding a monster. Yes, you may usually end up in a coin-flip with a caller, but you've got 9 potential callers! You've got a much bigger chance of getting busted by one of nine hands than by one of four.

It's the same reason you can raise more hands preflop in a 6-handed ring game than in a 10-handed game.

I do like your opportunity cost analysis of why 10th is better than 4th. I think you should be an economist. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[The Yugoslavian]

1. Finishing 4th pays out what finishing 10th pays out.
2. Finishing 10th takes less time than finishing 4th.

However, it doesn't follow that finishing 10th is 'better' in any valuable sense than finishing 4th.

Finishing 4th in fact should be *much* preferred over finishing 10th in a 50/30/20 payout strcture.

You do not need all the chips to 'win'.

You do want to give yourself the highest chance to 'win', however.

Getting tenth does not help in this goal unless you can engineer a highly favorable situation for yourself and your hand.

Yugoslav

[The Student]

[ QUOTE ]


Finishing 4th in fact should be *much* preferred over finishing 10th in a 50/30/20 payout strcture.

Yugoslav

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think so? I usually think your posts are great, Yugoslav, but I'm just not understanding why 4th is better than 10th. You don't win any $, and as the OP said, you could have used the time you spent playing from 10 - 4 players in another game (boosting your hourly win rate). Can you explain this a bit more?

While I am not one of those SNG players who will push marginal hands early on as the OP suggests, I do see how his approach can help to max out your hourly win rate (even if it doesn't improve his ROI - just because he's investing the $ more often). I think the variance might give me a stroke, but if it works for you, then why not?

ts-

[The Student]

Hey,

Sorry to hear about your PLO loss, but thanks for the post. Very interesting. As I just wrote in the post above, while this approach isn't for me, I can see how it can boost one's hourly win rate. My question for you is what does this do for your bankroll? The variance with such an approach is so much larger than other SNG approaches (such as AleoMagus's), that I would think it would require a larger bankroll than normal to withstand the variance. I understand that you still have a limited # of STTs under your belt, but I'm wondering what your thoughts are re: the bankroll requirements for this.

ts-

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey,

Sorry to hear about your PLO loss, but thanks for the post. Very interesting. As I just wrote in the post above, while this approach isn't for me, I can see how it can boost one's hourly win rate. My question for you is what does this do for your bankroll? The variance with such an approach is so much larger than other SNG approaches (such as AleoMagus's), that I would think it would require a larger bankroll than normal to withstand the variance. I understand that you still have a limited # of STTs under your belt, but I'm wondering what your thoughts are re: the bankroll requirements for this.

ts-

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't simply a 'not my style' type of thing. You're going to increase your variance b/c you'll place less often. Your ROI is also going to go down. I don't see how you'll 'make up' these decreases in $/hr -- I guess perhaps you can if you are poor at playing a small stack in SNGs.

The bankroll requirement shouldn't be too much more, frankly. The concern is psychologically dealing with your streaks and making sure the new approach to SNG play is even going to be +$/hr for you.

I'd imagine $215 players are pushing smallish edges early anyway....but what FM is saying isn't even really small edges, he's advocating perhaps barely +CEV plays just in the interest of amassing chips early or busting early.

Yugoslav

[microbet]

[ QUOTE ]
(if you can't focus on playing at 4 tables at a time you shouldn't even be playing SNGs for a living)

[/ QUOTE ]

That's ridiculous. Different people have different skills, the SNGs go up to at least $1,065, and what constitutes 'a living' can vary greatly.

[Jman28]

Finishing 4th in fact should be *much* preferred over finishing 10th in a 50/30/20 payout strcture.

I'm not sure what you mean by this statement, but I think I strongly disagree.

I think that early gambles aren't as bad as people make them out to be, and that there is some value in this method of playing.

If you are excellent big stack player, you gain a huge edge by doubling up early. I don't know why we don't talk about this more often.

We all talk about how to play on the bubble with a chip lead, but we never talk about how that advantage is so great that it should perhaps be worth some unorthodox play to get there. (that was worded badly, but you get it)

This strategy will probably lower ROI, but if it increases $/hr, that's what matters most, assuming you can handle the variance.

-Jman28

[The Student]

i agree with you - especially with the your last statement:

"This strategy will probably lower ROI, but if it increases $/hr, that's what matters most, assuming you can handle the variance"

I think Yugoslav makes a good point though about the variance - you have to be able to withstand the psychological swings too and not let it hurt your play (so that you start pushing with real trash hands that are big dogs and not just coinflips).

ts-