Gap Concept and winning SNGs

[Desdia72]

i think TGC, when it comes to SNGs, is really overrated. as i stated in another thread, IMHO, it has more value against good players who CAN play than against players who THINK they can play. weaker players could care less about TGC and probably never heard of it, so in essence, it's not a viable strategy against them. i was playing in a SNG tonight where a guy raised 4XBB (10/20 level) and got about 4 callers. one player ending up winning a huge pot with a weak, marginal hand over a more powerful one. i asked him why did he cold call a raise and call healthily into a flop with such a hand? he said, "no particular reason, i just wanted to see what would happen". had he subscribed to TGC, what do you think he would be looking to accomplish by calling out of position with A 2o in a multi-way pot?

[SuitedSixes]

The Gap Concept is something that I have really began to understand in the last week, and the improvement has been drastic. The best way to describe it is this. You are in the later rounds (5 players remaining) blinds are 50 and 100, you have the 2nd largest stack and are on the button and you hold K [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]T [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], you are ready to raise the blinds 250, but the cutoff raises it to 200 in front of you. You fold. That is the gap concept.

A hand that looks good to you and you value at 250 with no limpers is suddenly not as valuable and not worth even 200 if there is a raise in front of you.

[Bremen]

Why am I even bothering to answer?

[ QUOTE ]
weaker players could care less about TGC and probably never heard of it, so in essence, it's not a viable strategy against them

[/ QUOTE ]

You admit weaker players do not follow TGC. Ok, so you want us to all play like weaker players and ignore TGC!?? Um... you do realize there's a reason some of us are long term winners and those weaker players are not, right?

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, as an SNG goes on and blinds increase, the "gap" widens...you may raise with less (more often) and need more to call a raise with. Hope this helps.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I disagree with the second part of this statement unless it's just a vocabulary thing since I don't believe that your calling standards tighten as an SNG goes along (eg. mostly calling with only AA and KK in the early levels to AQ/JJ later, etc.). I think what you mean is that as an SNG goes along, your raising standard loosens at a faster rate than your calling standard, hence the "Gap" increases over time.

Fermat

[/ QUOTE ]

The bubble is an exception. But also it is worth noting that stacks are not as deep later on. So, calling a raise (say 3-4bb) at level 4 or 5 will normally be a good chunk of stack, and may be you last hand if you hold a marginal hand. whereas calling a raise early at 10-20 is much SMALLER % of your stack and therefore has more calling equity in what percentage you are capable of winning. (ratio of amount of the call vs. opponents stack size).

just how I see it...

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
But if your opponents' raising standards lower, why should you calling standards raise or lower only slightly? Maybe on the bubble you can make an argument for this, but w/ 5 or 6 players left it seems you can win a lot of chips catching people trying to steal. Or is the idea that a losing player does not use this strategy and hence does not lower his raising standards w/ 4-6 players left?

[/ QUOTE ]

But what are you catching someone with? Even if you have AJ vs. someone's 78s, you're only a 58/42 favorite to win the hand. You CAN win a lot of chips if you catch someone trying to steal, but you can lose your chips too often as well. Remember, chips change value in a tournament. And that's not even counting the times that someone raises with a legit raising hand. If you decide to call with AJ, what happens when the raiser has AQ? You're screwed.

If you really think he's stealing, re-raise him and let him be the one that's folding. He got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

[tigerite]

Jedi is right, the only time I'd flat call is to play for a set or something like that, if I had the odds to do so.

[citanul]

or, instead of making random statements about all sngs based on your experience at the $5 sngs, you could try to take into account that at say, the $200 level, the bulk of people are aware of the gap concept, even if they do not know it by name.

citanul

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
Why am I even bothering to answer?

[ QUOTE ]
weaker players could care less about TGC and probably never heard of it, so in essence, it's not a viable strategy against them

[/ QUOTE ]

You admit weaker players do not follow TGC. Ok, so you want us to all play like weaker players and ignore TGC!?? Um... you do realize there's a reason some of us are long term winners and those weaker players are not, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

this is not a question of whether some of us are long term winners or whether we should ignore TGC and play like weaker players. the point is, weakers players are less inclined to either know or care about TGC. trying to employ this method against those types of players is a waste of time.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
or, instead of making random statements about all sngs based on your experience at the $5 sngs, you could try to take into account that at say, the $200 level, the bulk of people are aware of the gap concept, even if they do not know it by name.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

the statement is'nt random nor does it matter that the majority of my experience is in $5 SNGs. a weaker player is less likely to know that TGC exist. with that being said, a weaker player is less likely to know what TGC means, therefore IMHO, they are less likely to notice or care whether it's being employed.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]

this is not a question of whether some of us are long term winners or whether we should ignore TGC and play like weaker players. the point is, weakers players are less inclined to either know or care about TGC. trying to employ this method against those types of players is a waste of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, as usual.

eastbay