Agree/Disagree

I'm saying that it is your objective to not get all of your chips in the pot unless you are sure you have the winning hand. SURE you have the winning hand. The object is not to go all in with AQ preflop with 750 chips when the blinds are at 50/100

[splashpot]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that it is your objective to not get all of your chips in the pot unless you are sure you have the winning hand. SURE you have the winning hand. The object is not to go all in with AQ preflop with 750 chips when the blinds are at 50/100

[/ QUOTE ]
With those blinds and that stack, I would go all in with AQ on the button when folded to me every time. What would you do? Folding is out of the question. Raise? To what? 300? Just plain stupid.

[tdp]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that it is your objective to not get all of your chips in the pot unless you are sure you have the winning hand. SURE you have the winning hand. The object is not to go all in with AQ preflop with 750 chips when the blinds are at 50/100

[/ QUOTE ]
You couldn't be more wrong.In this exact situation I go all in everytime if I'm the first one in.
7k over how long?

[Karak567]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that it is your objective to not get all of your chips in the pot unless you are sure you have the winning hand. SURE you have the winning hand. The object is not to go all in with AQ preflop with 750 chips when the blinds are at 50/100

[/ QUOTE ]

If you do not want to be called by AQ or JT, then you make me sad and you REALLY need to evaluate how you play SNGs.

I highly doubt that you are a winning player.

[ QUOTE ]
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure I go all in before the blinds hit 100/200 in EVERY sng I play. Your friend can't be winning if he doesn't do this.

[/ QUOTE ]I'm not sure why you think there is only one approach to winning SNG play. We might consider his approach inferior (and it might be) but that doesn't meanhe can't use it at the 11s and 22s and beat the game.

[splashpot]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure I go all in before the blinds hit 100/200 in EVERY sng I play. Your friend can't be winning if he doesn't do this.

[/ QUOTE ]I'm not sure why you think there is only one approach to winning SNG play. We might consider his approach inferior (and it might be) but that doesn't meanhe can't use it at the 11s and 22s and beat the game.

[/ QUOTE ]
I never said there is only one approach. I just think his approach sucks. I think you underestimate how extreme HIS approach is. I really do find it hard to believe someone could win doing this.

Not going all in til 100/200? Unless he's playing tons of hands early to build a stack, he'll be blinded down to <600 chips by the time the blinds get this high. Come on. I dare you to tell me that you think this is a winning approach.

[ QUOTE ]
Not going all in til 100/200? Unless he's playing tons of hands early to build a stack, he'll be blinded down to <600 chips by the time the blinds get this high. Come on. I dare you to tell me that you think this is a winning approach.

[/ QUOTE ]I don't have any experience with PP 800 chips stacks. But, this guy has won $7k over two years (we don't know over how many SNGs). I don't see why we shouldn't believe him. I think there is a tendency in this forum to pooh-pooh any approach that isn't along STTF party lines.

In low stakes PS turbos, I imagine you could beat the game if you never started pushbotting before 100/200 level, but the larger chip stacks must make a big difference.

Please don't misunderstand. I don't think the guy is playing optimally. I just think that there is room at low buy-in SNGs to give up a few % of ROI and still be a winning player. And, the psychology of this approach might fit this player better -- he may not be able to handle the pushing approach -- so it might actually serve him better.

I don't expect he will be as successful if he moves up a few levels. Then the ROI is is giving up might turn him into a losing player.

[splashpot]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have any experience with PP 800 chips stacks. But, this guy has won $7k over two years (we don't know over how many SNGs). I don't see why we shouldn't believe him. I think there is a tendency in this forum to pooh-pooh any approach that isn't along STTF party lines.

[/ QUOTE ]
You probably think I'm just discarding his approach without putting any thought into it. I'm not. I really do think this is a truely terrible way to play.

And I do have reason to not believe he's made 7k over 2 years. My reason is that he told us how he plays. If someone told you they made 5k over 2 years by going all in every hand, would you believe them? Of course not.

[ QUOTE ]
In low stakes PS turbos, I imagine you could beat the game if you never started pushbotting before 100/200 level, but the larger chip stacks must make a big difference.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've played a few hundred stars turbos and the bigger stack size would make a huge difference. As far as making a parallel to this situation, it would be closer to waiting til the blinds get to 200/400 before going all in.

[ QUOTE ]
Please don't misunderstand. I don't think the guy is playing optimally. I just think that there is room at low buy-in SNGs to give up a few % of ROI and still be a winning player.

[/ QUOTE ]
And I agree. But this guy is clearly missing some fundamental concepts. If he doesn't understand this, I'd assume he has other leaks as well.

[Bigwig]

Sigh. The 'different approaches' argument has gone too far.

Sure, there are varying styles that can be effective. However, there are certain fundamental aspects of SNG play that are dictated by probability. This probability does not change from game to game. This constant means that there are certain strategies that are correct such a high percentage of the time, that it's horribly non-optimal to ignore them.

I know several stubborn, bad poker players. When I tell them their mistake, their answer is always: "Well, I just don't play the same style as you do."

Right. I play a winning style, and they play a losing style.

[ QUOTE ]
This constant means that there are certain strategies that are correct such a high percentage of the time, that it's horribly non-optimal to ignore them.

[/ QUOTE ]My point is that there is room between "non-optimal" and "losing".