HoH Infection Points-Party SNG'S

[sng-sam]

I am halfway through HoH Vol 2. I am reading about "Inflection Points" As I think about how it applies to Party SNG'S I think the 2+2 strategy is pretty in line with Harringtons thoughts. However I wonder if anyone has thoughts about Q specifically and how it guides your play. I often find myself with a low M but a average or near average Q near the bubble. I am finding that at low limits tighte play than Harrington suggests lends itself to survival and ITM. Anyone have thoughts on this.

SAM

[sng-sam]

BUMP

[Jbrochu]

There is a good post from a few weeks back started by adanthar I believe. I feel that the consensus (my opinion only) of the forum is that in general, the concepts are quite good for SNG's, but many of the specific hand examples are poor.

I did not agree at first, but the posters taking the position that many of the hand examples were poor won me over. Search for the thread, I think it will be helpful to you.

[trdi]

There were threads about the same question. I once replied that I don't use Q and effective M in SNGs and think that they "kill each other".
In fact Harrington himself wrote that we should disregard theory of effective M in similar situations. I found it when I did a second read.

[pooh74]

Yeah, the meta game stuff in this book is great...some of the hands are just so atrocious I wouldnt know where to begin...Adanthar beat me to the punch and listed some hands that contained some flimsy advice.

Dont have the book handy but i recall one when he advocated raising 3bbs from the BB with 83o with 830 in chips and 50/100 blinds....there were 3limpers including the SB...he then advocates that if someone calls, you can still get awau from the hand to still have some fire power left. This was a single table SNG and if anyone here ever posted a hand like that, I'd probably rip them. Although his reasoning wasnt idiotic, it was -EV in my book.

As far as M and Q...i think most of us SNGers pretty much understand these as relating to SNGs w/o much thought...it sort of becomes ingrained. I dont much bother with Q in a SNG as I dont think it is going to affect my decision making compared to other more important factors. I think Q is a much greater thing to keep ur eye on in MTTS.

[sng-sam]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont much bother with Q in a SNG as I dont think it is going to affect my decision making compared to other more important factors. I think Q is a much greater thing to keep ur eye on in MTTS.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this was my point exactly. I play MTT's for fun( i still do pretty well) and SNGs for money. I was thinking that Q was worthless when stacks are equalish near the bubble. Now in MTTs I see how both are good numbers to know but how M is probably more important than Q. Incidently I have found these to books to have improved my MTT game more than my SNG game by far. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

[Jbrochu]

The inflection points stuff was pretty much standard SNG strategy that I learned on 2+2 a while ago. The heads-up section has had a profound impact on my number of 1st place finishes.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont much bother with Q in a SNG as I dont think it is going to affect my decision making compared to other more important factors. I think Q is a much greater thing to keep ur eye on in MTTS.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this was my point exactly. I play MTT's for fun( i still do pretty well) and SNGs for money. I was thinking that Q was worthless when stacks are equalish near the bubble. Now in MTTs I see how both are good numbers to know but how M is probably more important than Q. Incidently I have found these to books to have improved my MTT game more than my SNG game by far. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ive had two 1500+ cashes in the month after reading them...(a 10 and a 20 / 2nd and 3rd). The book(s) were great for my MTT game obviously. I never read the MTT forum here and had lots of gaps in my play, especially mid-end game (where there is really no parallel in a SNG).

As far as SNG poker, I try to ignore a lot of the info in the book, especially the hand examples. I feel that here, on this forum, there is no greater place for SNG knowledge if you read here for a year, as I have.

But overall, good books. I should also add in fairness, the heads up section is good and I feel my HU play has been a little better since...although, when playing 3-4 when ur HU w/ huge blinds, i dont really cry over any play I make.

[sng-sam]

I am looking forward to the HU section. Ok this thread is played out thanks to all.

SAM