Success @ $20-$50 SNGs--Reflections

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
Given the structure of the Party STT and the level of play at all but the highest limits (I've played every level up to the $109s), yes, optimal play is to wait for your good hands and to play them aggressively. You make it sound, though, that there are people here who advocate reckless play early in order to build a chipstack. I don't see the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are definitely confusing "optimal" play with "winning" play. There are things you can do at all levels that are quite possibly better for your ROI than just playing nut peddling basically. This was somewhat touched on in my post yesterday, though not entirely. Things like getting into more pots with players you feel you have control over with any two cards sort of, work well. Things like playing cheap flops when you have the tall stack to try to hit big, because as Gigabet puts it "those extra chips don't effect my doubling up equity." Things like all that stuff.

There just are better things to do than nut peddle. Nut peddling works though, and is easy. Just please don't confuse it with optimal play.

citanul

PS: I think I'm probably about done talking about this subject for a while, before people get really, really upset with me.

[GoldenHorde]

I think you have a good general concept but if you are tossing QK or 33 early in a SnG you are missing out on huge opportunities to make large amounts of chips with very little risk against the crazies. They key is to play them well as opposed to not playing them at all. It isn't that rare for a flop of K-7-3 or such to come when you are holding KQ and a great opportunity to get your money in against K8 or K9 to double up or even to take a small pot of 100 chips or so. And if you are tossing PP's for 15 or 30 chips thats just crazy.

It has been my long held belief that one could maintain a positive ROI by not playing a single hand until lvl 4, but I also believe you can double that ROI by playing well during lvl's 1-3.

Avoiding marginal advantages early is good but avoiding large advantages is just missed opportunity.

[AliasMrJones]

[ QUOTE ]
Folding KQs from UTG isn't exactly a new concept.

not just UTG, but MP as well...

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I play quite tight early, but I raise KQs from MP and EP. Am I crazy?

[microbet]

The nutpeddling vs. optimal play divide is very level dependent.

The only control you have over players in a $6 is that you can make them put their chips in the middle. Apparently in a $2000 buyin game you can make them fold trips with the top kicker.

[kyro]

After I posted my response, I said to myself "Citanul will be on here very soon to let me know how wrong I am."

I certainly agree with a lot of what you say, but I took it to mean you need to push your edges very early (if they are there) even if there is the risk of busting out. I'm beginning to think that you might mean playing looser and hoping to hit some huge pots, which I tend to disagree with to a point. Taking from OP's example, I'll play KQs from middle position if it hasn't been raised, but I'll often fold top pair if there is some betting before me. Is this optimal play? Honestly, I do not know. The reason I made the switch to SNGs was because I could make some decent money without needing to be any good at poker. For me, optimal play is finding a decent hand, and blasting it because I know the idiots who basically enjoy lighting their money on fire can't get away from their bottom pair.

OK, that was a bit longwinded. I'm not even sure if I understand everything I said. The way I play in SNGs is far from optimal in regular games. This is evident in the fact that I seem to piss money away anytime I jump into $200NL 6max (note to self: stop doing that dummy) And I agree with you, it is more advantageous for you to take a risk here or there in an attempt to build your stack early. I just don't know if pushing top pair good kicker against a PF raiser is the way to do it.

P.S. I just went through and read that entire thing. Talk about the most jumbled clusterfuck I have ever written. Part of me wants to not submit it but at the very least, maybe somebody will get SOMETHING from it.

P.P.S Citanul, don't ever not talk about something worthwile because you think people are getting tired of hearing you talk.

[Al P]

Who cares if playing KQs in EP or MP labels you tight or loose, does it accumulate chips over the longrun for you?

[Indiana]

Ok, now we are getting somewhere...I often hear this type of talk.."toss low pps in EP, no way, toss 97s on the small blind with 5 limpers, no way." This is what I am saying...You are ignoring the backside nature of the SNGs if you think you should limp in EP with 22-55...Why would you even limp with these??? I would only limp at a tight passive table...You are like 7.5:1 to hit a set and you are likely to have to call a raise and play the hand 3-handed...say u limp for 30 with 30 in EP, and you have to call just 60 more for a total of 90..Then you will need to make like around 600 more chips after the flop if you do hit your set just to get to a small profit from the implied odds....This aint easy...most of the time you will just lose the money that you have invested...Its kind of like buying the penny stocks isnt it??

Indiana

[Raiser]

[ QUOTE ]
...You are ignoring the backside nature of the SNGs if you think you should limp in EP with 22-55

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the practical difference between 22-55 and 66 or 77? There is none, unless you think set over set occurs enough to worry about. Or you think that with 77 you can play it as an overpair enough to make it worth the limp/call. I really can't think of a situation where I would throw out any pocket pair from any position if I can limp in the first 2 levels.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
You are ignoring the backside nature of the SNGs if you think you should limp in EP with 22-55...Why would you even limp with these???

[/ QUOTE ]

you are incorrect. very incorrect even.

i would limp with them because doing so wins me chips.

citanul

[The Yugoslavian]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'backside nature'....is it reverse implied odds? Does it have to do with risk/reward??

Anyway, I will play very few hands early on at lower buyins...but oddly enough, I *will* play KQ from MP, [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img], so I think it's a bad example.

The other key to playing hands is being v good post flop...in fact, at buyins 55+ (and to some degree 33), you *need* to be able to extract chips during the lower levels to be a significant winner.

Anyway, if what you're saying is 'play tight early on' I'd have to agree with you....but I'm not sure that is all you're really trying to say.

Yugoslav