PP: Early play...who cares?

[Cactus Jack]

Everyone has heard, "You can't win in the first round, but you can lose it." Not only can you not win, it makes little difference at the end.

I've been watching something I think is interesting. There appears to be little difference between having 2000 chips in Level 2 and 1000 chips in Level 4. There seems to be little to no connecting between winning a few, a lot, or no chips in the early rounds. Once the blinds climb up to 50/100 and beyond is where the game is won or lost. As long as you can compete, you have as good a chance as those who took risks early. (or got lucky)

As long as you don't LOSE many chips in the early rounds, it makes no difference.

Am I nuts? Could this be right?

CJ

[Vee Quiva]

What do you mean by, "I've been watching"?
Did you dig out some stats from Poker Tracker?

I think it is always better to have more chips than less.

[pokerdirty]

of course you care! why else would you start out with blinds that low in the first place? i happen to like to be a bit more aggressive early than most, just because i feel like i can get a bit of an edge on players later on (some donks may fold to me later if i have them out chipped, even if it is only 100 or so more)

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone has heard, "You can't win in the first round, but you can lose it." Not only can you not win, it makes little difference at the end.

I've been watching something I think is interesting. There appears to be little difference between having 2000 chips in Level 2 and 1000 chips in Level 4. There seems to be little to no connecting between winning a few, a lot, or no chips in the early rounds. Once the blinds climb up to 50/100 and beyond is where the game is won or lost. As long as you can compete, you have as good a chance as those who took risks early. (or got lucky)

As long as you don't LOSE many chips in the early rounds, it makes no difference.

Am I nuts? Could this be right?

CJ

[/ QUOTE ]

eh...its sorta right I think. Thing is, doubling up early alone in not what guarantees success, but it can help you gain more chips later. Its like what they say "it takes money to make money"...well, more chips gain you more chips when it counts.

[1C5]

Well if you have 66 chips at 50/100 blinds you will often need a conflip or suckout to bouble up. If you have 2000 chips you can a) wait for better cards and b) use your bigstack to get even more chips.

[Cactus Jack]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you mean by, "I've been watching"?
Did you dig out some stats from Poker Tracker?

I think it is always better to have more chips than less.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just something I've been thinking about for awhile and have sorta kept a watch on. I don't have any idea how I'd go about finding statistical evidence to prove the theory. Not to mention, I don't have a large enough database to make it statistically significant, anyway.

It's not just the fishpond, but other sites as well. It just seems to be a rare thing that the guy who doubles up--esp if the guy is ME--ends up in later rounds with even more chips. It seems that the one who starts fast always comes back to the pack, and it's not just bad players.

CJ

[Cactus Jack]

[ QUOTE ]
of course you care! why else would you start out with blinds that low in the first place? i happen to like to be a bit more aggressive early than most, just because i feel like i can get a bit of an edge on players later on (some donks may fold to me later if i have them out chipped, even if it is only 100 or so more)

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand. Please forgive my poor attempt at being funny. If I get my bankroll high enough, I'm buying an improved version. If you guys keep pushing me in the right direction, I might even get one from Bloomingdales, on sale, of course.

I care. I'm always looking for more chips. But, I'm also aware that losing even a couple of limps at the early levels may make life tougher for me later on.

CJ

[Cactus Jack]

[ QUOTE ]

eh...its sorta right I think. Thing is, doubling up early alone in not what guarantees success, but it can help you gain more chips later. Its like what they say "it takes money to make money"...well, more chips gain you more chips when it counts.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, when does this come into play? Does an early chip lead make it easier to "make money" at that time?

I wish my brain worked better so I could make a clear point. Sorry.

CJ

[Cactus Jack]

[ QUOTE ]
Well if you have 66 chips at 50/100 blinds you will often need a conflip or suckout to bouble up. If you have 2000 chips you can a) wait for better cards and b) use your bigstack to get even more chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. 2000 is better than 66. 660 are better than 66, too. When it's time to shift gears, 660 might be just as good as 2000, whereas 660 is far better than 66, if the alternative to 2000 is 66.

What I'm getting at, or trying to surround, isn't it more important to husband your chips early, because it's hard to make a big chip lead last? It just feels (and I know how much you guys hate that word without numbers to back it up), but it feels like when the whole table is jockeying for position, it's best to lay back and wait, then go when it's the right time to go.

Like Dale Jarrett yesterday at Taledega, if you're a NASCAR fan. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

CJ

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]

It just seems to be a rare thing that the guy who doubles up--esp if the guy is ME--ends up in later rounds with even more chips.


[/ QUOTE ]
Of course it's rare that you're going to build quickly from there. You just had your share of luck. But so what if others catch up? You are still in there, with less people than at the start, and a good a shot as anyone left to win.

As others have said, the real reason to play early rounds is to consistently go into the autopush mode with 1000 or so instead of 600 or so. And, yes, this makes a big difference in your results.

Also, when you double up or better, there's no reason to go crazy and give it right back. You can still fold into Level 5.