Finding rhythm in the madness (a theory)

[Irieguy]

I think we all often wonder exactly how beatable the SNGs are. What's the best we can do? Well, for what it's worth... here's what I think. The following pertains to PP single table SNGs (using the $11 limit as an example):

Since poker is a zero-sum game, we can only play well to the extent that our opponents play poorly. In the context of a 50-60 minute SNG, there is a limit to how poorly somebody can possibly play; and therefore, a limit to how much we can possibly win. I think the best place to start is to consider the worst error you can possibly make in a tournament: calling.

When you call, you give yourself no chance to win the pot right then, and you surrender betting impetus to your opponent, making it more difficult to win the pot later. You also surrender chips with the play (a very limited resource). So it's pretty bad to call. The more chips you call off, the worse the mistake is, and the earlier in a SNG you call, the worse you are playing. So specifically, the willingness to call all-in in the first level of a SNG is the single biggest mistake you can make. Fortunately, there is a limitless supply of people willing to call all-in with hands like A-4s, K-10, 66, etc. So, if you are unwilling to call all-in early, you will gain an advantage. Experience has shown me that you should be able to finish in 10th place about 3% of the time, 9th place about 5% of the time, and 8th place about 7% of the time. I think this is as good as you can do, and as bad as you can hope that others will play.

As you move out of the first 3 levels and down to the last 5-7 players, the biggest mistake you can make other than calling too much, is raising too infrequently. If you don't change gears, you will not find big hands often enough to keep up with the blinds, and you will be chronically short-stacked, which degrades your betting leverage and makes it very difficult to make the money without getting lucky. By raising more during these levels, you should finish 5th-7th a much greater percentage of the time than you should 8th-10th, but still less often than your opponents who are not raising enough. Experience leads me to think that the best you can do here with correct strategy is about 8%,9%, and 10% respectively. (More on the 10% number below)

Now the bubble. The difference in net monetary outcome between 4th and 3rd place is bigger than the difference between any other adjacent spots. So, if you are going broke in 4th place too often, you are making a huge mistake. It gets tricky here, because sometimes your opponents are playing too tight, and sometimes they are raising too much. But more importantly, they are almost always too willing to call. So, if you call even less frequently than you think you should, you are probably making money. Even though a 4th place percentage of 12% seems bad since it's worse than the average of 10%, a SNG strategy up to that point that stresses survival more than anything else is likely to land you in 4th place quite a bit. I think that is the right way to play, and I don't think you can do much better than 12% 4ths for those reasons.

So, if you add up all of those theoretically optimal percentages, you get 54%. That means the best In-The-Money (ITM%) percentage you can hope to accomplish at the $11 level is 46%.

Once you get into the money, the blinds are high, your opponents, on average, are better, and you will be short stacked quite frequently due to your survival-oriented/calling-averse (and correct) strategy. I don't think that under these circumstances you can hope to do better than an equal proportion of finishes in 1st-3rd. In fact, I suspect that optimal SNG strategy will result in end-game situations involving shortest-stack play so frequently that the best you can hope for is a preponderance of 2nd place finishes. In any case, the best way to estimate the limits of possibility for Return on Investment (ROI) is probably to assume an equal proportion of finishes 1st-3rd.

So, if the best ITM% you can hope for is 46%, your ROI will be 39% if you assume an equal percentage of finishes 1st-3rd.

That's my story for the $11 SNGs and I'm sticking with it.

At the $22 and $33 levels, you will see slightly fewer opponents willing to make the above mistakes, so the limits of possibility for success will adjust downward a percentage point or two each time you move up.

At the $55 level and up, the skill level continues to improve AND you get more chips. Those considerations require much more complex mid-game adjustments in strategy than you would have to contend with at the lower levels. I think the above theory would have to be modified quite a bit to come up with reasonably accurate estimates for the limits of profitability at those levels. Maybe somebody else would like to tackle that.

Comments and criticisms welcome, please.

Play the right way,
Irieguy

[chill888]

Fair enough.

Main criticism: you say (one of) the biggest mistakes you can make mid game is not raising enough. Strongly disagree.

To many people panic TOO soon, when they still have plenty of chips.

One of the biggest mistakes you can make is committing all your chips too often. A major part of any good S&G strategy is to be able to raise (good aggression) and fold to a reraise (good survival). Too many upcomers read about being aggressive and take it (far) too far.

Need to stay tight although as you say, if you play a hand, play agressively

[Irieguy]

I totally agree with you. I wasn't clear enough. When I say the second most critical error from level 3 onward is raising too infrequently, I mean specifically as the first person in the pot, and with a reasonable raise.

I think the common mistakes at these levels are limping too much, calling too much, and as you say, going all-in too much.

I was trying to point out that the main difference between a skilled SNG player and an unskilled one (besides the baseline error of overcalling) is failing to appropriately adjust to the middle levels by increasing first-in raising frequency. You should still be seeing less than 18% of the flops (including your blinds) at these levels... and most players aren't anywhere near that tight. So, it would be easy for my suggestion to be turned into a giant leak.

I think that understanding that concept is what allows you to keep your percentages for 5th-7th below 10%. It's easy to keep your 7th place percentage way below 10% by just being ultra-tight. But that style will get you 5th and 6th place 20% each if you don't adjust appropriately.

Your points are very sound... thanks.

[chill888]

Yes,

As I once posted, you know you are playing well if - in the same game - someone calls you a rock, and later someone else call you a maniac. Shifting gears is critical.
It seems every 4th tourney or so, I go 30 or 40 hands without winning, and then win a few hands in near succession.

Play early game in first gear, middle game in 2nd and 3rd gear, and late game in 4th or 5th gear.

And as you say calling is (usually) a losing strategy.

But for me my biggest breakthrough was when I learned how to be aggressive, BUT CRITICALLY fold to reraises when it was clear I was beaten. Even if I blow away a decent chunk of my stack - or as some here may put it - even when I guessed that my hand was getting good pot odds.

I believe too many learned only the aggressive part and convince themselves (far too often) that the pot is now too big to fold - when it is clear they have lost. Combine this with tilting away your small stack after a big loss - and I think you have the two major leaks of FAIRLY good players.

Regards

[Crispyk]

I used to be a $30 and $50 player exclusively .. but due to some cutbacks in the bankroll... I am playing the tens hoping to regain some of it. I have to tell you.... i've been pulling my hair out for 4 straight days. Bluffing isn't an option in the $10's no one folds ever.... Raising is hardly a good option becuase it does not thin the field at all. You could have 8 players limp in and you could raise 10 times what they put in and every last one of them will call... This is great when you have AA or KK but anything else is just a gamble to raise with. I've really had to tone down my aggression and wait to play until after i see the flop... Too many times i was raising with AQ and running into bad flops with 5 people seeing it. It just didn't make sense to raise with good starting hands anymore. I do alot more limping .. and i see alot more flops.... i occasionally will run into a 2 pair or tripps but .... thats only normal i suppose. The only thing i can tell you for certain is that if you have the idea that you will go into these tens firing away and taking control of the hands.. you overestimate who your playing against. Patience and less aggressive preflop play is the way to go.

[Irieguy]

While I completely understand your frustration, your reaction to the play at the $10 level is just incorrect.

Lately it seems common for frustrated poker players to make comments about how badly people play online, and then go on to suggest that you can't beat these crazies by playing good poker. "Raising doesn't do any good because nobody will ever fold," etc. If you are raising with better values than the people who are calling you have, then you will win money.

Your plan to limp a lot preflop and wait for the flop is a losing strategy. Mainly because you are then always giving infinite pot-odds to the big blind, and always correct pot-odds and implied odds to the SB. I would love to play at a table where I always got to see my BB for free, and could limp from the SB with just about any 2 and be getting 5 to 1 pot-odds and implied odds of at least the size of my stack.

Despite urban legend suggesting the contrary, horrible players are easy to beat. The variance is a biyatch, for sure, but tight aggressive play is still correct. You seem to be falling victim to the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" mentality. Well, if you're joining them...

Play the right way,
Irieguy

[Lori]

So, if the best ITM% you can hope for is 46%, your ROI will be 39% if you assume an equal percentage of finishes 1st-3rd.

I can't agree, no matter how good the reasoning, I've sustained over 50% ITM for over two years on single tables and between 45 and 48% whilst three tabling and I'm confident that my sample is large enough.

Lori

[Crispyk]

Look i understand how it works.... playing tight aggressive.. get the chips in with the better cards.... but by doing this you are also depending on a good flop.... Example .. you have AQ you come in for a 3 or 4 big blind raise.. you get 4 callers.. the flop comes down 7 9 2... You bet out on a bluff maybe 75-100% of the pot... you get called by 1 player the next card comes 2... now where are you... you've drained a quarter of your stack by now.. and you still havn't gotten any closer to winning this pot.... most players will check fold on the turn in this spot.... but the only reason you had to throw the bluff out was becuase the pot was so substantial that it was worth taking a stab at it ..regardless if you missed your flop or not... I'm not saying that im "joining them" in there newbie fest .. i'm strictly talking preflop... its easier to get in a see a cheap flop. I find raising doesn't do anything... Most of the ten dollar games i have played have been substantially weak passive play... Where you can almost always see a flop for 1 bet.... i just find that its much easier to see the flop and play from there instead of trying to muscle them around preflop. I've tried both ways and have found more success in not raising as much preflop.... I can't tell you the number of times .. I have raised AQ just to see a J high flop with someone holding J10o etc... by raising preflop you are depending that much more on a good flop.... your building a pot up but your only going to win it if you hit a better flop then your 4+ opponents that call your raise..... believe me i feel alot better about abandoning a hand with only 1 bet out there then 6 or 7 ..... it just makes more sense to me..

[Irieguy]

That's certainly good to hear. How large, exactly, is your sample?

Assuming your numbers are sustainable, what's your opinion on how you are able to finish ITM 60% more frequently than "average?"

What's the highest limit at which you've played more than 300 SNGs and what is your ITM at the higher levels?

I'm very interested to hear your thoughts on these questions... thank you.

Irieguy

[Lori]

Online the largest I've played is $100, and I don't have a representative sample at that level.

The highest limit where I have a sample that matters is $11 because I live out of my bankroll, and ended up in an expenses = earnings trap.

(Live I have won $900 rebuy events)

My theory on how I've sustained it is that I 'should' be playing at considerably higher limits and that most people who could sustain this level at $10+1 simply don't bother because they can make more with a lower ITM at much higher limits.

I'm hoping to move up rapidly by about December, and I'll let you know how it goes.

Lori