How bad would it be to fold every hand on levels 1-3 in a 10+1?

[The Yugoslavian]

I agree with everything you said except I don't understand what in my post you disagree with.

Obviously one is giving up $EV by automatically folding in the first 3 levels. However, I'm interested in what people think about the possibility recouping that $EV and more by doing it to allow more SNGs/hr.

Do you think that every winning player generates +$EV on levels 1-3? IMO many winning players may be leaking $EV due to too many mistakes playing hands in the early levels (I remember a very interesting Irie post that alluded to this point). It's hard to significantly increase one's $EV too much that early in an SNG but it is very easy to significantly decrease one's $EV in the early stages of a SNG.

Yugoslav

[lastchance]

I think a better tack would be to fold every hand but AA, KK, QQ, or AK if you want to increase your EV by playing more SNGs per hour.

I agree that you don't make a lot of EV by playing marginal hands in levels 1-3, but doubling up with a hand like AA or KK is huge when you get it.

[The Yugoslavian]

Watching for and playing those 4 hands will take attention away from the other tables (on level 4 or higher) that you could be playing. But it would seem that most massive multitablers do more or less exactly what you suggest.

Doubling up with AA or KK early is significant when it happens but not as 'huge' as most people think. To be fair, though, you don't double up every time with those hands (far from it) and even when you do your $EV doesn't necessarily double. Doubling through AA or KK is relatively rare though and one has to be paying *some* attention each and every hand in order to see them come up and then play them when they do come up. One is sacrificing a lot of time for these rare double ups, don't you think?

Yugoslav

[Mr_J]

Well over 61 tournies (my current 43 at $33s and the rest before at $50s), AA-QQ and AK have been worth around 250 chips to me in Lvl 1-3. 34-15, and some of those 15 have been pretty ugly.

If I include every hand I've played, Lvl 1-3 are worth around 30 chips more. This is obviously a small sample, and also consider the fact that my game has considerably improved during this period. Also had more suckouts than I should've.

Say you make it to the end of the 6th level on average, you are missing out on 1/2 of your monster hands. I know sngs aren't really about early play, but it should still make a difference. Folding doesn't take much effort, so why pass up on these hands?

*since I started playing again (35 sngs this year), the first 3 levels have actually been worth 377 chips each sng.

** 130 of those chips come from non AA-QQ&AK.

[Mr_J]

"fold every hand but AA, KK, QQ, or AK"

I agree, for my skill level anyway. The amount I gain from playing other hands is worthless (about 30 chips or so each sng). Also, playing only monsters gives you a tighter image and makes it easier to steal blinds and pots in the mid stage.

Don't mind hearing the value that other players here get out of lvls 1-3 (for me, about $250 for powerhouses and $30 for other cards).

*the worth of first 3 lvls is actually $247 for AA-QQ &AK, and $377 for all my lvl 1-3 play.

[AleoMagus]

I think you would be costing yourself and it'd be foolish to do so considering how profitable and easy it would be to at least play a few hands.

This is something that I have thought about quite a bit though, but not quite the same. I have thought about straightforward ways to simplify those first few rounds with sub-optimal plays which should still be +EV, and which are almost foolproof.

For instance, I have considered the effect of just pushing every AA, KK, QQ and AK during the first three rounds. AA, KK, QQ could also call any pushes (QQ can only call one) and AK will fold to any all-in and even any big raise.

The reason why a strategy like this seems appealing at times, especially for beginners is because of a particular type of situation which is a little troublesome at times.

The situation that I am speaking of is when there are reverse implied odds because you probably have the best hand on the flop and even charge any draw enough to make it a bad pot odds call, but do not have the judgement required to let go of the hand after that, even if the draw should come.

I have many times found myself falling victim to my own stubborness this way. For example:

Level 1. I am on the button with A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]A [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] and there are three limpers. I raise to 100 and get one caller.

Flop comes 9 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]8 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]k [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

checked to me. Pot is now a little over 200 and I want to charge the potential straight/flush draw. I bet 250 from my stack of 700. I get a call

Turn brings 6 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Crap. checked to me. Pot is now 700ish and I have only 450 in my stack. What on earth called that flop and is now checking to me. Probably a king. I push

He turns over T [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]Q [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

He has the flush. River doesn't matter. I lose.

I get frustrated by his fishy call on the flop. Why would he call when he doesn't have odds? Stupid fish.

Then I realize that I am kinda fishy too and his call was not so bad considering he (apparently) had implied odds because my AA was worth another 450 to him when the heart came. Not to mention he also had 12 outs. It WAS a fishy call preflop, but I might have been just as big a fish after that.

Now, this is something that a really good player will deal with effectively, but when you are quad tabling or just plain weak at poker, it's really easy to get sucked into this kind of reverse implied odds trap.

So, I wonder how much it would cost us to just push all AA, KK, QQ, and AK?

Or, if I wanted to get a little more advanced but still keep things really mindlessly foolproof. Play our usual hands (AA, KK, QQ, AK, Limped pairs), but only ever push or fold the flop with TPTK, overpairs, and sets.

Here I go trying to turn poker into a strategy card again...

Oh well. Any thoughts?

Regards
Brad S

[Scuba Chuck]

Jeffraider, why not just play only the following 4 hands:
AA, KK, QQ, & AK

Besides these four hands, fold all the rest for the first 3 rounds. Would that accomplish the same goal?

Oh, and that's just tight poker...

[jeffraider]

That's actually pretty much what I do now, except I'll limp PPs for 15 or 30 chips purely for set value. Reviewing my last 10 ITM finishes, only 2 of them had me playing a hand before level 4. That's what got me thinking.

[ThorGoT]

Aleo --

How is your idea different (in broad outline) fromm the "System" described by Sklansky in HPFAP? I realize that you're limiting it to the first few rounds, but in reality strategy in the last few rounds -- given blind sizes, etc. -- is often also very much all about pushing, just with a broader range of hands. So isn't your strategy, really, to push with a very small group of hands early, and a much broader array later?

Intuitively this doesn't seem right, and I think one of the posters previously has described why. The "System" is excellent to avoid getting called unless you'll have a reasonable chance of doubling up. But it is -- of course -- useless at taking chips away from others in small quantities. Now, in a tough game, I'm more concerned about being outplayed; in a weaker game, i want my chance to outplay others. Tough game - system. Weak game -- it's a second best option.

ThorGoT

[AleoMagus]

You are right in the sense that weaker players are much more likely to make bad plays than me. It's not me who should be worried about reverse implied odds traps, it's them. So in this sense, I know that play as systematic as what I have described is sub-optimal.

But, what if I'm just a new player? (or rather, a new player who I am trying to teach)

How much is play this systematic really costing? Can one be a winner with a strictly push/fold SNG game. You actually describe what I am suggesting very well with:

[ QUOTE ]
to push with a very small group of hands early, and a much broader array later

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize that this sounds a little like the sklansky system, though I would point out that I do not think the as-is Sklansky system has any hope of making money in a typical SNG. I am describing something more attuned to the environment of a typical SNG.

Regards
Brad S