wtf am I doing wrong?

[roxtar]

I've busted out no less than 4 spots from the money in the last 3 tourneys I've played in (one 12th, two 9ths). The trouble I'm having is when to start stealing blinds. The tourneys I play don't have that aggressive a blind structure so I find that the starting levels are fine for someone looking to play TAG, but they only start you off with T700 so unless you double up in the 1st hour or two you can find yourself with 4x BB pretty quick. At what point should I begin to worry about stealing blinds? I know how to steal blinds and the basic concept behind it as far as position etc. but the timing is the part I'm having trouble with. How many BB do I get down to before it begins to become necessary for survival?
I've cashed in these touneys before but when I have it's been complaetely card related, just wonderful runs of pocket pairs and dumb opponents. I think I'd rather bust out first than bust out on the bubble.
Any help would be appreciated.

[SheridanCat]

If you don't have Harrington On Hold'em, volum 2, you should get it. 4xBB is pretty bad shape. If you assume the SB is 1/2 the BB, then you only have an M of about 3, which means you can survive 3 orbits. 1 M = the amount it's going to cost you to play one orbit (or, as Harrington puts it, "the ratio of your stack to the current total of blinds and antes" - just divide your stack by the amount of blinds and antes). An M of 3 puts you solidly in the Red Zone. This is the zone where you have to start making some moves, and you may well be too late.

Here's an example from a live tournament I played last night. The blind structure was very aggressive. After the first hour, there was no one at my table with an M greater than 10. My M was about 6, that's Orange Zone, when the first level after the break began. If I was first in, I would raise aggressively with any ace that had a moderate kicker and any pocket pair. My opponents were playing much tighter than that, but they didn't seem to realize they didn't have that luxury and my steals kept working. They certainly were feeling the heat of the blinds/antes, but they didn't adjust while I had - this is a great edge.

Waiting until you're at 4xBB is almost too late. At that point, your ready to go in with almost any hand that's above average. Part of your advantage is fold equity, which diminishes with your stack since you stop being threatening pretty quickly.

In your tournament, if players are tight and aggressive early, you might try loosening up a bit to see more flops and try to hit big hands early. When you come in, make standard raises and see if the tighties can be moved off a hand.

And, remember, your sample size is small and if you play a lot of tournaments, you'll have plenty of these heartbreakers.

Good luck,

T

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
At what point should I begin to worry about stealing blinds?

[/ QUOTE ]
Blinds are always worth stealing.

[TaoTe]

I'm the proud bubble boy of many MTTs and I see nothing wrong with going out on the bubble. I don't care about just finishing in the money. I start stealing pots whenever I think someone is playing tight. Make a raise on the button or cutoff and see what happens. Some people will roll over consistently. Others will fight back. With them I often play it slower and stop raising there blind. I'll be nice enough to let them see a flop. If they check, bet. Position baby, it's good for something.

[masse75]

It's the downside of playing in tourneys...you can be better than 80% of the people in the tournament and still get nothing on your initial investment.

Switch to cash games only.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At what point should I begin to worry about stealing blinds?

[/ QUOTE ]
Blinds are always worth stealing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even in low-buyin Pacific sit-and-gos where anything short of raising half your starting stack is going to get called in the early rounds?

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
It's the downside of playing in tourneys...you can be better than 80% of the people in the tournament and still get nothing on your initial investment.

Switch to cash games only.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the upside is you can be worse than 80% of the people and still get 250:1 on your initial investment. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

But more to the point, your dogmatism is unwarranted. Most serious players would prefer lower variance to higher variance, so that's an argument in favor of ring games and small tournaments over large tournaments. But the excitement of a large tournament is meaningful to some people too, and not everyone is primarily interested in poker as a way to grind out a consistent living.

In other words to each his own. Your dogmatic command shows no understanding of these differences in motivation.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At what point should I begin to worry about stealing blinds?

[/ QUOTE ]
Blinds are always worth stealing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even in low-buyin Pacific sit-and-gos where anything short of raising half your starting stack is going to get called in the early rounds?

[/ QUOTE ]
Against opponents who defend the blinds too much, you can do better than stealing the blinds. You should be attacking the blinds by raising for value. When someone makes a bad call, you get more than 100% of the blinds on average. That's better than stealing the blinds, even though you risk losing a big pot early.

It is worth attacking the blinds on the first level. It is worth outplaying the weakest players rather than trying to get those chips after the better players get them.

[masse75]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's the downside of playing in tourneys...you can be better than 80% of the people in the tournament and still get nothing on your initial investment.

Switch to cash games only.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lighten up. It wasn't a command...merely a suggestion

And the upside is you can be worse than 80% of the people and still get 250:1 on your initial investment. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

But more to the point, your dogmatism is unwarranted. Most serious players would prefer lower variance to higher variance, so that's an argument in favor of ring games and small tournaments over large tournaments. But the excitement of a large tournament is meaningful to some people too, and not everyone is primarily interested in poker as a way to grind out a consistent living.

In other words to each his own. Your dogmatic command shows no understanding of these differences in motivation.

[/ QUOTE ]


Lighten up. It wasn't a command...merely a suggestion. And no attempt was made to "understand" his motivation. He's upset about not cashing...he has to realize that's the downside of tourney play. So I "suggested", (not a dogmatic command) that he try cash games.