My Early Bust-Out Theory -- Tell me if I am wrong?

[MagnoliasFM]

I've been thinking about sharing this for a while, but I never had the time. I just took the worst beat of my poker career today. I decided to step out of the kiddie-pool and play some $200 PLO with the new blinds at Party, and I lost a $500+ pot when my overflush lost to a one-outer gutshot straight flush draw. ($500 is a lot of money to me, as I am a college student). Part of my healing process is writing, and what better to write about than my SNG theory [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I consider SNGs to be my best game, even though it's not even really a game. It's more like craps than poker. (craps where you have a huge edge).

If you take a look at my $22 SNG results, the first thing that will jump out is my freakishly high hourly rate. The second thing that will raise your eyebrow is the pie chart that shows my finishes. My 8th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 4th, 2nd, and 3rd place finish frequencies are all pretty much the same! It's my 1st places finishes that really stands out (over 2 times as frequent as any other place). My 9th and 10th place finish frequencies are a little lower than the rest, but not by much. Some people might laugh at my early bustouts and tell me that I should save my chips for later, but I have a theory on SNGs that I call Early Bust-Out Theory.

Most people who are reading this have been indoctrinated with Sklansky's tournament book, which says that you should pass up small edges early on in a tournament if you're better than everyone else in the tournament (which you automatically are, if you sit down at a $22 tournament). People have taken this way out of context and pass up all sorts of double-up opportunities on levels 1, 2, and 3, without realizing that after busting out early they can just join another tournament, which makes it not wise to pass up any sort of edge. There are two things that you should remember:

1. 4th place pays the same as 10th place.

2. 4th place loses you a lot more money than 10th place does. When you get 4th, you lose your buy-in and around 30 minutes of productivity. When you get 10th, you lose only your buy-in and maybe 5 minutes of productivity.

The profitability of each place from most profitable to least profitable is 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 10th, 9th, 8th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 4th.

This is why, when someone raises in early position to 55 on the first hand of a tournament, I move all-in with AKo. 90% of the time, a raise to 55 means a pocket pair, but sometimes he has AQ or worse. Overall, despite being a small dog to a pair, I will double-up or win a small pot more often than I bust out, because sometimes the raiser will turn up Ax or fold his low pocket pair. I will take similar risks early on with hands like TT-QQ, where I know I am up against either AK or a pair that could be higher or lower than mine. I am not afraid to bust out in 7th or worse. And that is why I frequently do. But also, that is why when I make it to level 4, I usually have a stack that commands the respect of my timid opponents. And that is why I have so many firsts.

I also "play" on the early levels, and I'm not afraid to risk my case chips if I have a read on someone. Another thing I do that causes me to bust out early a lot is the "squeeze" play on level 3.

The level 3 squeeze play happens when you have around 600 chips and the blinds are 25-50. 3 players have limped in and you move in with any two cards and pick up 225 chips about 3/4ths of the time. If you do get called, it's a coinflip as you whether you double-up or bust out.

Another thing is, in level 2 when 4-5 people have limped in, I would gladly flip a coin to either double+up, or bust out. The dead money from the limpers makes it worth flipping the coin. Again, do not be afraid of busting out. Your biggest fear should be making it to the final 4 with a really short stack, which means that you likely just wasted a bunch of time and still won nothing.

To win a SNG, you're going to have to win a few coinflips. Whether you win them at level 1 or level 4, chips are chips. Waiting until level 4 to flip it is silly, it's like the hare and the tortoise, why fall asleep levels 1-3 just because you think you can make up for it later?

Okay, and my last thing is about coinflips. Most people think the only type of coinflip there is is a pocket pair versus overcards. Nope. Any 2 cards vs. any 2 cards is a coinflip basically. The only situations that you want to avoid are domination from a higher kicker, an overpair, and to a lesser extent, two overcards to your non-pair. These situations aren't as common as people think. Stealing the blinds is also a coinflip. You'll only get called about a third of the time, and the times when you do get called, you'll lose less than 2/3rds of the time. So, it's basically a coinflip. Finally, if you have AA and lose to KK, don't think you just got a bad beat. AA and KK is the same hand preflop, so if you and your opponent hold them, in the long run it's 50/50 as to who wins. If the cards were reversed, you both would have gone all-in just the same. So when you go all-in with TT and get called by JJ and lose, don't think you are a bad player. You just lost a coinflip because your opponent easily could have had a lower pair. Pretty much everything I can think of in SNGs is a coinflip. Winning a SNG comes from making nearly even-money coinflips early on and then flipping hugely weighted coins in later levels when people don't defend their blinds.

Darn, that was a lot of writing. I still have a lot to say but I guess I'll save it for the SNG book I'm planning on writing once I luck out in a future WSOP and get some television time. (Which probably won't be for a while since I'm only 17 lol). Anyways, I want you guys to tell me what you think about my theory that busting out early is actually good and shouldn't be avoided.

Next case.

[Hood]

I've very interested in this style of play and it's profitability. If you don't mind sharing, how many 22s have you played? What's your ROI?

Do you multitable? One advantage of playing rather tight early on is it makes it's easy to watch 3-4 games at once.

[ QUOTE ]
his is why, when someone raises in early position to 55 on the first hand of a tournament, I move all-in with AKo.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the first round of a party tourney, this would be the equivilient of you going all in with T1000 in a pot of T100. Do the raisers really call you all in after their T55 raise with AQ and small pairs? Even in the aquarium that is the $11 and $22 party SNGs, I would only expect a call here with AA-QQ and AK-AQ. Seems like a big risk for a small reward.

[stlip]

I absolutely agree. Many of the tournaments you win are because you get a chance for a big pot on a coin flip or with a bit of an edge and it works out. Might as well seek out the opportunity early, sort of like asking the crystal ball of destiny if this is your table or not.

That said I pushed AKo against an open raiser Level 1 who had played almost every hand just looking to steal his bet and the blinds. After a lot of thought the fish calls me with ATo, but wouldn't you know it a T flops and MHING.

[MagnoliasFM]

[ QUOTE ]
I've very interested in this style of play and it's profitability. If you don't mind sharing, how many 22s have you played? What's your ROI?

Do you multitable? One advantage of playing rather tight early on is it makes it's easy to watch 3-4 games at once.

[ QUOTE ]
his is why, when someone raises in early position to 55 on the first hand of a tournament, I move all-in with AKo.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the first round of a party tourney, this would be the equivilient of you going all in with T1000 in a pot of T100. Do the raisers really call you all in after their T55 raise with AQ and small pairs? Even in the aquarium that is the $11 and $22 party SNGs, I would only expect a call here with AA-QQ and AK-AQ. Seems like a big risk for a small reward.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have less than 500 $22s and I understand that my ROI pretty much means nothing without more tourneys to back it up, and so I won't post it so as to not get flamed. This style of play is also really swingy due to most of the money coming from 1st place finishes so it might not be possible to tell whether it is good or not until the long run (I'll definitely share when I have over 2000 tourneys under my belt). And yes, I 4-table (if you can't focus on playing at 4 tables at a time you shouldn't even be playing SNGs for a living).

As for your question about the AK, first of all $22s start out with onlly 800 chips instead of 100, and second of all, you'd be surprised by the types of hands that call. A lot of lower pairs fold, fearing domination, but hands like AQ, AJ, suited paint cards, etc. frequently call. I guess I forgot to mention that this is only for $11 and $22 (I haven't tried $33s). I wouldn't dare to do something like that on a table where people actually know what "pot odds" or "hand vlaues" are. In my view, it is a big risk for a big reward, and you're going to have to flip it later anyways, so why not do it now and if you lose at least you don't lose time.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
Most people who are reading this have been indoctrinated with Sklansky's tournament book, which says that you should pass up small edges early on in a tournament if you're better than everyone else in the tournament (which you automatically are, if you sit down at a $22 tournament). People have taken this way out of context and pass up all sorts of double-up opportunities on levels 1, 2, and 3, without realizing that after busting out early they can just join another tournament, which makes it not wise to pass up any sort of edge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. The "wait for better opportunities" theory basically does not apply to SNGs. However this isn't why you should try to avoid allin situations early. The reason is that anytime two stacks go allin, equity is transferred from them to the other players. A clearer example of this is two equal stacks going allin 4 ways, but it applies 10 ways as well.

[ QUOTE ]
This is why, when someone raises in early position to 55 on the first hand of a tournament, I move all-in with AKo. 90% of the time, a raise to 55 means a pocket pair, but sometimes he has AQ or worse. Overall, despite being a small dog to a pair, I will double-up or win a small pot more often than I bust out, because sometimes the raiser will turn up Ax or fold his low pocket pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you try this in the $200's, a typical raiser will fold everything except JJ-AA, AK. He will have the better hands (including AA and KK) much more frequently because he has raised from early position. You will pick up 55 chips often but it will not be enough to compensate. You will also miss the opportunity to pick up extra chips from them postflop when they have a hand like AQ or KQ.

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, and my last thing is about coinflips. Most people think the only type of coinflip there is is a pocket pair versus overcards. Nope. Any 2 cards vs. any 2 cards is a coinflip basically.

[/ QUOTE ]

You miss pair vs overcard/undercard (e.g. A9 vs JJ) in your list of things that aren't coinflips. I assume you don't think those are coinflips.

For other hands, it depends a lot on the quality of the hand. For example:

cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
3c Jh 523757 30.59 1172642 68.48 15905 0.93 0.311
Qd Td 1172642 68.48 523757 30.59 15905 0.93 0.689

That definitely isn't a coinflip - in fact, it's worse than AK vs two random cards. But:

cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
8c 6c 741215 43.29 964741 56.34 6348 0.37 0.435
Ad 7h 964741 56.34 741215 43.29 6348 0.37 0.565

That I would characterise as a coinflip. So even though they're the same type of matchup - interlaced holdings - the results are very very different.

[ QUOTE ]
So when you go all-in with TT and get called by JJ and lose, don't think you are a bad player. You just lost a coinflip because your opponent easily could have had a lower pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's ridiculous. It only applies if next time, your opponent doesn't have the smarts to get away from TT. For example, I will virtually never lose my stack with JJ to a higher pair on Level 1. So if someone loses theirs to me, that isn't a coinflip, it's them losing their stack.

Perhaps your strategy destroys the $20s, I've never played them so I wouldn't know. A flat range of placings and then twice the number of firsts doesn't sound that sustainable to me. I can promise you that your strategy would get destroyed on the higher limits because you wouldn't get financed by the early loose players.

EDIT: As far as the much discussed hourly-rate theory goes (i.e. risking bustouts so you can play more tourneys/hr) - again, this doesn't apply to the higher limits because the edge you are pushing is so slim, you can't afford to give some up to get a better turnover.

I've just calculated your ROI based on the result profile you gave - double the number of firsts and flat for the rest of the placings. You place first therefore 2/11 and second and third 1/11 each. The average buyins won per tourney is therefore (2/11)*5 + (1/11)*3 + (1/11)*2, or 15/11. Your ROI is therefore ((15/11) - 1.1)/(1.1) or 24%, which is not particularly good for the $20s, although your greater tourneys/hr may give you a higher earn than other 2+2ers with higher ROIs. I'll retract my comments about that not being sustainable. Coming from the $200s I guess I just don't know what a high ROI looks like in placings [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[1C5]

Thanks for posting.

I personally think that is terrible advice. But, there is more than one way to skin a cat and if it works for you, go for it! [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] Much more variance this way but as you said, out in 8th, fire up a new game quick.

If someone raises in level 1 to 55, I will instead just call with AK and be able to get out of the hand if nothing hits me on the flop without too much damage.

[Hillbilly Cat]

I read your post with some interest. I'm fairly new to tourny poker however, so my comments may have to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Firstly you said...
[ QUOTE ]
I consider SNGs to be my best game, even though it's not even really a game. It's more like craps than poker. (craps where you have a huge edge).

[/ QUOTE ]

I know what your getting at, but I suspect you haven't played much craps. There's no similarity at all. Because of the limited time frame of a single-table tourny I agree that often you need a little good fortune, but its no where near as pronounced as you're suggesting. Craps is pure luck where the house always wins... there's no skill at all.

[ QUOTE ]

If you take a look at my $22 SNG results, the first thing that will jump out is my freakishly high hourly rate. The second thing that will raise your eyebrow is the pie chart that shows my finishes. My 8th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 4th, 2nd, and 3rd place finish frequencies are all pretty much the same! It's my 1st places finishes that really stands out (over 2 times as frequent as any other place).


[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think thats freakish at all.. it depends on how many tournies you're talking about, but what your figures actual say to me is you have a fairly flat, even distribution. Basically your just getting an even spread and there's nothing much to read into that except you don't seem to have much of an edge.

By way of (statistically questionable) example, my last 21 tournies (i.e. what I played this week, I don't multi table) is. 1st = 6, 2nd = 3, 3rd = 1, Out of money = 11.

So I place in the money half the time, and when I do I often win it.

In fact, almost everytime I've won it, I've done so by being in the smallest stack when down to the last three.

[ QUOTE ]

I usually have a stack that commands the respect of my timid opponents. And that is why I have so many firsts.


[/ QUOTE ]

As I said, I often don't. So either way is effective.

[ QUOTE ]

I also "play" on the early levels, and I'm not afraid to risk my case chips if I have a read on someone. Another thing I do that causes me to bust out early a lot is the "squeeze" play on level 3.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that once there's perhaps 6 or less left, what you're saying makes a lot of sense. But, early on I'm not convinced. I'll quickly quote from PLNL Poker (Ciaffone/Stewart)

[ QUOTE ]

'There is another element of satellite play that also dictates tight play at the start. Take a look at those other nine entrants. What you rate to see at a typical table is three tough players, three average players, and three people that you have never seen before in your life. Of the three strangers, one will be so scared that you won't ever play a pot with him, and the other two will play like their double parked. With those two loosies, you are liable to get called if they have as much as King-high. They are not worried, because they "didn't expect to win anyway", want to see how you are playing, and can enter another satellite in a few minutes when they bust out of this one. The obvious correct strategy of play is to do nothing fancy and simply wait for a good hand'


[/ QUOTE ]

There are a few things to note here. Firstly this strategy is not about 'doing nothing' early on, but there is little to be had from pushing marginals. Some of those competitors will virtually bust themselves out. Why risk a bad beat?

Whenever I play I would say this cross section is pretty accurate. What that sort of means is that when he refers to loosies he's talking about you!

Whilst I can see where you're going with your strategy there is a problem and that is because its fits so nicely with mine. I.e. *I* won't be the one taking you on with those marginals early on. One of the other loosies will, or a player with very strong values. Either way you are making your survival chances very bad, or about evens. Classic small favourite or big dog.

If you do get through, then what are you left with? The better players, who've preserved their chips (and I agree you may have a lead). They are not going to be so easily caught out. And the problem now is that with the blinds going up and the number of hands at the table shortening, any edge they have over you figures to be greater (one of the main attractions of short handed play for better players).

I certainly don't need a big chip lead to win, and given the way you play I can now see a big pile of chips with one of the 'looser' players, so naturally I (and I expect the others too) are targetting your stack. This now makes you and even smaller favourite because of this implicit collusion. You may be a coin-flip favourite against one of us, but against three you're up against it.

Typically what I find happens is that a player in your position then gets over turned, and gives a healthy chip lead to a stronger player.

Having said all that, I'm not saying your approach has no merit, and certainly if the payout structure is only rewarding first place, then you are more correct. However sit-n-go's by their very nature reward survival, and therefore I can't agree with your theory that 10th place is less profitable than 4th. If I'm in fourth (and lets reduce all future hands to a coin toss) then I have a 1 in four chance of winning. in 10th it is one in ten... which place do you prefer to be in?

I guess as well, you're kind of assuming its the big stack that will win predominantly. I disagree simply because with the much high blinds near the end, a few steals can suddenly have the short stack back near level terms. It is much more about timing and good bluffing at this stage that knicks the money.

I do agree however that time is money and many players are simply happy just 'lasting the distance'. I don't, I just time my attacks when they are more likely to be successful, offer me lower risk, and the timing is more beneficial.

Mind you, don't think if I flop middle-set early on I'm not gunning for your money, I'm just a lot more likely to actually have middle set than you are.

Really interesting post mate! Explore it some more. I'm a great beleiver in aggression at the table, so perhaps there's a good way to make what you're doing work. I seem to recall reading somewhere about Stu Ungar. My understanding is he was very much 'all guns firing'. If he busted out early, so be it, but if not he figured to have a big lead, and aggressive image and a huge edge. Mind you, playing like that takes no small amount of talent.

To be honest, I think your obviously aggressive style will get better dvividends when the game gets short handed (hence why you probably have more firsts), therefore it actually feels to me like your giving up an edge you already had by firing too early on marginal values. Save that AQo VS KQs for the latter stages, and force 'em down..

[Hood]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for posting.

I personally think that is terrible advice. ... If someone raises in level 1 to 55 ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain why you think it's terrible advice? As the OP says, this is applicable to the 11s and 22s only.

[ChrisV]

Here's a little more on the variation in results in matchups of a similar "type". I ran these sims one day to get a handle on what the percentages were for different matchups. For all the common "types" I ran the best and worst cases I could think of for each hand.

Pair vs underpair: (AcAd vs 6h6s) 79.8% - (7c7d vs 2c2d) 82.5%
Pair vs double undercard: (AcAd vs 6h5h) 79.4% - (AcAd vs Qc8d) 88.5%
Pair vs single overcard: (7c7d vs 8s6s) 66.3% - (7c7d vs Kh2d) 71.7%
Pair vs double overcard (2c2d vs JhTh) 46.0% - (7c7d vs AhKs) 55.4%
Non-pair vs double undercard: (AcKd vs 7h6h) 57.7% - (JcTc vs 7h2s) 71.0%
Non-pair vs interior-undercard: (Kc7d vs 8h6h) 56.8% - (Tc8c vs 9d2h) 68.6%
Non-pair vs interior cards: (Kc2d vs 7h8h) 50.8% - (Ac2c vs Kd3s) 63.7%
Dominating hand: (Ac6d vs 6h5h) 65.8% - (Ac2c vs Kh2d) 77.4%

The main thing to take from this is that at the end of a SNG, when the hands that are colliding are not going to be that great, if you aren't getting dealt high cards, you can up your chances of winning a lot by going allin with a good-quality hand - something suited and close to connected.

[1C5]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for posting.

I personally think that is terrible advice. ... If someone raises in level 1 to 55 ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain why you think it's terrible advice? As the OP says, this is applicable to the 11s and 22s only.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the AK play is not the worst but often someone raises with AJ or AQ and if you call it and an A comes, then you can bust them but often people will fold if you go all in and you only get +55 chips.

But what the poster said about needed coinflips to win is not 100% true. Sure, maybe to win you do but often I find myself ITM with 0 coinflips just by knowing when to go all in and just by stealing blinds.