What's the point of first 3 levels in high buy-in SNGs?

[barycentric]

Seriously, since e.g. in a step 5, everyone's super tight early, how much difference does it make if one just starts playing the tourney when the blinds get to be 50/100?

[ewing55]

The first 3 levels are so the fish can play until we take their money. Duh... [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

----------Jeff

[FieryJustice]

The first 3 levels are so I can get AA and lose to someones AK or KK. Besides that, they are just to waste time.

~Jcard

[Afterh0urs]

Reread your first line until you understand why this is not optimal strategy.

[barycentric]

[ QUOTE ]
Reread your first line until you understand why this is not optimal strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I was exaggerating the inaction in the first three levels. But I guess these responses suggest that if 10 non-fish sit down at a high buy-in STT, then the first 3 levels are really pretty meaningless.

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]


Of course I was exaggerating the inaction in the first three levels. But I guess these responses suggest that if 10 non-fish sit down at a high buy-in STT, then the first 3 levels are really pretty meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

If everyone is playing super tight, do you really think playing super tight is the proper srategy for the table?

The player who takes advantage of this situation will have an edge when the real tourney starts.

[Afterh0urs]

Actually, I wasn't suggesting that at all. If you're playing with 9 other good players who all have diesel bubble game, then the first three levels are going to be _very_ far from meaningless. It is your play in these levels which will allow you to survive the crapshoot that occurs when aggressive players turn it up on the bubble.

On the bubble, good players will be unpredictable. In the early stages, these tight players are predictable. When would you rather mix it up with them?

I'm probably going to get some backlash for my views because they're admittedly different from the norm... but that's what makes them profitable.

[Big Limpin']

Whats the reason for playing a cash game?

[barycentric]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I wasn't suggesting that at all. If you're playing with 9 other good players who all have diesel bubble game, then the first three levels are going to be _very_ far from meaningless. It is your play in these levels which will allow you to survive the crapshoot that occurs when aggressive players turn it up on the bubble.

On the bubble, good players will be unpredictable. In the early stages, these tight players are predictable. When would you rather mix it up with them?

I'm probably going to get some backlash for my views because they're admittedly different from the norm... but that's what makes them profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is you can be super aggressive early and still not gain that much because no one gives you any action unless you're beat. That seems like a horrible way to play early. Not only do you not significantly increase the chance to survive the crapshoot later, you increase the variance of busting before the bubble.

Playing loose-aggressive tends to result in the loose player going up against the best hand of the other 9 players every hand. If there's a huge disparity in postflop play, maybe this is viable, but we're assuming that the table is strong.

The analogy here is that the aggressor sits down at an extremely tight/aggressive NL25 table. With loose play he can expect to win some chips, mostly blinds, at the cost of increasing variance by a lot. Then all of a sudden, the blinds go up by a lot but it's still a NL25 game. Then, my question is this. Even when playing opposite the T/A style of everyone else early on results in +CEV, due to the increased variance, does it really result in signifcant +$Ev?

[Afterh0urs]

I'm not gonna get too deep into this as I have saved up quite a few Step 5 buyins that I plan on using and don't want to give my strategy away, but the way I play tends to reduce variance, IMO.

Basically, it all goes back to the basics of poker. In NL, where so many hands are won without showdowns, your table image is far more important than your cards, so as long as you're able to project the image that you want and make your reads accordingly, you will be able to build your stack without risking too many of your chips.

I never advocated the super aggression that you talked about in your response. And assuming that a creative player will only get action when he is beaten is giving way too much credit to the reading abilities of players.

SNG formulas are fine in the games where there are fish, but otherwise the concept of waiting for a premium hand to move your chips will be less effective, because as I've said before, tight players are easier to read. A tight player is far more likely to only get called when they're beat than someone who mixes it up in the fashion I encourage.

There aren't really any shortcuts in the highest level SNGs. Solid poker shall prevail over any waiting strategy and passing up +CEV situations early just because the blinds are low is far more wreckless than using the maneuverability to your advantage.

Of course, you need to know the right hands to play. I'm not saying to come out guns blazing with AJ or something similar that is likely to be dominated. But what I am saying is that so many "good" players are passing up a lot of solid opportunities to double up early because they're so set in a certain way of thinking.

I'm rambling now at 6:30 AM, so I'll end the post here. Tomorrow when I come visit, I'll clear up any confusion I caused due to my inability to write coherently.

Peace and good luck,
MJ