Harrington\'s \"First In Vigourish\"
 

I'm reading HOH Vol2,Inflection Points. This part of Harrington's book really applies to a weakness in my game.

I want to apply his theory of first in vigorish. But in the home tourny I play in, we start with only 30x the big blind. Blinds double every 10 minutes, so by the time we're down to the final table, everyone's in at least the orange zone.

My question is, Harrington's advice presumes a less aggressive game than our tourney. All our players act on this principle (first in vigorish) from the start of the tournament. Also, the blinds are so aggressive, that players compensate by having loose calling requirements.

I'm known as a tight aggressive player, more likely to fold preflop to aggression than post flop. What hands should I be going all-in on when my stack is in the orange zone (Keeping in mind I'm sure to get called, and that it's rare that at a 8-10 handed table, a player in early position won't raise)? What hands are good enough to call with when we're 4 handed or less?

Specifically, how do you feel about Jx-Qx-Kx?

Re: Harrington\'s \"First In Vigourish\"
 

Quit poker.

Re: Harrington\'s \"First In Vigourish\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
Quit poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

leave the forum if you don't have anything useful to say.

Re: Harrington\'s \"First In Vigourish\"
 

First of all, I want to say that I thoroughly enjoy Harrington's books. My playing style doesn't quite match his, so I don't practice all of what he says, but his first in vigorish has really changed my short-stack play for the better.

About a month ago, I was in one of those monster tournaments at Paradise. I survived the other 4,999 players for a long time with my regular play. But with around 100 left, I suffered a bad beat and found myself with an M of about 5.

Rather than wait for a premium hand, I started using Harrington's short-stack first in vigorish style.

There were usually 9 or 10 people at my table and for most of my short-stack play my M varied between 2 and 8. About 2/3 of the time I was the shortest stack at the table. The largest few stacks had M's of around 20-40, if I remember right.

The system worked amazingly well. About 75% of the time I went all-in with first-in vigorish, the rest of the table folded. When I was called, I usually had good odds.

A few times I had great hands, a few times I got lucky and outdrew better hands. Two or three times I lost to smaller stacks.

It took about fifty hands, but I got my M back above 20 and switched back to a more conservative playing style. I ended up finishing 14th in the tourney.

---------------------

As to your questions about calling during first in vigorish. I don't think very many hands are playable at this time.

If someone else beat me into the pot, I would usually drop hands like Jx, Qx, and Kx - even if they were suited.

It depends on a lot of different factors, but I think the basic idea is that someone else has already said that they have a hand. Once this happens, everything you hold goes down in value.

Plus, the extra money in the pot will make the odds more favorable for someone else to call with a weaker hand.

If you are dire enough, or have a good reason to believe the caller will fold to your all-in (or will be playing a hand worse than yours) then it is not a bad place to go all-in with a lot of different hands.

The only other time I would go all-in here is if I was almost certain that I would be heads-up against only one other player (i.e. he calls UTG and the table folds to you in one of the blinds). Again, though, I would need to be in bad shape to go all-in here with a poor hand. If you are already in the blind, you need to consider seeing a flop against apparent strength.

In your sitiation, since everyone plays a bit more aggressively, all of your hands become a little more valuable, so Kx may become playable. I would still be careful, though.

It is a tough situation, but keep in mind that "first in" is the main idea behind the playing style.

Re: Harrington\'s \"First In Vigourish\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm reading HOH Vol2,Inflection Points. This part of Harrington's book really applies to a weakness in my game.

[/ QUOTE ]

All about the Gap Concept (Read Tournament Poker for Advanced Players). Harrington just says it in a different way.

Oh, and drop those weak J/Q/K hands.

Re: Harrington\'s \"First In Vigourish\"
 

Jedi is right on this one, its a question of the Gap Concept. You need a much better hand to call a raise with then you would need to raise yourself. The size of the gap will depend on the stack sizes, blinds, knowledge of the player, etc. In your game with smaller stacks and fast blinds, the gap may be very small. If you are likely to get heads up with the EP raiser, hands only slightly better then what you might expect him to have should be playable.

Re: Harrington\'s \"First In Vigourish\"
 

Thanks for all the great feedback. I think it will be very useful.

Thanks "vypremik" for your detailed explanations. That's exactly what I was looking for.

I wasn't sure I asked my question well, but 2+2 really came through for me again.

Re: Harrington\'s \"First In Vigourish\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for all the great feedback. I think it will be very useful.

Thanks "vypremik" for your detailed explanations. That's exactly what I was looking for.

I wasn't sure I asked my question well, but 2+2 really came through for me again.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're Welcome

Re: Harrington\'s \"First In Vigourish\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
Quit poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who the [censored] are you?

Re: Harrington\'s \"First In Vigourish\"
 

fortune,

You should read the single table tournament forum and study some basic poker math. Download pokerstove and an ICM calculator and get cracking. Poker is a tough game, but if you do your homework the results will take of themselves. Good luck!