Sit 'N Go strategy-reviews?

[Jeff76]

Look, I agree that this thread is the place for reviews of the book and not the old L/R with KK line.

However, I do want to clarify:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Limping big hands UTG with the intention of re-raising is alright in some cash games, but in a STT I can't image it is ever correct (not a STT expert, though).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that is exactly what I'm saying. You don't know why it isn't correct, you just can't believe it is.

[/ QUOTE ]I do have a reason why I believe it's incorrect- I believe that l/r with big pairs increases variance with them, and without a good reason to do so, I usually take less variant lines in STTs because of the nature STT chip equity.

One of the concerns I have about the book (and the reasons I'm looking for reviews) is that I have heard accusations that CM advocates some FPS lines. Because fancier plays tend to introduces variance (bigger swings in your chips stack), this seems counter to me to the nature of optimal play for STTs, a part of which I've always understood to be that we need to preserve our equity. The argument that might be made to counter this is that in the early stages where blinds are so low, the swings aren't nearly so bad and it's worth a little gamble to build a dominating stack. I don't know- as I've said, I'm not a huge STT player these days. I AM interested in reviews from knowledgeable STTers, or even CM's thoughts on this topic if he's willing to share.

As for the rest of the points- I think you are thinking incorrectly about the nature of how to play KK vs 77, etc. but this really isn't the thread for it. That is a more generalized poker discussion, not even really related to STTs.

[Jan]

Once upon a time, you could raise UTG in a SNG and EXPECT someone behind you to move in, particularly in the low SNGs. Once upon a time you could move all in from UTG and STILL expect someone to call you with hands such as AJo or a smaller pair! So in all likelihood you were playing a big pot as a big favorite. (Don't know if this was ever the case on Stars. I experienced play like this at a couple of other sites pre-UIGEA).

That's not the case anymore, even in low SNGs. Often, you make a raise with KK from UTG early and everybody folds, or worse you get multiple callers and now you're playing a big multi-player pot with a big pair, and low and behold the flop comes with an A.

Collin DOES recommend raising and reraising with AA-QQ early in a SNG, particularly in the low SNGs most of time. Why? As a value bet and to limit the field. Makes perfect sense. But when you have a really big hand like AA or KK, you're hoping to get all your chips in the middle pre-flop against one or two opponents. That's not so easy to do anymore in the early stages of a SNG. Personally, I am NOT looking to "take down the blinds" in the early level of a SNG. Those few chips mean very little. I want to find a way to play a big pot preflop.

So, in some cases when the conditions are just right; i.e. you have a table where there has been a lot of raising preflop, this play make work to get most or all of your chips in preflop as a huge favorite against one opponent.

It's just another way to play a hand, but I don't think Collin is advocating playing the hand this way most of the time.

I did find it interesting that he chose this play to show an example of, but maybe that makes sense since it is not the "typical" play. Also, I found it interesting that his example did not go as planned, but again he is showing how to play a hand differently and how to get away from a hand that didn't work out quite the way you had planned it.

I'm about 3/4 of the way through the book and so far I think it's an excellent book. I don't think Collin suffers from FPS like someone suggested; instead he spells out the plays you need to make to get the chips in a SNG. The fact that he may show a lot of examples of hands that seem somewhat "tricky" to some does not mean he advocates "tricky" play throughout the SNG, however the plays he does show need to be in every SNG player's arsenal if you wish to take down the chips.

I've been holding my own in low-level SNGs for a while, but knew many times that I was making incorrect plays (meaning bad pushes or bad laydowns) during mid blind and high blind levels and missing stealing opportunities that are important to SNG success, and this book is definitely filling in the blanks for me.

I will say though, for the TRUE SNG expert, there's nothing new in this book. For those who just THINK they are SNG experts, you really shouldn't knock the book without reading it first. For those who KNOW they are not SNG experts but want to improve their SNG game, like myself, the book is a good investment.

[Jan]

[ QUOTE ]

One of the concerns I have about the book (and the reasons I'm looking for reviews) is that I have heard accusations that CM advocates some FPS lines. Because fancier plays tend to introduces variance (bigger swings in your chips stack), this seems counter to me to the nature of optimal play for STTs, a part of which I've always understood to be that we need to preserve our equity. The argument that might be made to counter this is that in the early stages where blinds are so low, the swings aren't nearly so bad and it's worth a little gamble to build a dominating stack. I don't know- as I've said, I'm not a huge STT player these days. I AM interested in reviews from knowledgeable STTers, or even CM's thoughts on this topic if he's willing to share.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you really need to read the book. Everybody is now assuming that Collin suffers from FPS because of the KK hand example early in a SNG, but the majority of the low blind play examples are exactly what you would expect them to be. In fact, his KK example is a pretty low variance play -- if the flop ends up being multi-player and gets a lot of action, you back away from the hand.

Read my prior post, this probably will answer your question better.

Also, this thread is clearly full of people who are looking to hate the book for some reason as most of you haven't even read it.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Are we sitting with the same players a lot so we need to mix up our play?

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't need to be sitting with the same players a lot for limping KK to be "mixing up your play". Even if it's the first hand with brand new players, it's not the normal play with KK. Mixing up your play from the norm is sometimes good enough. (This is not to say that limping the first hand at a new table you've never played with before is a good idea, for several reasons. I'm just sayin'...)

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Because fancier plays tend to introduces variance (bigger swings in your chips stack), this seems counter to me to the nature of optimal play for STTs, a part of which I've always understood to be that we need to preserve our equity. The argument that might be made to counter this is that in the early stages where blinds are so low, the swings aren't nearly so bad and it's worth a little gamble to build a dominating stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this was your point, it's a far more interesting point. I'd like to hear from CM as well.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Once upon a time, you could raise UTG in a SNG and EXPECT someone behind you to move in, particularly in the low SNGs. Once upon a time you could move all in from UTG and STILL expect someone to call you with hands such as AJo or a smaller pair! So in all likelihood you were playing a big pot as a big favorite. (Don't know if this was ever the case on Stars.)

[/ QUOTE ]

It was. Also experienced it on Party.

[PapaBling]

In regards to limping UTG with KK at a tight table I find it useful to open raise in EP with a much wider range of hands, and am therefore more likely to get action on bigger hands. Very good book. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[bustedromo]

[ QUOTE ]
Look, I agree that this thread is the place for reviews of the book and not the old L/R with KK line.

However, I do want to clarify:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Limping big hands UTG with the intention of re-raising is alright in some cash games, but in a STT I can't image it is ever correct (not a STT expert, though).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that is exactly what I'm saying. You don't know why it isn't correct, you just can't believe it is.

[/ QUOTE ]I do have a reason why I believe it's incorrect- I believe that l/r with big pairs increases variance with them, and without a good reason to do so, I usually take less variant lines in STTs because of the nature STT chip equity.

One of the concerns I have about the book (and the reasons I'm looking for reviews) is that I have heard accusations that CM advocates some FPS lines. Because fancier plays tend to introduces variance (bigger swings in your chips stack), this seems counter to me to the nature of optimal play for STTs, a part of which I've always understood to be that we need to preserve our equity. The argument that might be made to counter this is that in the early stages where blinds are so low, the swings aren't nearly so bad and it's worth a little gamble to build a dominating stack. I don't know- as I've said, I'm not a huge STT player these days. I AM interested in reviews from knowledgeable STTers, or even CM's thoughts on this topic if he's willing to share.

As for the rest of the points- I think you are thinking incorrectly about the nature of how to play KK vs 77, etc. but this really isn't the thread for it. That is a more generalized poker discussion, not even really related to STTs.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're limping KK UTG,UTG+1 with gameplan for aggressive pre-flop and post-flop play, then, yes, this increases variance. But if you are only looking to get aggressive pre-flop (re-raise a raiser) and have a gameplan to quietly laydown the kings if multiple callers and A on flop or coordinated flop and resistance to you betting at pot, then, no, not much variance is added.

It's not just your specific actions that determine variance, it's also your gameplan -- something that ICM doesn't take into account (at least in the basic modeling softwares).

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, this thread is clearly full of people who are looking to hate the book for some reason as most of you haven't even read it.

[/ QUOTE ]FYI, this is not me. I am interested in this book depending on what the experienced STTers have to say about it. I don't play STTs often and I do well enough when I do play them, but I know my game could use a lot of improvement. If this book well help me with that, I am very interested.

I do, however, believe that the STT forum here has so much knowledge on this subject that an assessment from the best STT posters will be helpful in the decision to purchase this book (and if I do, which sections will be most beneficial).

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're limping KK UTG,UTG+1 with gameplan for aggressive pre-flop and post-flop play, then, yes, this increases variance. But if you are only looking to get aggressive pre-flop (re-raise a raiser) and have a gameplan to quietly laydown the kings if multiple callers and A on flop or coordinated flop and resistance to you betting at pot, then, no, not much variance is added.

[/ QUOTE ]When I talk about increasing variance, I mean that we will tend to win fewer pots with a line, but on average those pots will be bigger. It is absolutely the case that limping KK UTG will cause us to win fewer pots no matter what our post flop game plan is, and presumably we will win bigger pots on average when we do win to offset the pots we lose. Winning bigger pots less often is the type of strategy I try to avoid in STTs.

I suppose the question is how much variance is added, and perhaps I overestimate that amount. These are the types of discussions (though maybe not with this particular play specifically) I would expect a good STT book to address. Not being an STT expert, it may even be that my "variance reducing" thought processes are way off base. This is the reason I'd like to read a good STT book and am hopeful that this one delivers. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]