Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

At the request of some people in the Books and Pubs forum, I've agreed to babysit a study group for the new 2+2 SNG book. Here's the Books and Publications thread. I have read the book and here is my review of Part I. It contains pretty much all I have to say about it. Use this thread to ask questions, stimulate discussion, and otherwise make conversation about the concepts presented in Part I.

My review of Part I:
[ QUOTE ]
Tournament equity is about the only thing this part needs to cover, and it does this well. The rest of it has a lot of good ideas and some debatable ones, and I feel people will want to argue a lot about them. There’s not much point in arguing whether KK should be limped or raised UTG at a 9-handed table given a few vague early-game reads. Even though we could argue indefinitely about it, it’s not terribly important to a new SNG player’s understanding of SNG play. As long as people understand how important tournament equity considerations are even in the early game, argue all you want.

I’m personally not so much into mid suited connectors as speculative hands in low buy-in SNGs, mostly because attempting to semi-bluff a strong draw into players who can’t fold TPnK is really just an easy was of getting all-in as a 40/60 underdog, but I also think a wide variety of early-game play is acceptable as long as it’s qualified with “know your opponents, know your reads, and don’t suck at 50-100 BB poker.”

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't 'nam, so we've got to have some rules.
<ul type="square">[*]1) No flaming Collin, or anyone else. Save the flaming of Collin for the Official STTF SNG Book Review Thread and your general flaming for the Castro Street Fair.[*]2) No unsubstantiated useless answers, even if they're right. If you say something, support it with something else. To phrase that differently: no one-word answers in the vending machine please.[*]3) No posting copyrighted material. Just assume everyone has the book and say things like "In hand 1-x, I think..." rather than posting the entire hand. My understanding is that posting a few sentences is OK. Posting an entire paragraph or hand is not.[*]4) No being a jerk. This is thread for beginners so there might be a lot of questions that seem stupid to more advanced players. If the stupidity of the questions is making you mad, stop reading the thread and go chat-berate some fish for a while until you feel calmer.[/list]

On the subject of limping KK early, Collin has already offered this in the Books and Publications thread.
[ QUOTE ]
Both limping or raising KK/AA early in an SNG are both reasonable options. The key point is that ideally you want to get all your chips in the center pre-flop, but when you cannot accomplish this, it is important not to get wedded to your hand if you get multi-way action and do not improve. If the pot is small, you have multiple opponents, and you don't hit a set, you cannot hesitate to lay down an overpair in the face of substantial action. Particularly if deep-stacked post-flop poker is not a strong point, you should just let the hand go in these circumstances.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

I'm one of the ones who requested this, and I'd like to say how happy I am that Slim took on the responsibility.

I guess I have the honor of asking the first (hopefully not too dumb) question. Part one is all about low blind play, but unless I missed it, the author never tells me when "low" becomes "middle." That's important to me as a beginning SnG player because I need all the help I can get determining when I should begin to shift into a more aggressive gear.

Up to now I've been using 10% of my starting stack as a cutoff for low blind play. If I start with t1500, when the big blind reaches t100 I figure I'm out of the low blind stage. Is that too early?

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
Up to now I've been using 10% of my starting stack as a cutoff for low blind play. If I start with t1500, when the big blind reaches t100 I figure I'm out of the low blind stage. Is that too early?

[/ QUOTE ]

That seems about right. The author defines low blind play as the first 2 levels of a party sng which roughly translates to the first 3 levels of a stars sng.

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

Ok, I'll start this off.

I only basically play turbo's and when reading my comments this should be noted.

One of the most important concepts in SNG's have to do with tournament equity and the value of your chips in relation to other stacks.

As other players get knocked out of the tournament the chips still left in their become more valuable in terms of their equity. This means that purely surviving this part of the tournament 95% of the time will increase your overall worth in the tournament.

It is for this reason that I suggest playing only premium hands when raising (my range is usually JJ+AKo+, I will throw 1010 in their as well as maybe AQs if in late position).

I will fold small pairs to pf raises often in the first level but will set mine all to no raise. For me to call a raise I will usually have 99+ to call with no read. If their are callers and the chips in the middle equal more than 10-15% of my stack I will push JJ/QQ/KK and AK. Even though I will often just rr with AA.

You should be aiming to survive and get your money in a 4-1 or 3-1 situation only in this level and hopefully avoid big coinflips early.

Flame away

Ryot,

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

How I view blind levels,

Early: 10/20 + 15/30
Middle: 25/50 - 100/200/25
Big: 200/400+

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is for this reason that I suggest playing only premium hands when raising (my range is usually JJ+AKo+, I will throw 1010 in their as well as maybe AQs if in late position).

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you feel about the recommendations that Collin gives for early blind play?

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

All I know of it is what slim/Colin have posted.

I guess I would agree with Slim for the mostpart. Because I have not read the book I decided to put up how I play and my reasoning behind them. I basically try to avoid situations where I am unsure of how to act because I multitable pretty heavily. While I may be giving up some slight equity edges in not playing some hands I believe my hourly rate is better contributed by my ability to play more tables.

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

Ok, I would like to hear some opinions on suited connectors/1 gappers/2 gappers/ Axs as marginal hands in the early blinds. Here's my personal opinion.

Preflop- I will limp with these hands in position behind 2+ limpers only in the first 2 levels(I dont play these hands past level 2). Limpers who are short (500 or less) do not count. If I am on the SB I will complete vs 2+ limpers if the BB isnt some sort of raising nut. On the BB I am willing to call a min raise as long as there are 2 other callers and I close the action, or are fairly certain there will be no raise behind. If folded to me on the SB I will occasionally steal with these hands if the BB is a good player who will fold to a raise early, but I need to be certain he will fold &gt; 90% of the time.

Postflop- I I flop a made hand- 2 pair + - I will try to get it all in. With a draw, I play it very passively, frequently folding if I don't think I'm getting the right implied odds. If the pot eclipses 500 and I think an all in move will get everyone to fold half the time, I do it, but otherwise I'm very conservative.

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

I am conservative it has served me and others well. I feel there is just so much equity to be gained by waiting for a few players to bust.

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I would like to hear some opinions on suited connectors/1 gappers/2 gappers/ Axs as marginal hands in the early blinds. Here's my personal opinion.
.
.
.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll limp the SCs and Axs at a passive table but I don't have much faith in the gappers early, even for a single bet. Collin suggests playing them up to a point; do you think his advice is too conservative?

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I would like to hear some opinions on suited connectors/1 gappers/2 gappers/ Axs as marginal hands in the early blinds. Here's my personal opinion.

Preflop- I will limp with these hands in position behind 2+ limpers only in the first 2 levels(I dont play these hands past level 2). Limpers who are short (500 or less) do not count. If I am on the SB I will complete vs 2+ limpers if the BB isnt some sort of raising nut. On the BB I am willing to call a min raise as long as there are 2 other callers and I close the action, or are fairly certain there will be no raise behind. If folded to me on the SB I will occasionally steal with these hands if the BB is a good player who will fold to a raise early, but I need to be certain he will fold &gt; 90% of the time.

Postflop- I I flop a made hand- 2 pair + - I will try to get it all in. With a draw, I play it very passively, frequently folding if I don't think I'm getting the right implied odds. If the pot eclipses 500 and I think an all in move will get everyone to fold half the time, I do it, but otherwise I'm very conservative.

[/ QUOTE ]

This all sounds good to me. The absolute key is to avoid semi-bluffs postflop in most cases because the ICM tax is too high.

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am conservative it has served me and others well. I feel there is just so much equity to be gained by waiting for a few players to bust.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. It's rare you can just fold into or close to the money any more. You still have to accumulate chips. The key is to find good spots early and avoid marginal ones, and although playing premium hands is a very good start in that direction, you should also be willing to consider other ways to find good spots.

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

If you always raised AA/KK you would be missing out on ~0% potential profit, [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img].

Please make sure everyone concentrates on common situations where players often miss making close to the most profitable play.

Yugoslav

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

Pineapple,

I am unsure of how loose you are reccomending to play early?

Are you recommending Axs, suited connectors/one-gappers??

Honestly I don't like putting myself in the situations where I don't know where I'm at in a hand. Also playing around with chips early will cause you to gamble earlier/ be shorter later reducing the chance of being able to manipulate the buble play. Granted someitmes you will accumulate a hudge stack but I don't see the value in it.

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
Pineapple,

I am unsure of how loose you are reccomending to play early?

Are you recommending Axs, suited connectors/one-gappers??


[/ QUOTE ]

Well that's what the discussion will be about, see the other posts so far.

[ QUOTE ]

Honestly I don't like putting myself in the situations where I don't know where I'm at in a hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's poker, you should probably get good at handling those situations.

[ QUOTE ]

Also playing around with chips early will cause you to gamble earlier/ be shorter later reducing the chance of being able to manipulate the buble play. Granted someitmes you will accumulate a hudge stack but I don't see the value in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm having trouble parsing this one. You're not "gambling", you are identifying +$EV spots, making sure to correct for ICM. That's your job, from the very first hand. There is some value to uber-tight early for image reasons so you can steal more effectively later, but a whole bunch of Villains have caught onto that one by now.

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I would like to hear some opinions on suited connectors/1 gappers/2 gappers/ Axs as marginal hands in the early blinds. Here's my personal opinion.
.
.
.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll limp the SCs and Axs at a passive table but I don't have much faith in the gappers early, even for a single bet. Collin suggests playing them up to a point; do you think his advice is too conservative?

[/ QUOTE ]

I just took a look in my PT database filtered to cover about 2k 6-max SNGs with buy-ins 50+5 or greater, looking at suited connectors. 93% of my total profit at 15/30 (level 1) is with AKs. It's like 140% at 20/40. Filtered for all hands with 4-6 players at the table it looks a little better, but AKs is still 75% of the total profit for 31% of the hands played. Maybe I suck at playing them, but more likely they're just not profitable enough to be worth playing early in a SNG for the majority of players.

My opinion is unless you're faced with a very profitable situation early on, maybe like a 58% pot equity overall playing smallish pots and never playing a large one, suited connectors aren't worth playing. Since the blinds are low, multiply the bet size you put in on each street by your pot equity at that point and divide by the size of the pot at the end. It will have to be at least 0.58 to be profitable in a SNG but very close to 0.50 in a cash game. That's how steep the "ICM tax" is.

As for Axs, I pretty much never pay it as a speculative hand, although occasionally I'll put in a raise in position with it if there are a lot of weak limpers.

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

Slim, this looks like it has potential, please stick with it, ty.

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

For my 2c, I've never been convinced that starting chips have equal value. I go with Pineapple when he says you have to create profitable situations earlier these days, but agree that ICM still holds. Is there any way we can provide some guidance as to how much of your stack you can use on "speculative" hands in level 1/2. Eg in LP with 55, I'll call limpers if my stack is good, but at some point, my stack is not big enough to play this hand this way. What is that point?

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any way we can provide some guidance as to how much of your stack you can use on "speculative" hands in level 1/2?

[/ QUOTE ]

A good way to do this would be to do the same thing we do for push/fold scenarios, but slightly more complicated and imprecise. First, take 9 equal stacks of t1500, blinds of 15/30, and a 50/30/20 payout structure. Then determine what the stacks would be in a few likely cases, such as

<ul type="square">[*]win t100 from one player[*]lose t100 to one player[*]win t500 from one player[*]lose t500 to one player[*]stack one player[*]you get stacked[*]you and another player lose t100 and t500, respectively, to a third player[*]two other players play a t200 pot after you fold[*]two other players play a t1000 pot after you fold

and calculate your ICM-based prize pool equity[/list]
After that, guess probabilities for each of these cases and multiply each case's probability by it's equity. By changing the probabilities of the bigger pots, you can see what effect cEV-neutral plays with big swings have on your overall tournament equity.

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
<ul type="square">[*]win t100 from one player[*]lose t100 to one player[*]win t500 from one player[*]lose t500 to one player[*]stack one player[*]you get stacked[*]you and another player lose t100 and t500, respectively, to a third player[*]two other players play a t200 pot after you fold[*]two other players play a t1000 pot after you fold

and calculate your ICM-based prize pool equity[/list]
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, I did that:

Secnario / result on my equity
1 / 10.60
2 / 9.39
3 / 12.95
4 / 6.88
5 / 18.44
6 / 0
7 / 9.41 (me) 6.88 (other loser)
8 / 10.00
9 / 10.02

[ QUOTE ]
After that, guess probabilities for each of these cases and multiply each case's probability by it's equity. By changing the probabilities of the bigger pots, you can see what effect cEV-neutral plays with big swings have on your overall tournament equity.

[/ QUOTE ]
Here's where it gets confusing for me:

Scenario/ Prob.%/ P * E
1/ 20/ .2*10.6 = 2.12
2/ 15/ .15*9.39 = 1.4085
3/ 5/ .05*12.95 = 0.6475
4/ 3/ .03*6.88 = 0.2064
5/ 4/ .04*18.44 = 0.7376
6/ 2/ .02*0 = 0
7/ 15/ .15*9.41 = 0.4705
8/ 30/ .30*10.00 = 3.00
9/ 4/ .04*10.02 = 0.4008

Changed**/ Prob.% / P * E
1 / 20 / .2*10.6 = 2.12
2 / 15 / .15*9.39 = 1.4085
3** / 8 / .08*12.95 = 1.036
4 / 3 / .03*6.88 = 0.2064
5 / 4 / .04*18.44 = 0.7376
6 / 2 / .02*0 = 0
7** / 20 / .20*9.41 = 1.882
8 / 30 / .30*10.00 = 3.00
9 / 4 / .04*10.02 = 0.4008

Sorry for being obtuse, but what am I seeing here? It looks like the results on equity are small when limping a speculative hand early (as long as you don't get trapped into losing a big pot) and that even a small change in the probability of a big pot happening makes a significant difference in the final calculation. But what does that final calculation really mean? Is it an index so I can see the scale of the change, or is there a more concrete relationship between the answers and either my chip stack size or my tourney prize equity?

I fear I have just unmasked a complete lack of understanding as well as my inability to format a post so that anyone can read it. Sorry. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

Here's a link relative to this topic from SSNL. http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...part=1&amp;vc=1

I'll be back in a little to comment.

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

It looks like you got a good start. I should have been a little more specific in defining the cases. They fall into two broad categories.

<ul type="square">[*]1) Things that might happen if you play the hand[*]2) Things that might happen if you fold the hand[/list]
If you play the hand, the possibilities are...
<ul type="square">[*] a) You win the t45 from the blinds[*] b) win t100 from one player[*] c) lose t100 to one player[*] d) win t500 from one player[*] e) lose t500 to one player[*] f) stack one player[*] g) you get stacked[*] h) you and another player lose t100 and t500, respectively, to a third player[/list]
If you fold the hand, the possibilities are...
<ul type="square">[*] a) one other player picks up the t45 from the blinds[*] b) two other players play a t200 pot after you fold[*] c) two other players play a t1000 pot after you fold[*] d) two other players play a t3000 pot after you fold[/list]
OK, now go through the exercise of guessing probabilities and calculating prize pool equities (a spreadsheet is good for this... I think there is a link in one of the stickies). You will be able to compare the $EV of playing versus folding. It's the same thing you might do for a cash game hand except the additional step of tournament prize pool equity modeling complicates things.

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

I think your play with the suited connectors is reasonable though I think it is easy to waste a lot of chips playing them early. Also I personaly trash my Ax suited hands as I do not want to be paying to draw at the lower levels. I will however call a standard raise with a small pair hoping to hit a set and stack someone with top pair.

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
OK, now go through the exercise of guessing probabilities and calculating prize pool equities (a spreadsheet is good for this... I think there is a link in one of the stickies).

[/ QUOTE ]
Is this the spreadsheet you mean?

"Tourney Manager Companion Spreadsheet companion to Tourney Manager that can be used to track bankroll and graph results. Freeware, by Slim Pickens (hosted by http://sngicons.com/software.php)" [from the "tools" sticky]

If yes, either the link is broken or all 800+ people who've looked at this thread are trying to DL it. Is it hosted anywhere else, or if this is the wrong sheet could you point me to the correct one?

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK, now go through the exercise of guessing probabilities and calculating prize pool equities (a spreadsheet is good for this... I think there is a link in one of the stickies).

[/ QUOTE ]
Is this the spreadsheet you mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I mean find a spreadsheet that has an ICM calculation function in it. I will try to figure out where I got the one I have and post a link. If anyone knows a place to get one, please post the link.

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

I haven't read the book; but I'm sure there must be something there about c-betting at low blind levels. What are the min requirements for c-betting at levels 1/2?

I think this links in neatly with the work done here so far on loosening up early. I used to have a rigid rule of not c-betting whiffed flops, now I am happy to bet into certain villains, or on certain flops. Eg Villain is tight reg multitabler with position(ie I raise 3BB from MP, he called from LP), we are HU. Flop comes A high, I hold 99. I am prepared to bet 5BB into that flop.

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK, now go through the exercise of guessing probabilities and calculating prize pool equities (a spreadsheet is good for this... I think there is a link in one of the stickies).

[/ QUOTE ]
Is this the spreadsheet you mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I mean find a spreadsheet that has an ICM calculation function in it. I will try to figure out where I got the one I have and post a link. If anyone knows a place to get one, please post the link.

[/ QUOTE ]

Screw it. I can't find it. Email me and I'll send it to you. My email address is in my profile.

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

Thanks for the spreadsheet, Slim.

I'd like some comments from those who've read the book, here, please.

Most of the example hands in Part 1 illustrate what to experienced SnG players are probably standard plays, and Slim, I think it was you who termed Part 1 a manual for staying out of trouble. Hand 1-11 is an example where Collin didn't stay out of trouble, though. I've read the hand a number of times and I'm not sure I agree with Collin that the hand warrants a raise, even taking position and prior players' actions into account. I'd limp and set mine here.

At this stage of the tourney, how big a mistake am I making?

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read the book; but I'm sure there must be something there about c-betting at low blind levels. What are the min requirements for c-betting at levels 1/2?

I think this links in neatly with the work done here so far on loosening up early. I used to have a rigid rule of not c-betting whiffed flops, now I am happy to bet into certain villains, or on certain flops. Eg Villain is tight reg multitabler with position(ie I raise 3BB from MP, he called from LP), we are HU. Flop comes A high, I hold 99. I am prepared to bet 5BB into that flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I first learnt about SNG's was from Sprstoner's blog. A high stakes pro who has since moved to cash/tournies. He followed this rule and as such so did I , I now C-bet AK type hands in position about 1/2 the time. Below is a typical example of an overbet c-bet that I use pretty frequently too.

5-Handed 50/100

Ryot (13-1400): AK opens to 300
Folds
Co (2000): Calls
Folds


Flop 378r

Ryot goes allin 1100

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

[ QUOTE ]

5-Handed 50/100

Ryot (13-1400): AK opens to 300
Folds
Co (2000): Calls
Folds


Flop 378r

Ryot goes allin 1100

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems unnecessary as you are either a 3:1 favorite or a 3:1 underdog, with nothing in between, and the flop texture makes that very transparent. Continuation bets are for flops where you can make the best hand fold.

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read the book; but I'm sure there must be something there about c-betting at low blind levels. What are the min requirements for c-betting at levels 1/2?

I think this links in neatly with the work done here so far on loosening up early. I used to have a rigid rule of not c-betting whiffed flops, now I am happy to bet into certain villains, or on certain flops. Eg Villain is tight reg multitabler with position(ie I raise 3BB from MP, he called from LP), we are HU. Flop comes A high, I hold 99. I am prepared to bet 5BB into that flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I first learnt about SNG's was from Sprstoner's blog. A high stakes pro who has since moved to cash/tournies. He followed this rule and as such so did I , I now C-bet AK type hands in position about 1/2 the time. Below is a typical example of an overbet c-bet that I use pretty frequently too.

5-Handed 50/100

Ryot (13-1400): AK opens to 300
Folds
Co (2000): Calls
Folds


Flop 378r

Ryot goes allin 1100

[/ QUOTE ]
This is way too transparent IMO - especially if you do it a lot. In particular it makes calling the flop with fairly marginal hands very profitable when you can't see a hand that beats you which would want that much FE on the flop. If I c-bet, it's for the same amount as I would v-bet with top set on the board in question.

In the example you give I'm not c-betting with that stack size - with that specific stack size, I'm usually open pushing preflop anyway - but if I'm just raising with a moderate stack, I'm not putting any more in without a hand. I usually want 12BB+ behind after my c-bet before I consider it.

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the spreadsheet, Slim.

I'd like some comments from those who've read the book, here, please.

Most of the example hands in Part 1 illustrate what to experienced SnG players are probably standard plays, and Slim, I think it was you who termed Part 1 a manual for staying out of trouble. Hand 1-11 is an example where Collin didn't stay out of trouble, though. I've read the hand a number of times and I'm not sure I agree with Collin that the hand warrants a raise, even taking position and prior players' actions into account. I'd limp and set mine here.

At this stage of the tourney, how big a mistake am I making?

[/ QUOTE ]

The book advocates limping with speculative hands like mid-low pp in mid-late to late position after there is already a couple of limpers. You don't have that situation here, so I think open-raising with a decent hand with a chance to take down the blinds or hit a set if you are called is not a bad move. Also, if you get it heads-up and the flop comes ragged, your 88 might still be good and depending on your opponent you may be able to take down the pot with a c-bet. Open-limping in middle-late position seems pretty weak IMHO.

I'd be interested in what others think of this hand as well.

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
...if I'm just raising with a moderate stack, I'm not putting any more in without a hand. I usually want 12BB+ behind after my c-bet before I consider it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is really helpful because I often find myself on a missed flop in position thinking i shoud cbet but knowing it will effectively commit my stack to that pot with nothing if called.

Would others agree you need 12BB approx left to cbet a missed flop as a guide for beginners?

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
Open-limping in middle-late position seems pretty weak IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for your response. I know it does seem weak (and Collin agrees with you), but how satisfied are you with your situation as portrayed in the example. You have half your stack committed holding a mid pair on an ace-high board. By limping you encourage other callers which makes the set mine play viable.

Collin's play either cripples you or wins you a quarter of your stack. Limping either costs you 60 chips or wins almost as much as Collin's play.

Is this book written for new players? If yes, unless they're well-heeled or crazy they'll be playing in games where people routinely call raises with Ax. Is it really a smart play to bet pot on this turn? It seems to really contradict his "be conservative early" theme, unless he's sncouraging me to go to war with speculative hands...which I don't think is the case.

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Open-limping in middle-late position seems pretty weak IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for your response. I know it does seem weak (and Collin agrees with you), but how satisfied are you with your situation as portrayed in the example. You have half your stack committed holding a mid pair on an ace-high board. By limping you encourage other callers which makes the set mine play viable.

Collin's play either cripples you or wins you a quarter of your stack. Limping either costs you 60 chips or wins almost as much as Collin's play.

Is this book written for new players? If yes, unless they're well-heeled or crazy they'll be playing in games where people routinely call raises with Ax. Is it really a smart play to bet pot on this turn? It seems to really contradict his "be conservative early" theme, unless he's sncouraging me to go to war with speculative hands...which I don't think is the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

I definitely see your point and would most likely check behind on the turn if I were in that situation; not necessarily because it is the better play, but because I would probably fear the ace.

On the other hand, I see Collin's point. Your opponent is passive and while he could be in with an A, he could also have high cards like KQ, or even a flush draw. You would hate to give a free card in this spot. If your opponent doesn't hold an A, he is probably folding here. If he does have an A, he will most likely raise. Given that your opponent is passive, and raise will definitely signal an A and you can safely fold. The blinds are still low and you will still have 1000 left.

Honestly, knowing how I play I doubt I make this turn bet unless I had some kind of read that led me to believe my opponent would most likely fold as expending half your stack at this early stage does seem to conflict with the conservative early approach.

Definitely hope to hear more opinions on this hand.

fwiw I am not a biginner as I have been playing and studying poker/tournament poker/SNGs for a number of years. However, I am not an expert either as time only allows me to play a couple of tournaments a week, meaning while I've put in the YEARS, I haven't put in the HOURS many other players have, so I am just as interested in other's opinions on this as well.

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
Would others agree you need 12BB approx left to cbet a missed flop as a guide for beginners?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I would not agree with this. I would not throw away EV by not c-betting in good c-betting spots because I've set an arbitrary rule not to c-bet below 12bbs.

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

5-Handed 50/100

Ryot (13-1400): AK opens to 300
Folds
Co (2000): Calls
Folds


Flop 378r

Ryot goes allin 1100

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems unnecessary as you are either a 3:1 favorite or a 3:1 underdog, with nothing in between, and the flop texture makes that very transparent. Continuation bets are for flops where you can make the best hand fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slim is bang on. This is actually a pretty bad flop to c-bet, because no one is ever going to believe you hit it and they are really never folding a better hand. 22 might even look you up here. I would if I had 22.

The only hands that are folding are hands that you beat.

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would others agree you need 12BB approx left to cbet a missed flop as a guide for beginners?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I would not agree with this. I would not throw away EV by not c-betting in good c-betting spots because I've set an arbitrary rule not to c-bet below 12bbs.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with this - obviously you should c-bet if it's a good spot to c-bet. The point I was trying to make was that stack sizes play a part in my decision about c-betting. I'm much less likely to c-bet in a marginal situation if it leaves my stack very short compared to a situation where I can still get away with a workable stack. If I'm raising and c-betting with 15BB, my stack is committed, so clearly I'm only c-betting in situations where I'd be willing to commit my stack.

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

Hi, I am new to this forum and relatively new to sit and go’s. I grasp the concept of the tournament equity section where all in coin flip confrontations early on can actually reduce your equity. However I have a couple questions:

1. In Hand 1-4, it is recommended to shove with AK after a raise and two limpers. Let’s assume no one has been eliminated, everyone has 2k in chips, and one person calls your push. Is your tournament equity reduced if you are called by someone with JJ and in a coin-flip situation? There is t460 more chips in this situation than if you call an all-in if MP1 open pushes and it is folded to you. Do the t460 chips make the difference or is it because there is fold equity?
2. How big a favorite do you have to be to call an all-in in low-blind play (2-1, 3-1, etc.)? How many chips have to be in the middle to make your all-in call worth the risk of your tournament life assuming only one person will call (t2460, t2600, etc.)?

Re: Sit \'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would others agree you need 12BB approx left to cbet a missed flop as a guide for beginners?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I would not agree with this. I would not throw away EV by not c-betting in good c-betting spots because I've set an arbitrary rule not to c-bet below 12bbs.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with this - obviously you should c-bet if it's a good spot to c-bet. The point I was trying to make was that stack sizes play a part in my decision about c-betting. I'm much less likely to c-bet in a marginal situation if it leaves my stack very short compared to a situation where I can still get away with a workable stack. If I'm raising and c-betting with 15BB, my stack is committed, so clearly I'm only c-betting in situations where I'd be willing to commit my stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see where you are coming from but I think with poker you just have to go with your gut sometimes, if it is a good spot to cbet then do it regardless of your stack. Also when you cbet with a short stack villains are going to be afraid to call or raise because they think you are committed. EX:

blinds: 50/100
Stack: 1300

You raise to 300 w/ AK from CO+1
SB calls your raise

Flop: Q49 rainbow
SB Checks
You bet 375 ( I like to make it a non slider number) this leaves your stack at 625. Now villain is thinking that you are committed to this pot and all of your chips are getting in no matter what.

I think if its a good spot, do it. Poker is a mathematical game but its also a thinking game. If a sb limps into me and I think hell fold to an all in I will push any 2 into him. Sometimes you just have to go with your gut.