Chip Ferguson’s Turbo SNG Article
 

http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/c...guson0607.html

This is really a great article, because even the most “mundane” situations are not dismissed as beneath discussion. The reason this is so important is that the optimal play in SNGs is often counter-intuitive due to the distinctive 3-places-paid structure.

This also seemed like a particularly tough game, with many players surviving into the high blind phase. Anyway, let’s look at a couple of hands Chip discusses.

Hand 21: Solid discussion of why a low-mid pocket pair should rarely be played for a raise out of position – calling and raising are both problematic, and so Chip correctly advocates a fold via process of elimination.

Hand 28: This hand leads to my one question for Chip: even though none of your opponents are regulars, does this mean you aren’t trying to get reads as the SNG progresses (either manually or with software)? I agree that shoving is out here, if for no other reason than ICM-type calculations show it to be -Equity. A smaller raise is also pretty weak. But unless I believe the BB to be an aggressive player, I will usually open-complete with effective stacks of ~13 BB’s holding a suited queen.

A slightly similar phenomenon occurs with Hand 37. Generally I’m folding there too, but then Chip introduces the hypothetical of a UTG limp. Now if UTG limps in this spot, reads are very important. Against a tight-aggressive player, say 9/7/x, I would find a UTG limp very suspicious and probably just fold. Against a loose-passive player, shoving looks good. And against a total unknown, I might raise to 650 or so. That is why even basic reads can be so helpful.

Hand 63: Solid description of unexploitable play. This is a very important concept, so make sure you understand what Chip means when he calls a shove unexploitable.

Hand 74: I think Chip is being a little tough on himself here – I actually think this is a pretty solid shove. First, the SB is absolutely capable of folding to this shove, which – as Chip notes – is huge. The reason the SB might fold is empirical; risk-averse players who just want to money are capable of making some pretty horrible bubble folds. Also, the BB will usually fold all but a premium hand here even when the SB calls (this instance being an exception). And so even when the SB calls and wins, the new stack distributions are just fine because the bubble’s still going on and the two potential bubble boys are directly to Chip’s left making for many profitable future pushing opportunities. There are some meta-concerns when people see you pushing a trash hand and widen their calling ranges a little, but few players have the courage to act on these reads to the extent that they’ll call for all their chips on the bubble (unless very short-stacked) even if they think your pushing range is in the vicinity of 100%.

Anyway, I think this is a great article and would recommend any serious SNG player give it a read.

Best Regards,
Collin

Re: Chip Ferguson’s Turbo SNG Article
 

Wow, hand 63 seriously just gave me some much needed education.

As for hands 61 and 74, his explanations definitely made sense, but I still have problems with them. Hand 61: sure the pot odds were there, but I see more value in keeping the 800 chips for fold equity later on rather than calling an open EP push when it's still 6 handed and we're more likely than not behind. I think we're seeing a decent pocket pair here that has us pretty f'd in the b enough to warrant a fold.

Hand 74 was very sketchy. He understands it's a very marginal situation, so why gamble with such a nice chip lead over the two? We know that any competent BB would be calling super tight IF the SB folds, but we also know that SB needs to be calling here with almost ATC as 40% of his stack is already in the pot. I know because of desire to get ITM, there is the occasional, horrible fold by the SB here which gets us what we want, but gambling here with our chip advantage is silly.

If we fold, however, we retain our 5000 chips, and one of three very favorable things happen: [1] SB rightfully pushes and doubles up and their respective stacks are 1200/1700 (2/3 BBs to our 8) and we keep a huge chip advantage over both of them; [2] SB pushes and BB bubbles him out (most favorable); [3] the least likely, but SB folds and is left with 380 chips and is all in within 3 hands

I feel like those 3 situations are much more desirable than pushing with such a horrible hand and possible giving the SB a chance to triple up.

Besides those two hands, I really loved the rest of the hand history. Loved how he left every hand in and explained so much. Great hand history review, wish I could read more like it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Chip Ferguson’s Turbo SNG Article
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hand 68: In this hand I was dealt As Td (2,790) in the small blind. Supadphat (1,800) shoved from UTG+1 and I shoved. He showed 9c 9d and the board came Ks Tc 8c 4d Qd and I was up to 5,090 chips.

Commentary: Easy shove. The villain pushed 3BBs, and we have a very good hand in ATo. He has to be shoving tighter than 55+,A9o+,A7s+,KJo+,KTs+,QJs for this to be a fold, and he is DEFINITELY shoving wider than that range. We were lucky to win this flip, and I was very surprised to see him turn up a real hand, rather than a Q9o type hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know the hand ranges in these examples?

Re: Chip Ferguson’s Turbo SNG Article
 

Overall agree that it was informative and well written. However, I am troubled by the analysis of hand 23 in which the author has AKo. Shouldn't the other players have loose calling requirements since they are getting 2-1 on their money? Are people actually so tight with resteals at that level that KQo ought to be a fold?

Editted to add -- love the commentary on hand 55, i say this all time, well whenever its appropriate [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Chip Ferguson’s Turbo SNG Article
 

[ QUOTE ]
How do you know the hand ranges in these examples?

[/ QUOTE ]

He did an ICM based caluclation to determine what range the villain would need to be shoving for this to be +EV. ICM models the equity you have in a tournament and you compare your equity if you fold, to the equity calling has.

The FAQ in the single table tournament forum has more info on this topic.

Re: Chip Ferguson’s Turbo SNG Article
 

[ QUOTE ]
Overall agree that it was informative and well written. However, I am troubled by the analysis of hand 23 in which the author has AKo. Shouldn't the other players have loose calling requirements since they are getting 2-1 on their money? Are people actually so tight with resteals at that level that KQo ought to be a fold?

Editted to add -- love the commentary on hand 55, i say this all time, well whenever its appropriate [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have my ICM programs on this computer, but in tournaments pot odds don't tell the entire story. At 2-1 you would need to have 33% equity in the hand, which you usually will unless chip is a super nit.

But, by ICM you will need better than this. I'm not sure how much, but with the number of players it won't be huge. Somewhere between 35-40% I'd guess. So, you do need better equity here than in a cash game or MTT.

Re: Chip Ferguson’s Turbo SNG Article
 

[ QUOTE ]

Hand 28: This hand leads to my one question for Chip: even though none of your opponents are regulars, does this mean you aren’t trying to get reads as the SNG progresses (either manually or with software)? I agree that shoving is out here, if for no other reason than ICM-type calculations show it to be -Equity. A smaller raise is also pretty weak. But unless I believe the BB to be an aggressive player, I will usually open-complete with effective stacks of ~13 BB’s holding a suited queen.

A slightly similar phenomenon occurs with Hand 37. Generally I’m folding there too, but then Chip introduces the hypothetical of a UTG limp. Now if UTG limps in this spot, reads are very important. Against a tight-aggressive player, say 9/7/x, I would find a UTG limp very suspicious and probably just fold. Against a loose-passive player, shoving looks good. And against a total unknown, I might raise to 650 or so. That is why even basic reads can be so helpful.

Best Regards,
Collin

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, thanks for the nice words, I really appreciate it.

As for the Q2s hand, completing is fine I think, it's just kind of an awkward stack size because I have 15bb. If I had more I could definitely play it for implied odds, if I had less I could push it. While I don't think unknown people will shove on my completion that often, completing here into a regular is not a great idea.

The AJ hand is a little trickier if they limp, just because it does look like a trap. Looking back at it I'm pretty undecided whether it's a good push or not, so I would probably default fold. If he limped from anywhere but UTG I'd be way more inclined to shove. FWIW the only hands he would trap here with are AA and sometimes KK (even though I'm sometimes shown AK here as sick as that is).

Re: Chip Ferguson’s Turbo SNG Article
 

Really good stuff. You should write more for the mag.

Hands like hand 61 are definitely something I need to work on as far as my ICM instincts. 84o in game while multitabling I probably fold there, but I'm not surprised that a call is correct. Hand 74 w/ 74o I think I'm folding 75% pushing 25%, seems like a marginal spot either way, so glad to see you feel it is marginal. Hand 28 w/ Q2s, I can understand why a limp would be ok, but I'm just never messing around with this type of hand in SNGs. I agree with you that the stack is a little too big to fold. I really hate 15BB stacks.

In a nitty side note, you seem to mix up 2-1 and 3-1 a lot.

Re: Chip Ferguson’s Turbo SNG Article
 

cool, good read

Re: Chip Ferguson’s Turbo SNG Article
 

Thanks for the explanation, i appreciate it.

What makes his game \"special\"?
 

PLEASE DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND WHAT I AM SAYING HERE

Yes, I recognize that Chris's game is better than probably 99.9% of all the poker players out there. HOWEVER, why is this the case? I mean, when I look at this hand history I see almost no difference to how a typical TAG would play at even the lower levels.

Which decisions in this SnG would you guys say illustrates that increadible level of play that only a top pro could do?

Re: What makes his game \"special\"?
 

I'm with nightly. Any personal hand history article sounds like an ego trip. Write an article analyzing the play of a FT of a major event already shown on TV.

Re: What makes his game \"special\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
PLEASE DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND WHAT I AM SAYING HERE

Yes, I recognize that Chris's game is better than probably 99.9% of all the poker players out there. HOWEVER, why is this the case? I mean, when I look at this hand history I see almost no difference to how a typical TAG would play at even the lower levels.

Which decisions in this SnG would you guys say illustrates that increadible level of play that only a top pro could do?

[/ QUOTE ]

The point of this article is to explain many concepts that apply to STT play that do not apply to standard ring game play (or even to MTT play). Using labels like TAG or LAG is not really appropriate to STTs. Sometimes, an STT player must be TAG, sometimes LAG, sometimes even TIP [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] (tight passive). All of these situations can arise in a single tournament. For example, in Hand 3 he folds 99 to a c-bet with just one overcard on the flop. In certain cash games, this might be considered way too passive. However, a good STT player will autofold this in the early game. Later (hand 77), he is open shoving K4o from the SB which of course would be maniacal in a deep stacked situation. Given these two hands from the same player, how can you apply labels like TAG or LAG?

Re: What makes his game \"special\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm with nightly. Any personal hand history article sounds like an ego trip. Write an article analyzing the play of a FT of a major event already shown on TV.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is dumb. Chip's article is an excellent learning tool for anyone interested in STTs. In fact, I thought it was so excellent I had nothing to say about it.

Re: What makes his game \"special\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm with nightly. Any personal hand history article sounds like an ego trip. Write an article analyzing the play of a FT of a major event already shown on TV.

[/ QUOTE ]

BTW, a lot of the stuff that goes on at a FT of a major live event is often at a much lower level that z32's play in this STT.

Re: What makes his game \"special\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm with nightly. Any personal hand history article sounds like an ego trip. Write an article analyzing the play of a FT of a major event already shown on TV.

[/ QUOTE ]

BTW, a lot of the stuff that goes on at a FT of a major live event is often at a much lower level that z32's play in this STT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lower level? I was thinking Higher level. FT of major tournaments are filled with histories between players on the bubbles. A lot of play at FT's is very read dependent and involves 3rd and 4th level thinking as described in ToP.

Re: What makes his game \"special\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Any personal hand history article sounds like an ego trip.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's unfair to say or suggest the article was written as an ego trip. I recruited posters to write this specific type of article for the Magazine.

Re: What makes his game \"special\"?
 

That was not what I was saying AT ALL.

I don't think it was an ego trip. I'm just trying to identify what separates a top pro's SnG play from someone who read HoH and has the discipline to follow it.

Re: What makes his game \"special\"?
 

Hi nightlyraver,

You write:

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, I recognize that Chris's game is better than probably 99.9% of all the poker players out there. HOWEVER, why is this the case? I mean, when I look at this hand history I see almost no difference to how a typical TAG would play at even the lower levels.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure I understand your criticism. If you believe Chip's playing ability places him in the top 0.1% of SNG players, then wouldn't that imply he is better than a run-of-the-mill TAG? The value of this article is simply being able to see the thought process behind a really good SNG player's decisions.

If there are any hands/comments you specifically disagree with, please mention them. That way we can discuss them and possibly all learn something. No disrespect, I just think your criticism needs some refinement.

Best Regards,
Collin

Re: What makes his game \"special\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
That was not what I was saying AT ALL.

I don't think it was an ego trip. I'm just trying to identify what separates a top pro's SnG play from someone who read HoH and has the discipline to follow it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Proper Pushbotting and strong knowledge of ICM is key for sngs, HoH wont teach you to be a good sng player.

Re: What makes his game \"special\"?
 

I just read it now, though only once so I should perhaps read it again tomorrow when I am more awake.

Hand #23 seems far to results oriented to me? How can you be sure you'll have your opponent always dominated in this spot and be so happy to fold your PPs in other situations so you can get it all in later with this spot? Even 22 technically has him beat, though I admit most set-miners would fold smallish PP here.

Anyhow, only complaint is that I was very puzzled by some of the pot odds math going on. But I see someone else noticed in this thread problems with 2-1 & 3-1 foulups [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I was worried that I was so tired I couldn't think straight anymore. I just am surprised 2+2 didn't correct any math(typos?) unless of course it is policy not to touch any submitted work.

Re: What makes his game \"special\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any personal hand history article sounds like an ego trip.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's unfair to say or suggest the article was written as an ego trip. I recruited posters to write this specific type of article for the Magazine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone is trying to reinvent the wheel. Bridge publications
have been providing recaps of tournaments for decades.
No one is interested in seeing every single hand. In
poker most hands have no educational value. This section:

[ QUOTE ]
Blinds are 100/200

Hand 36: Open folded 73o from the Button.

Hand 37: This hand I was dealt Ad Js (3,030) in MP.
Supadphat (2,225) raised UTG to 600 (3x big blind)
and I folded.

Commentary: Easy fold. AJo is behind his opening
range here. If he limped I would probably shove,
but shoving over an UTG 3x raise with AJo is pretty
bad without a really solid read.

Hand 38: Open folded 65o from the HJ/MP1.

Hand 39: Open folded 92o from UTG+1

Hand 40: Folded 73o UTG.

Hand 41: Got a walk in the BB with J5s.

Blinds are 120/240

[/ QUOTE ]

Could have been shortened to this.

[ QUOTE ]
Blinds are 100/200

Hand 37: This hand I was dealt Ad Js (3,030) in MP.
Supadphat (2,225) raised UTG to 600 (3x big blind)
and I folded.

Commentary: Easy fold. AJo is behind his opening
range here. If he limped I would probably shove,
but shoving over an UTG 3x raise with AJo is pretty
bad without a really solid read.

Blinds are 120/240

[/ QUOTE ]

The obvious folds are just filters. Drop them from the
recap.

Of course the hand histories don't always show the hole
cards of other players. Still the recap could also
include some interesting hands played by others at the
table. The lesson hands.

Re: What makes his game \"special\"?
 

@jogsxyz

The obvious folds may not be obvious for everyone. Things that are obvious for some players, may not be obvious for others.

Personally I actually liked having all the clutter there, since it gave me of a "feel" for what was going on at the table.

Re: What makes his game \"special\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hand 1: Open folded A8o UTG+1

Hand 2: Folded A5o UTG

[/ QUOTE ]

These folds may not be obvious and merited a comment.

Two hole cards ten or under and not connected are obvious folds even for a beginner.

After reading thousands of recaps, only the 'meat' is interesting.

Re: What makes his game \"special\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hand 1: Open folded A8o UTG+1

Hand 2: Folded A5o UTG

[/ QUOTE ]

These folds may not be obvious and merited a comment.

Two hole cards ten or under and not connected are obvious folds even for a beginner.

After reading thousands of recaps, only the 'meat' is interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have played over 1000 SnGs and they are not obvious folds to me as I only browse the STT forum once in a while...

Re: What makes his game \"special\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hand 1: Open folded A8o UTG+1

Hand 2: Folded A5o UTG

[/ QUOTE ]

These folds may not be obvious and merited a comment.

Two hole cards ten or under and not connected are obvious folds even for a beginner.

After reading thousands of recaps, only the 'meat' is interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have played over 1000 SnGs and they are not obvious folds to me as I only browse the STT forum once in a while...

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Blinds are 100/200

Hand 36: Open folded 73o from the Button.

Hand 38: Open folded 65o from the HJ/MP1.

Hand 39: Open folded 92o from UTG+1

Hand 40: Folded 73o UTG.

Hand 41: Got a walk in the BB with J5s.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hands 36, 38, 39, and 40 are obvious folds.
Hard to believe any thinking player claims those
hands must be played.
Hand 41 is uninteresting.

Hands 1 and 2 could include a comment stating that
a weak ace should not be played in early positions.

Re: What makes his game \"special\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hand 1: Open folded A8o UTG+1

Hand 2: Folded A5o UTG

[/ QUOTE ]

These folds may not be obvious and merited a comment.

Two hole cards ten or under and not connected are obvious folds even for a beginner.

After reading thousands of recaps, only the 'meat' is interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have played over 1000 SnGs and they are not obvious folds to me as I only browse the STT forum once in a while...

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Blinds are 100/200

Hand 36: Open folded 73o from the Button.

Hand 38: Open folded 65o from the HJ/MP1.

Hand 39: Open folded 92o from UTG+1

Hand 40: Folded 73o UTG.

Hand 41: Got a walk in the BB with J5s.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hands 36, 38, 39, and 40 are obvious folds.
Hard to believe any thinking player claims those
hands must be played.
Hand 41 is uninteresting.

Hands 1 and 2 could include a comment stating that
a weak ace should not be played in early positions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree they are obvious folds. I wonder why Chip didn't spend any time talking more in depth about the hands? Oh yeah. Because they are OBVIOUS. I really don't see what your complaint is. Including that he folded those hands in there makes the game seem more realistic and completes the article. Are they important? Not really. But they don't take up much room and really aren't in the way of anything. So who cares?

Re: What makes his game \"special\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]

I agree they are obvious folds. I wonder why Chip didn't spend any time talking more in depth about the hands? Oh yeah. Because they are OBVIOUS. I really don't see what your complaint is. Including that he folded those hands in there makes the game seem more realistic and completes the article. Are they important? Not really. But they don't take up much room and really aren't in the way of anything. So who cares?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's like threads on hands. Newbies cut and paste the entire hand history. No one cares that each player anted. Experienced posters used hand converters.
I thought there should have been comments with the folds on hands 1 and 2. There are many inexperienced players who think ace small is playable from any position.

Re: What makes his game \"special\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hand 41 is uninteresting.



[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree, getting a walk (twice) in a turbo SnG tells you quite a bit about the Button and the SB and it was worth including.

I don't think there's a need to mention Hero's hole cards unless there is any discussion about what action he would take if he faced a raise, shove etc.

Re: What makes his game \"special\"?
 

I am a relatively new player and found the complete hand history useful. At the risk of asking a stupid quation, why is the seat progression back to front?

Re: Chip Ferguson’s Turbo SNG Article
 

Here is how David "el blondie" Colclough shows a series of folded hands in his blog.

Hands 37-45: I fold J6o, J7o, Q4o, J3o, K2o, T7o, J8o, Q9 and 8c3c.

Instead of a separate line for each fold, he strings them all together into one long line.

Re: Chip Ferguson’s Turbo SNG Article
 

Very interesting article. I don't read the magazine much, and don't play sit 'n' gos, but I found this very informative.

I liked all hands being in. Gives a better feel for what was happening.

Re: Chip Ferguson’s Turbo SNG Article
 

well written. great to see hand by hand thinking in sng.

Example
Hand 61: This hand is only a fold if he is pushing tighter than 22+,A2+,K2+,Q2s+,Q6o+,J7s+,J9o+,T8s+,98s, which I don’t think he is.
This shows that how a sng pro has a strong feel for ICM calculation? since there's no way we could approx calcultate the ICM during the
play.

Thanks.

Looking forward to the new book that Colin has written.

Re: Chip Ferguson’s Turbo SNG Article
 

The link in the OP no longer works.

Re: Chip Ferguson’s Turbo SNG Article
 

[ QUOTE ]
The link in the OP no longer works.

[/ QUOTE ]

The article is in the June issue.

Re: Chip Ferguson’s Turbo SNG Article
 

I liked the article but I do wonder how SnGs are not overrun by bots. I say that without meaning to imply any critism of the skills of good SnG players but just that the decisions made in this article do seem to be ideal tasks for a computer.

Interested in others' thoughts.

Re: Chip Ferguson’s Turbo SNG Article
 

Link no longer works. New link please.

Re: Chip Ferguson’s Turbo SNG Article
 

Permanent link here:

http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/i...guson0607.html

Re: Chip Ferguson’s Turbo SNG Article
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hand 21: Solid discussion of why a low-mid pocket pair should rarely be played for a raise out of position – calling and raising are both problematic, and so Chip correctly advocates a fold via process of elimination.


[/ QUOTE ]

OK I play the 11s not the 110s, but still this particular hand confused me. Here's the quote from Ferguson's article:

[ QUOTE ]
Hand 21: In this hand I was dealt 6h 6c in the small blind. Supadphat (1,535) minraised in MP and I folded.

Commentary: Unfortunately we don’t have odds for set value, and we’re out of position. Also, the villain will likely bet most flops, which we will have to fold. We don’t really know where we are here, so we just fold and wait for a clearer spot. If I had a hand like 88+, AQ I would shove over the top, but 66 seems to be too weak a holding for that. I expect the villain to call with 77 or 88, because I’m going to assume that he is not a strong player, as I always do when I am readless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you please explain why folding 66 is correct to a minraise? There is 280 in the pot and you'd need to call 120. Isn't this a good risk/reward scenario for playing a small pair out of position? It's very easy to get away from if you don't flop a set.

Would your play be different if the blinds were 25/50? I guess I am confused why 66 is a fold here while 88+ is a shove. A lot of SNG articles I've read advocate calling minraises with small pairs because of the potential for a big payoff if you flop the set, and the "no set-no bet" play largely negates the positional advantage.

Re: Chip Ferguson’s Turbo SNG Article
 

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of SNG articles I've read advocate calling minraises with small pairs because of the potential for a big payoff if you flop the set, and the "no set-no bet" play largely negates the positional advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]Stack sizes are very important. A min raise that represents 10% of your stack is very different from one that represents 3% of your stack. A typical rule of thumb in a ring game is that effective stacks should be 10x whatever you have to call so that you get enough value when you hit your set to make the call worth it. I'm no STT expert, but I'd think that you'd want to play quite a bit tighter than the 10x "rule" due to ICM considerations.