(OT) Strasser says coinflips early are ok.

[Double Down]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah AL,

a good example of what i think strasser is discussing here is the idea of something like when a villain opens 3x bb and gets 4 callers, you can be happy to shove JJ even if you get called by AQ. dont be afraid of a spot like that. i think that signifies his point well here in that you should be willing to do that to pick up the chips early, or if you flop a straight+flush draw, dont be afraid to c/r AI and get called by donkey with TP and race for it, etc...

make more sense now?

[/ QUOTE ]



But there is one important factor in your example hands that the author doesn't necessarily address, which is that you are the one doing the shoving, so you're giving yourself a good opportunity to win some chips without a coinflip showdown. The sense I get from the passage is that he's saying don't be afraid to call shoves early on if you're pretty sure that it's a coinflip.

[tigerite]

My take on it is thus; he means that if you get into a situation where you can make a narrow call on the button for a small raise, with a hand with high implied odds like suited connectors or whatever, then you should take it as long as it won't damage your stack too much for later. With the coinflip thing, he means if someone raises to t150 and someone calls, and you have AKo you shouldn't be afraid to push, as there is almost t400 chips in the pot and you only have t2000, if you are called by JJ then it isn't the end of the world as you have a nice fat overlay anyway, even if you will lose more often than win when called by JJ.

[oyvindgee]

[ QUOTE ]
showing down a marginal hand at the early levels also helps me get more action in the mid-levels on my premium hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

In an STT, not getting any action regardless of blind level would make me a happy man.

[GreekHouse]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don’t be scared of playing loose preflop in order to get yourself in pots with the weak players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing wrong with this if you can identify the weak players. In his book, Greenstein says that the ideal tournament playing style is one that wins or loses a lot of chips quickly. If I remember correctly, he says that he figures to bust out in the bottom half of the field about 80% of the time and to finish in the top 5% of the field 20% of the time.

This sounds like the same principle applied to SnGs. And it assumes that you can play that style consistently. I read it as a specialilzed form of selective aggression, not as reckless aggression.

[/ QUOTE ]

The main difference between this strategy in an MTT and a SNG though is that simply getting ITM in a large MTT isn't particularly useful unless you move way up the ladder because it's generally <1% of the prize pool. On the other hand, taking 3rd in a SNG is worth 20%. Thus, simply limping your way into the money in a SNG holds a lot more long term value so there should be an emphasis on survival.

It's obviously a mistake to go and seek out coinflips early with something like 33 if you figure to have an edge at your table later, so I imagine that strassa is advocating a "Que Sera, Sera" attitude towards coinflips. It's obviously a mistake to put a large number of chips into the pot only to fold later to avoid a coinflip as well.

A while back, someone (I want to say it's Ilya) made an interesting post about coinflips and showed that if you play continuously, you can increase your hourly rate by taking coinflips while lowering your ROI.

[Jason Strasser (strassa2)]

you are probably misunderstanding me. the point i was trying to make is that often times in sngs the very worst players are splashing early. and often times people play too tight to get enough pots with the bad players. if getting involved early means you will definitely get in many more coinflip spots, who gives a crap. lots of early coinflips should not really affect your winrate. not getting invovled early with the worst players will.

[jws43yale]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



"Early in sngs, some people believe that you should play conservatively and ‘let the idiots beat themselves up’. This is a terrible idea.

[/ QUOTE ]


It seems to me that Strasser is reccommending playing looser pf than what (I would think) that sttf considers conventional. I have always been told to play very tight in the opening rounds of an sng.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should play very tight out of position. But as you improve your post flop play, you will be much more likely to mix it up in LP with junk. You can pick up several small pots early by doing this, with relatively little risk.

[kevkev60614]

[ QUOTE ]
if getting involved early means you will definitely get in many more coinflip spots, who gives a crap.

[/ QUOTE ]
I do. Getting it all-in 50/50 is a terrible result if I'm much better than the table. And that's exactly the spot most 2+2ers are in. Splashing with fish is +EV, but not as +EV as waiting until some of the fish are filleted and then pushbotting.

[ QUOTE ]
lots of early coinflips should not really affect your winrate. not getting invovled early with the worst players will.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, I disagree. ICM says a player's EV in a 10-handed tourney is 10% of the prize pool before the first hand. If I take a coinflip and double on the first hand, I come to 18.44% of the prize pool, much less than double. The effect is compounded by the fact that I'm better than the field. That DEFINITELY affects my winrate.

I fully understand your point: it's worth taking the occasional coinflip because we more than make up the EV by playing with the worst of the worst, but I strongly disagree. Being forced to take coinflips early in STTs isn't worth it.

One of the largest differences between STTs and MTTs is that ICM doesn't apply to the early stages of MTTs. tEV is very, very close to $EV there, and taking early coinflips often brings about more +EV situations later in a MTT. There's the constant need to accumulate in a MTT if you have any hope of making it ITM, especially deep ITM where our ROI comes from. Not so in a STT, though.

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]

I do. Getting it all-in 50/50 is a terrible result if I'm much better than the table. And that's exactly the spot most 2+2ers are in. Splashing with fish is +EV, but not as +EV as waiting until some of the fish are filleted and then pushbotting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kevkev,

Let's say you raise in on the button in level 1 with AKo to 120. SB folds and the BB overbet shoves. You've played with BB a ton, and he's a huge overplaying fish and his range here is almost certainly:

A8+/KJ+/44+.

So you call and he flips up 99. Thinking that this is a terrible result is awfully results-oriented thinking, and folding in this particular spot is horrible.

[kevkev60614]

[ QUOTE ]
Kevkev,

Let's say you raise in on the button in level 1 with AKo to 120. SB folds and the BB overbet shoves. You've played with BB a ton, and he's a huge overplaying fish and his range here is almost certainly:

A8+/KJ+/44+.

So you call and he flips up 99. Thinking that this is a terrible result is awfully results-oriented thinking, and folding in this particular spot is horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]
Crystal clear. Thanks, durron. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] I learn best through examples.

[FlyWf]

[ QUOTE ]

I do. Getting it all-in 50/50 is a terrible result if I'm much better than the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

You stop being much better than the table when the donks are busted. Edge is a much more fluid concept than your post indicates. A 20% ROI player at the $11s doesn't get $13 worth of chips when he enters the SNG, he makes $2 worth of better(than the average opponent's) decisions during the game.