Sit 'N Go strategy-reviews?

[pipes]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[Winning the blinds is better than getting stacked because you let some guy in for free with a garbage hand who outflops you.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is classic bad advice because it presents only 2 options. Having said that, even if busting postflop with KK is a possible outcome, that does not necessarily mean limping with it is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]I didn't say there were only two outcomes. I highlighted the outcome of getting stacked post flop if you let people in cheap because it is a situation that is easy to avoid and there is little value in not avoiding it.

If you look at the rest of my post, what I said is that you really want to avoid playing a multiway pot OOP with KK, and that is the reason you don't limp KK UTG. You would only limp with KK UTG if you believed the value would get from playing your hand deceptively outweighed the value you would get from either winning the blinds or getting called by a weaker hand in a raised pot (which is tremendous value with a strong favorite like KK). My belief is that this kind of deception in a STT is almost never a higher ev that what you get from raising.

BTW, I have no clue as to why we are discussing this. Is limping KK UTG something this book advises or considers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is in one of the sample problems. I agree with the author and I'll often limp big pairs in EP. I definitely agree its a good way to play it.

If preflop does not work out the way you want, just keep the pot small postflop and get away from it if you must. No big deal. I'm not married to hand postflop just because its KK.

[Jbrochu]

[ QUOTE ]
However, it is not buyin per se that requires strategy modifications -- rather it is the type of players one is encountering.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are problems with this logic as it pertains to low buy-in STTs. For one, you don't generally play the same opponents very often, and thus in the early going you need to make assumptions regarding their likely tendancies. For example, sometimes you find out too late that maybe you shouldn't have value bet all three streets with TPTK. However, in the long run you give up too much value in a low buy-in event if you continually give up betting impetus in spots like this in order to control the pot size against unknown opponents. In a higher buy-in event it makes more sense to go for pot control even against an unknown.

Another example is a hand like TT from EP early in a STT. In a larger buy-in event, even against relative unknowns, you can assume raising from EP will reasonably narrow the field and might even take the blinds. Therefore, raising with this hand is probably generally good in a higher buy-in event. However, in a low buy-in event you can generally assume you will get 3 or 4 callers and be forced to play a vulnerable hand OOP multiway in a raised pot.

Secondly, even if your low buy-in opponents seem to play decent in the early going, as you approach the bubble you can usually assume they have big leaks. This wouldn't be "as true" in bigger buy-in STTs.

Of course, you should make adjustments to your play based on your observations you have made on your opponents. However, your general strategy from the start should take into account the types of player you expect to encounter. This is a function of the buy-in.

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
If preflop does not work out the way you want, just keep the pot small postflop and get away from it if you must. No big deal. I'm not married to hand postflop just because its KK.

[/ QUOTE ]Obviously you have to be able to fold KK if you limp with it and I didn't mean to suggest you were committed to going broke if you were outflopped.

However, my perspective is that those times you have to fold because you allowed people in cheap and they outflopped you means that you have lost value you could have gotten by raising and preventing those players from playing their hands so cheaply.

I just don't understand why we'd need to play a hand deceptively like this in a STT. Are we limping other hands UTG so this balances our range? Are we sitting with the same players a lot so we need to mix up our play? It seems to me that neither of these is the case in a STT so the value of deception goes way down. The only real value we get is disguising our actual holding, which seems to me the bad end of a trade off when you end up playing OOP against a large field OR you actually pull off a l/r against an aggressive player which announces a strong hand (and therefore reduces the deception you were trying to achieve).

All that being said, I haven't read the book so perhaps there are some arguments I haven't considered. No question CM is far more experienced STT player than I am.

[pipes]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If preflop does not work out the way you want, just keep the pot small postflop and get away from it if you must. No big deal. I'm not married to hand postflop just because its KK.

[/ QUOTE ]Obviously you have to be able to fold KK if you limp with it and I didn't mean to suggest you were committed to going broke if you were outflopped.

However, my perspective is that those times you have to fold because you allowed people in cheap and they outflopped you means that you have lost value you could have gotten by raising and preventing those players from playing their hands so cheaply.

I just don't understand why we'd need to play a hand deceptively like this in a STT. Are we limping other hands UTG so this balances our range? Are we sitting with the same players a lot so we need to mix up our play? It seems to me that neither of these is the case in a STT so the value of deception goes way down. The only real value we get is disguising our actual holding, which seems to me the bad end of a trade off when you end up playing OOP against a large field OR you actually pull off a l/r against an aggressive player which announces a strong hand (and therefore reduces the deception you were trying to achieve).

All that being said, I haven't read the book so perhaps there are some arguments I haven't considered. No question CM is far more experienced STT player than I am.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't speak for others, but I'm not trying to be tricky. Just trying to get value for the hand.

1) I'm hoping for someone else to raise and then I can reraise and hopefully trap callers.
2) If that doesn't work out, maybe I'll flop a set and win a much bigger pot than I would have had I raised. All pairs play well multiway.
3) If that doesn't work out, maybe it will only be 3-4 handed...I'll play it kinda soft and keep pot small. Can get a few loose riverscalls or induce a few small bluffs.

If I raise UTG, I'll usually either collect the blinds (which is nothing) or I might get one caller. If he's a good player, he basically knows what I have and will give action only if he's got me. Not good.

While I don't think its incredibly important to balance early in SNG, I am typically trying to get in for a limp with many hands first level of a SNG. Pairs, suited broadway combos etc

If there is an outcry from STTF about this hand, I'd say they are overreacting.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is classic bad advice because it presents only 2 options.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say there were only two outcomes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say you said there were only two outcomes. I said you presented two outcomes. Your sentence provided a sort of Hobson's choice, when no such choice exists.

[ QUOTE ]
I highlighted the outcome of getting stacked post flop if you let people in cheap because it is a situation that is easy to avoid and there is little value in not avoiding it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it's easy to avoid obviously. But it's far from necessarily true that there's little value in not avoiding it. An obvious classic situation is when there is an aggressive player or 2 behind you at the table who like to punish limpers by raising.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
However, my perspective is that those times you have to fold because you allowed people in cheap and they outflopped you means that you have lost value you could have gotten by raising and preventing those players from playing their hands so cheaply.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another alternative is letting those players in cheaply if they will pay off too much when they hit one pair, which is a very common scenario. You have KK, they have Q9, flop is Q83 or 954. You make a lot of money that you would have passed up on.

I almost always raise KK. But that blends with my strategy of making raises with big cards and winning a lot of c-bets. My point was not that you should necessarily limp with KK, my point was that your reasoning was faulty (as presented.)

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
2) If that doesn't work out, maybe I'll flop a set and win a much bigger pot than I would have had I raised. All pairs play well multiway.

[/ QUOTE ]

True that. It's funny how people say AA/KK/QQ don't play well multiway, but 77/66/55 do. That's just crazy. KK is so much better of a hand to have multiway than 77 it's not even close.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2) If that doesn't work out, maybe I'll flop a set and win a much bigger pot than I would have had I raised. All pairs play well multiway.

[/ QUOTE ]

True that. It's funny how people say AA/KK/QQ don't play well multiway, but 77/66/55 do. That's just crazy. KK is so much better of a hand to have multiway than 77 it's not even close.

[/ QUOTE ]

77 plays well multiway because its easy to find a fold if you don't catch a set, where as KK is a hand that you will win big with often, but lose big with often as well in a multi-way pot. The key is to manipulate the size of the pot, so your not bound to the hand multiway.

[Jbrochu]

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't understand why we'd need to play a hand deceptively like this in a STT. Are we limping other hands UTG so this balances our range? Are we sitting with the same players a lot so we need to mix up our play? It seems to me that neither of these is the case in a STT so the value of deception goes way down. The only real value we get is disguising our actual holding, which seems to me the bad end of a trade off when you end up playing OOP against a large field OR you actually pull off a l/r against an aggressive player which announces a strong hand (and therefore reduces the deception you were trying to achieve).


[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo...

When I'm playing in a low buy-in STT I would rather just raise KK bigger than normal (something fundementally wrong against observant opponents) because I can almost always accomplish my goal of narrowing the field AND playing it for a big pot. While limping KK once in a while isn't terrible I don't believe it should be done often.

Also - lol at the guy that thinks KK playes better than 77 in a family pot.

[Niediam]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just don't understand why we'd need to play a hand deceptively like this in a STT. Are we limping other hands UTG so this balances our range? Are we sitting with the same players a lot so we need to mix up our play? It seems to me that neither of these is the case in a STT so the value of deception goes way down. The only real value we get is disguising our actual holding, which seems to me the bad end of a trade off when you end up playing OOP against a large field OR you actually pull off a l/r against an aggressive player which announces a strong hand (and therefore reduces the deception you were trying to achieve).


[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo...

When I'm playing in a low buy-in STT I would rather just raise KK bigger than normal (something fundementally wrong against observant opponents) because I can almost always accomplish my goal of narrowing the field AND playing it for a big pot. While limping KK once in a while isn't terrible I don't believe it should be done often.

Also - lol at the guy that thinks KK playes better than 77 in a family pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'plays better' but KK certainly will on average win you more chips than 77 regardless of how many players see the flop.