Sit 'N Go strategy-reviews?

[Two Tells]

I would raise with KK. : )

[Jeff76]

Apologies for my part in the KK discussion- I am interested in hearing what people have to say about this book and that's why I keep coming back to this thread- I just have a compulsive need to respond sometimes [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[bustedromo]

Ok, let's change the subject.

Hand 1-5 is totally wrong, start to finish.

Other than that, I like the book a lot so far ...

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, KK does better than 77 in a multi way pot unimproved, but you aren't usually seeing flops multi way with 77 with the intention of playing it unimproved, whereas with KK you are. Since you are planning on playing KK unimproved, you'd rather have the pot heads up because heads up allows KK to get the most value when it is unimproved.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're missing the point. KK still wins plenty of times in multiway pots unimproved, whereas 77 doesn't. 777 might be more disguised than KKK, but
1) sets don't happen often and that's where the strength of KK comes in
2) you don't just need to flop a set with 77, you need to have some else hit a hand. You need to run into an overpair or big paired hand to make money. KK doesn't have that requirement.

[CasinoR7]

In multiway pots you can only continue playing 77 if you hit your set. Kings are better than sevens for two reasons. K's win more often unimproved than 7's and K's have the same probability to flop a set as any other pocket pair. It is better to isolate one or two players when you have a high pocket pair, but when the pot is multiway, a high pocket pair is still better. Except that it is harder to muck your KK when you are beat, instead of your 7's.

[TXaces]

[ QUOTE ]
Any good SnG book stands and falls with the chapter on ICM.

Does this book offer a shortcut for the Malmuth, Weitzman or any other chip value formula?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have the book but the Table of Contents mentions it as well as ICM calculation software.

The idea of a Caltech guy not dealing with ICM in SnGs is pretty funny.

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"You must raise KK UTG"?

This is one of those commandments that everyone repeats and no one justifies. A ton of players all say "they'll call your raises at the low buyins" and I'm thinking O RLY? When did these people last play a fivedollar game? Because dude, they don't always. You often find yourself at a table where everyone just folds. It all depends on whether you're raising the first hand or the tenth. If you've folded nine hands and then raise, they notice. The magical days of a table full of donkeys that couldn't wait to bust out are long gone, man.

[/ 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 ]

Is it?

How often do I get stacked? How often do I get away from my overpair when it's beaten? How often do I raise, get called, and still get stacked?

Your comment makes sense in isolation but in the broader context, I'm not so sure.

[ 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.

I always raise KK in EP. Never questioned it. But I began playing microlimits, where limping it is silly.

I guess I'm going to need to make a study of it. How often do I win the blinds? How often do I get called? What sort of pots do I win?

Because I'm not seeing any hint that anyone who thinks it's "correct" has any idea why.

[ QUOTE ]
The question isn't one of getting action- limping UTG can often result in playing OOP in a multi way pot. This is TERRIBLE for a hand like KK. You either want to get it heads up or just take the blinds and move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't want just to take the blinds. I want action with my big hands and I want to make money with them. I don't like getting to push/fold with the shortstack.

I'm interested in this question because I find, even at the very low limits I play, that the games are pretty tight. At least not the donkathons that everyone seems to think they are. I'll be sitting at t200 blinds with seven players still in the game!

[drzen]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

They never outflop you for 3 or 4xBB?

And if the only value I make is the blinds, am I really making enough from KK?

At level 1 at PokerRoom, the blinds are 10/20.

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't understand why we'd need to play a hand deceptively like this in a STT.

[/ QUOTE ]

To make value on it.

[ QUOTE ]
Are we limping other hands UTG so this balances our range?

[/ QUOTE ]

We are limping some hands, yes.

And we are hoping to be seen as weak, because TAGs raise their good hands.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

It's more that we might have seen ten hands at that level, and played none. A raise is liable to fold the whole table.

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

I am OOP whether I limp or raise. Generally, if there are two or three limpers, you will quite often see a raise behind. Not always, true. But then I give up my KK easily. So, oh well, no one had a hand strong enough to call a raise anyway, so I mostly gave up 30 chips.

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

I'm looking forward to reading his arguments for it, if he has them.

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
So this has deteriotated into a discussion of limping KK UTG early in a sng .... wow

I am guessing most of you in the heated argument have no clue as to what is important and what isn't in sngs

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, aren't we lucky you arrived then?

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So this has deteriotated into a discussion of limping KK UTG early in a sng .... wow

I am guessing most of you in the heated argument have no clue as to what is important and what isn't in sngs

[/ QUOTE ]

wow, what a mighty high horse...lol

[/ QUOTE ]

hint - get on the horse. I have little interesting S&Gs (even though I have the book) but its plain to see that he is right. The conversation is off track.

[/ QUOTE ]

huh? lol

But point taken, probably too much discussion in a review thread.

Halfway through the book and I really like it.

For a 2+2 book, this has gotten some bad vibes sent out by the STTF crowd before it was even printed.

[/ QUOTE ]

They're sulking because they weren't consulted. Given the level of analysis most of the rated players indulge in, I'm not very surprised.