Sit 'n Go Strategy study group -- Part III: High Blind Play

[Slim Pickens]

I guess it's about time for this, if for no other reason than completeness. Long story short, I think this section of the book is not very good at explaining anything important. There are many good sample hands for showing how to make basic push/fold decisions.


My review from Official Book Review Thread:
[ QUOTE ]
Part 3: High-Blind Play

This is easily the most important section of the book, as this is the stage of a STT at which it is least like any other tournament or cash game format. Anyone with even a tenuous grasp on a winning STT game knows prize pool equity trumps chip equity so often that discussing decisions in terms of chip equity can't be effective at determining correct plays. Independent Chip Model (ICM) prize pool equity calculations have passed many rigorous theoretical and practical examinations and have proven sufficiently accurate in the overwhelming majority of high-blind STT situations. ICM modeling is introduced in Part 2 and is covered sufficiently for a beginning player to grasp. Therefore, I’m quite surprised that prize pool equity is largely ignored in Part 3, and when it is applied, it is often applied in a very hand-wavy, qualitative manner nothing like the simple, methodical calculations most good STT players perform on a regular basis.

The Fundamental Theorem of Sit ‘n Go High Blind Play is really more of a good general principle that follows from correct mathematical play. It is too general of a statement. There will be so many “exceptions” that if this “Fundamental Theorem” is taken as such it would cease to look very fundamental at all. There exists a very simple approach to solving high-blind STT problems. The author very obviously knows it well and applies it to a number of his example hands. What I don’t understand is

a) Why this problem-solving methodology isn’t the singular focus of Part 3 until it is fully explained and
b) Why chip equity even shows up at all outside of a comparison to highlight the differences that can arise between it and tournament prize pool equity.

I need to form an argument to debate some of the author’s conclusions in his hand examples, but this is extremely difficult. What I want to argue about is the hand ranges, but the way the material has been presented, it isn’t clear to the reader that opponents’ hand ranges are a critical parameter.


Understanding and executing correct play during the high-blind sections of STTs at the highest levels consists of four steps.

* 1) Understanding how to execute push/fold/call calculations given the input parameters of chip stacks, prize payouts and hand ranges, and a good prize pool equity model. This is basic STT mathematical mechanics and is very similar to what is considered basic and essential knowledge in every other poker format.
* 2) How to determine reasonable hand ranges given any information about opponents. This is the “poker” and “feel” element unique to STTs that non-STT players usually lack and it is crucial for an introductory STT text to cover it.
* 3) The sensitivity of the results to changes in a players hand, his opponents’ hand ranges, and the chip stacks at the table, as well as the limitations of ICM equity modeling and cases requiring special treatment. This is usually what separates the winning high-limit players from the break-even mid-limit players, at least it does today… maybe not two years ago, and might be beyond the intended scope of this book.
* 4) How to alter all parameters except the exact hands dealt to players in real time. This is what separates the good high-limit players from the absolute best (and usually highest-limit) players, and would be well beyond the scope of an introductory text.



All of Step 1 is in there somewhere. It’s not central to most of the section, but it’s in there. Step 2 is also included, although usually much more qualitative and mushy. Also, it is not demonstrated how critically-important this step is. I doubt Collin needed to get Step 3 to think he knew enough to write an SNG book. He probably gets it himself, but it’s not covered except for a few isolated examples that should be pretty obvious to decent players. Anyone who knows anything about Step 4 won’t share. I’ll leave it at that.

So OK, I think I can reconstruct good high-blind SNG play from the information presented, but so what? I already know how to it. It’s my opinion that a decent poker player new to SNGs would learn something somewhere near proper strategy from reading the Part 3, but would be utterly helpless as to explain why any of lol donkament-looking plays are correct. He would also be utterly helpless against changing game conditions; perhaps changes that have taken place since the book’s author last played SNGs seriously. Without a Crystal Pepsi-clear understanding of the methodology behind these plays, a player will be completely lost.

The implicit collusion and micro-stack sections are decent, although I think it all makes much more sense as a variation on the same calculation we should have already done forty times by the time we get to these sections. The examples really aren't that elucidating, as I think most players could guess the correct play without really knowing or caring why.

The heads-up section, all the preflop stuff should be really simple using our methodology. The instruction needs to focus on a discussion of hand ranges, unexploitable play, and profitable variations from unexploitable play. I don’t like many of his post-flop lines. Hand 3-55 is an example of what I think is a really bad logical flaw that shows up in a lot of the example hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rules:<ul type="square">[*] 1) No flaming Collin, or anyone else. Save the flaming of Collin for the Official STTF Book Review Thread.[*] 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. Deal with it.[/list]

[MASTERHOLMES]

here i noticed i am usually one of the short stacks/middle stacks and this is due to my tight play til now.
i must say that in watching colin moshman sit and go videos he has on stoxpoker he too is usally the same at least based on the samples i have seen.

still the push and fold he folllows, and when he get really low he says he will push with any two cards so not to lose fold equity.

now for the book.
with the bubble i find it hard to constantly push,, i must wiat for a quality hands, ace big , ace little, small pair, heck even suited connectors or just connectors.
i don't push with king something, or jack 8,. i might push all in with king nine.
this of course goes down to how much the blinds eating me are hititng me hard.

what i like to do is be on the other end and just do mini raises, and pot size raises.

here i don't mind varying my raises for if it is a mini raise it will be speculative,, but if it is a big raise it will be my kings and aces.
i think it is because of what colin mentions in the book, the ego and no one is going to push me around.
the big raise will tend to get called

this section helped me for it wasnt' until online ace , and some card runners video that i even heard of push or fold,
and i would just get blind out wiating for queens or jacks or tens or aces or kings.

it should be noted that the min riases comes as a chip leader,,
and sometimes i push with middle pair and i get called by ace queen and they hold up yay,,
or they lose and i become small stacked or short stack booo.

still i wont' push with any two cards,, unless really short stacked and then it may be a king 10,, but rare.
instead i prefer a pocket dueces .. is that bad ?

i am now going to try to incorpate the disgusing raise into my play ,, you know the one where you bet big but if they call you are going to stop and go ?

one thing i do if i have the chips lead is i let them fight it out , and wiat for a better hand but half of the time it backfires for i go card dead ,,no big ace, no pocket pairs just jack 2 and ten four..
should i be raising counting on fear value ,,if i get called and miss i am giving away chips ?

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]

still i wont' push with any two cards,, unless really short stacked and then it may be a king 10,, but rare.
instead i prefer a pocket dueces .. is that bad ?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, what do you think your opponents' calling ranges are?

[ QUOTE ]
i am now going to try to incorpate the disgusing raise into my play ,, you know the one where you bet big but if they call you are going to stop and go ?

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you think this makes your opponents more likely to reraise, or less likely to reraise? What hands would you rather be holding when the steal attempt doesn't work and why?

[ QUOTE ]
one thing i do if i have the chips lead is i let them fight it out , and wiat for a better hand but half of the time it backfires for i go card dead ,,no big ace, no pocket pairs just jack 2 and ten four..
should i be raising counting on fear value ,,if i get called and miss i am giving away chips ?

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, here's a question. You are the big stack with 7500 chips. The three other remaining players have 2000 each. One player goes all-in and the other two fold. What range of hands do you think your opponent has? What other information might you want to get before deciding on the answer?

You are considering calling. What hands will you call this all-in bet with? How does this change depending on your answer to the first question?

[cakewalk]

i think it should be Re: Sit 'n Go Strategy study group -- Part III: 1-10xBB Play

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]


still i wont' push with any two cards,, unless really short stacked and then it may be a king 10,, but rare.
instead i prefer a pocket dueces .. is that bad ?

i am now going to try to incorpate the disgusing raise into my play ,, you know the one where you bet big but if they call you are going to stop and go ?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're overthinking this. You're in a high blind situation. If you don't do something, you'll get blinded out and soon. If you keep waiting and waiting to pick up those premium hands, you'll either get blinded out, or you'll pick up your premium hand and double up right back to where you were before at 10xBB (or worse since the blinds are increasing still).

Pocket deuces aren't good at all for this. You're either a huge dog, or a slight favorite. I'd rather be pushing something like 78 and hope that I have 2 live cards.

Don't worry about disguising your play at this point, UNLESS you pick up a monster and you haven't started the push/fold routine yet. Once I start the push/fold routine, my opponents are looking for any excuse to call the "all-in idiot" so I don't have to disguise my big hands at all.

[JacJacAtk]

[ QUOTE ]
Pocket deuces aren't good at all for this. You're either a huge dog, or a slight favorite. I'd rather be pushing something like 78 and hope that I have 2 live cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see this sort of quote all the time, but 22 is a much better hand than 87s in a shove-fest. For instance, you have roughly 45% and 37% equity, respectively, versus top 25% (when called).

[MASTERHOLMES]

ah ,

if i am short stacked, and I havent much of a choice,
i would go all in with 2s over ten four. for pockets two have a slight favourite over ace king at least preflop.
now what i do i want them to call me with ?
definately not a pocket pair,, but i am hoping for two unpaired cards like 7 8, or ace queen and a flop that doesnt' connect with them .
at this point of 2 bb, and sticking to the "do not let yourself be blinded out " i figure 2s have a better chance then two random cards in the bb.
so at this stage i can't really care what their calling ranges are as i am short stacked.
but i would fold jack 4 in hopes of hitting a small pocket pair as they are powerful in four handed situation or smaller.

when i am stealing attemping with the disguised raise which will pot commit me if called or reraised.
i am not doing it with any two cards, I am doing it with ace suited, an ace. a king ten perhaps
something that has value.
if i have king ten and it get called, i am hoping to hit the flop , then go all in next hand if i miss.
i would be counting on that folding equity.
i do not not think they are likely to reraise unless they got goods hands and possiby more decent then me.
plus it might trick them into doing that with kings and i got aces.

for the question about possible situation.
i got the big stack,, my mission , not according to the book,, is to preserve my stack size, grab a chance to knock someone out with a good hand. i am looking to avoid donking off my chips.

as i haven't put money into the pot by limping or raising, i can only assume that i am in the bb who only option is to call or fold.
with that being said they had to be under the gun, and so the person is looking to double up through me ,, and could have a decent hand as opposed to any two cards.
a decent hand for me would be an ace, pocket or two broadways.

now if i had queens to 7s,i would call hoping to hit a set as i will still have chips.
if i had broadway cards myself ,, i would call hoping to hit a straight or two pair.
if i had ace suited i would call hoping to hit my ace, or flush.

but then if the oppponet was tight all the way to now , as opposed to being loose and had just became even to the other person.
and i got a weak ace, suited connectors, a low pair, or king jack as opposed to king queen suited..
i would lay it down, for i could be in big trouble.

------
the all in idiot eheh, yeah before i pick up this book i was doing kill phil with broad way cards, suited connectors right at the beginning and so i was called donkey. that is for sure.

[rakemeplz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pocket deuces aren't good at all for this. You're either a huge dog, or a slight favorite. I'd rather be pushing something like 78 and hope that I have 2 live cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see this sort of quote all the time, but 22 is a much better hand than 87s in a shove-fest. For instance, you have roughly 45% and 37% equity, respectively, versus top 25% (when called).

[/ QUOTE ]

Also I think twos preform even better than 78 against an even wider range of semi crappy hands, if you're very likely to be called (because they will be up against even less pairs).

[flybe1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pocket deuces aren't good at all for this. You're either a huge dog, or a slight favorite. I'd rather be pushing something like 78 and hope that I have 2 live cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see this sort of quote all the time, but 22 is a much better hand than 87s in a shove-fest. For instance, you have roughly 45% and 37% equity, respectively, versus top 25% (when called).

[/ QUOTE ]

Against a randomn hand then, according to Jasbo:
22 is 50.3% and 87s is 47.9%.

However, people do not normally call with randomn hands.

If they call with any ace or any pair then, according to Eastbay:
22 is 42.9% and 87s is 40.1%.

If they call with any ace, except A6o to A2o, any pair and KQs, KJs, KTs and QJs then, according to Eastbay:

22 is 40.5% and 87s is 37.7%.

I think this confirms that:
a) 22 is normally slightly better than 87s.
b) your opponents' calling ranges are more important to your chances of winning if called.

But remember that if there is a 50% chance they will all fold, your overall winning chances are better than calling all-in with AA!

[flybe1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pocket deuces aren't good at all for this. You're either a huge dog, or a slight favorite. I'd rather be pushing something like 78 and hope that I have 2 live cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see this sort of quote all the time, but 22 is a much better hand than 87s in a shove-fest. For instance, you have roughly 45% and 37% equity, respectively, versus top 25% (when called).

[/ QUOTE ]

Against a randomn hand then, according to Jasbo:
22 is 50.3% and 87s is 47.9%.

However, people do not normally call with randomn hands.

If they call with any ace or any pair then, according to Eastbay:
22 is 42.9% and 87s is 40.1%.

If they call with any ace, except A6o to A2o, any pair and KQs, KJs, KTs and QJs then, according to Eastbay:

22 is 40.5% and 87s is 37.7%.

I think this confirms that:
a) 22 is normally slightly better than 87s.
b) your opponents' calling ranges are more important to your chances of winning if called.

But remember that if there is a 50% chance they will all fold, your overall winning chances are better than calling all-in with AA!

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, meant to type JJ (66-67% according to Eastbay), not AA! (85-87%).