Sit 'n Go Strategy study group -- Part 2: Mid Blind Play

I am going to put a hypotherical reply to all these and I think we should discuss whether you believe whether they ar good or bad.

1. QTs: Raise to 250-300, with the intention of folding to a push. If flopped checked to bet 300-400, then evaluate.


2. 22: Fold


3. A2s: Same as 1


4. A7o: Push



TBH in game I play a very nitty game early and probably will be folding all of these the majority of the time. However especially QTs I was wondering how you guys think of a play like that.

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
Hypothetical mid game situation.
7 handed blinds are 50/100
You are on the button with 1500 every one behind you has 1500.
What action do you take with the following hands
QTs?
22?
A2s?
A7o?
How does your range change vs loose passive players?
How does your range change to people who will more or less push/fold to you're raises?

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this sample hand and I think there's something to it that deserves it's own thread.

EDIT: Have fun.

[xPeru]

Hi Pudge, I want to reply not because I know a good answer, but because I think the criticism will be useful:

1. All depends on reads I have on SB & BB;

QTs, 22, I will steal with if I don't think SB & BB will resteal. I don't like stealing with the low As because if I'm flat called, then I don't like the risk of being dominated and probably have to throw away my hand if it hits. With 2 players left to speak, there is a 90ish% chance my 22 is the only pair and so I am happy to c-bet a neutral flop if I'm called and it checks to me. In fact, I probably shove a non-scary flop in this situation. With QTs, I'm done with the hand unless I hit a pair or a decent draw, in which case I shove if checked to me, and fold if he donkbets.

If SB and BB have very low aggro stats <1ish, I will call 2 or more limpers with QTs, 22, A2s. Not 100%, but fairly often depending on the quality of the limpers(!). I need a very good flop to stay in thereafter. eg FD with two overs, two pair or my set. I'm not convinced this is cEV+, but when the hand does hit, it's pretty much a double up and a guaranteed ITM finish, so I think it adds maybe 1 ITM finish in 30.

With aggressive SB/BB, I'm tightening up my range for the steals and not calling limpers. If I get in the pot with 3 limpers, I'm going all-in PF, and so I will tighten my range substantially, 99+, AQ+.

[bogey1]

I've only skimmed through about 1/3rd of the posts, but I have to say with 10-15BB the biggest improvement I've had is just shoving based on the Skalnsky-Chubakov(sp?) numbers from, I think, NLTAP.

You're usually short handed at this point, so you're in the SB or Button alot.

From the SB, it's simple, either it's a profitable shove or not. No ranges required, just look up the number.

From the Button I usually double the number. I think the book actually doesn't double it, but it's close enough so far.

For calling shoves or reshoving I'm usually following a similar formula. I figure if the BB is shoving double, I want to call with 3-4x the SC number. Calling is waaaaay more read dependent though.

I've found this makes me look really aggressive as I may shove in the SB multiple times in a row with things like Q3o because the SC number says it can't be a -cEV play. This tends to make them think I'm loose and they'll call more lightly than they should, or they'll reshove lightly and I'll end up with K8 vs QJ or some such, which is an advantage I'm happy to have.

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
I've only skimmed through about 1/3rd of the posts, but I have to say with 10-15BB the biggest improvement I've had is just shoving based on the Skalnsky-Chubakov(sp?) numbers from, I think, NLTAP.

You're usually short handed at this point, so you're in the SB or Button alot.

From the SB, it's simple, either it's a profitable shove or not. No ranges required, just look up the number.

From the Button I usually double the number. I think the book actually doesn't double it, but it's close enough so far.

For calling shoves or reshoving I'm usually following a similar formula. I figure if the BB is shoving double, I want to call with 3-4x the SC number. Calling is waaaaay more read dependent though.

I've found this makes me look really aggressive as I may shove in the SB multiple times in a row with things like Q3o because the SC number says it can't be a -cEV play. This tends to make them think I'm loose and they'll call more lightly than they should, or they'll reshove lightly and I'll end up with K8 vs QJ or some such, which is an advantage I'm happy to have.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really like anything that's going on here. Sorry. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[bogey1]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't really like anything that's going on here. Sorry. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

*shrug*, that's fine. Just my .02. I think trying to figure out complicated or deep strategies involving short stacks at small stakes is looking for something that just doesn't exist. You can run some trickery with limp/re-raise or shoving over weak players, but not much.

Assigning hand ranges is great...but very hard to do on the fly and small stakes donks can be erratic. I've seem them start wild, then go tight for what seems no reason and vice versa. I tried running lots of SNGPT hand ranges on hands, and it's useful for long term training, but for on the spot you've got to pick something and SC numbers are quick and mathematically correct (outside the bubble situation I mention below).

Most players are way to loose or way to too tight at the smaller stakes. In both cases, they're making significant errors against plain SC play.

That's not to say SC is optimal. The deeper you are the less optimal it is. Bubble factors depend as well. Inside or way outside the bubble, SC is pretty useful. Right on the bubble you can't rely on it because cEV and $EV aren't the same.

I've got 25% ROI over nearly 1000 games at the $35 level. I'm sure there's better players, but I'm pretty happy with what using SC has done for me at the short stack stages.

[MatteyA28]

I believe sklansky/chubanov is based on the fact that your opponent knows your hand. Since this never really comes along in any facet of poker, are these numbers meaningful at all, or are they a math experiment by 2 guys who love math a little too much....

[bogey1]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe sklansky/chubanov is based on the fact that your opponent knows your hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. The SC number is the point at which it's a profitable shove even if they knew your hand and played perfectly. The fact they don't know your means they can't play perfectly which is futher +EV.

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe sklansky/chubanov is based on the fact that your opponent knows your hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. The SC number is the point at which it's a profitable shove even if they knew your hand and played perfectly. The fact they don't know your means they can't play perfectly which is futher +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

The S-C rankings and numbers were determined using a cash game model: that your single opponent knows your hand and will only call if it is profitable to do so. This makes for a nice limiting case in cash games but not so much in SNGs. There are a few elements of SNGs that make them less applicable. The most important of these is that it is possible for your opponent to make a bad call that hurts both you and him. What you are looking for in a SNG is the Nash Equilibrium if you want to not care about your opponents' ranges. The NE is a much more complicated problem to solve.

There are a lot of good uses for the S-C rankings in SNGs, which will show up a lot more in Part 3: High Blind Play.

[bogey1]

Deleted, made irrelevant by Slim's previous post.