Sit 'n Go Strategy study group -- Part I: Low Blind Play

[Slim Pickens]

At the request of some people in the Books and Pubs forum, I've agreed to babysit a study group for the new 2+2 SNG book. Here's the Books and Publications thread. I have read the book and here is my review of Part I. It contains pretty much all I have to say about it. Use this thread to ask questions, stimulate discussion, and otherwise make conversation about the concepts presented in Part I.

My review of Part I:
[ QUOTE ]
Tournament equity is about the only thing this part needs to cover, and it does this well. The rest of it has a lot of good ideas and some debatable ones, and I feel people will want to argue a lot about them. There’s not much point in arguing whether KK should be limped or raised UTG at a 9-handed table given a few vague early-game reads. Even though we could argue indefinitely about it, it’s not terribly important to a new SNG player’s understanding of SNG play. As long as people understand how important tournament equity considerations are even in the early game, argue all you want.

I’m personally not so much into mid suited connectors as speculative hands in low buy-in SNGs, mostly because attempting to semi-bluff a strong draw into players who can’t fold TPnK is really just an easy was of getting all-in as a 40/60 underdog, but I also think a wide variety of early-game play is acceptable as long as it’s qualified with “know your opponents, know your reads, and don’t suck at 50-100 BB poker.”

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't 'nam, so we've got to have some rules.
<ul type="square">[*]1) No flaming Collin, or anyone else. Save the flaming of Collin for the Official STTF SNG Book Review Thread and your general flaming for the Castro Street Fair.[*]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. If the stupidity of the questions is making you mad, stop reading the thread and go chat-berate some fish for a while until you feel calmer.[/list]

On the subject of limping KK early, Collin has already offered this in the Books and Publications thread.
[ QUOTE ]
Both limping or raising KK/AA early in an SNG are both reasonable options. The key point is that ideally you want to get all your chips in the center pre-flop, but when you cannot accomplish this, it is important not to get wedded to your hand if you get multi-way action and do not improve. If the pot is small, you have multiple opponents, and you don't hit a set, you cannot hesitate to lay down an overpair in the face of substantial action. Particularly if deep-stacked post-flop poker is not a strong point, you should just let the hand go in these circumstances.

[/ QUOTE ]

[QuickLearner]

I'm one of the ones who requested this, and I'd like to say how happy I am that Slim took on the responsibility.

I guess I have the honor of asking the first (hopefully not too dumb) question. Part one is all about low blind play, but unless I missed it, the author never tells me when "low" becomes "middle." That's important to me as a beginning SnG player because I need all the help I can get determining when I should begin to shift into a more aggressive gear.

Up to now I've been using 10% of my starting stack as a cutoff for low blind play. If I start with t1500, when the big blind reaches t100 I figure I'm out of the low blind stage. Is that too early?

[MatteyA28]

[ QUOTE ]
Up to now I've been using 10% of my starting stack as a cutoff for low blind play. If I start with t1500, when the big blind reaches t100 I figure I'm out of the low blind stage. Is that too early?

[/ QUOTE ]

That seems about right. The author defines low blind play as the first 2 levels of a party sng which roughly translates to the first 3 levels of a stars sng.

Ok, I'll start this off.

I only basically play turbo's and when reading my comments this should be noted.

One of the most important concepts in SNG's have to do with tournament equity and the value of your chips in relation to other stacks.

As other players get knocked out of the tournament the chips still left in their become more valuable in terms of their equity. This means that purely surviving this part of the tournament 95% of the time will increase your overall worth in the tournament.

It is for this reason that I suggest playing only premium hands when raising (my range is usually JJ+AKo+, I will throw 1010 in their as well as maybe AQs if in late position).

I will fold small pairs to pf raises often in the first level but will set mine all to no raise. For me to call a raise I will usually have 99+ to call with no read. If their are callers and the chips in the middle equal more than 10-15% of my stack I will push JJ/QQ/KK and AK. Even though I will often just rr with AA.

You should be aiming to survive and get your money in a 4-1 or 3-1 situation only in this level and hopefully avoid big coinflips early.

Flame away

Ryot,

How I view blind levels,

Early: 10/20 + 15/30
Middle: 25/50 - 100/200/25
Big: 200/400+

[QuickLearner]

[ QUOTE ]
It is for this reason that I suggest playing only premium hands when raising (my range is usually JJ+AKo+, I will throw 1010 in their as well as maybe AQs if in late position).

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you feel about the recommendations that Collin gives for early blind play?

All I know of it is what slim/Colin have posted.

I guess I would agree with Slim for the mostpart. Because I have not read the book I decided to put up how I play and my reasoning behind them. I basically try to avoid situations where I am unsure of how to act because I multitable pretty heavily. While I may be giving up some slight equity edges in not playing some hands I believe my hourly rate is better contributed by my ability to play more tables.

[MatteyA28]

Ok, I would like to hear some opinions on suited connectors/1 gappers/2 gappers/ Axs as marginal hands in the early blinds. Here's my personal opinion.

Preflop- I will limp with these hands in position behind 2+ limpers only in the first 2 levels(I dont play these hands past level 2). Limpers who are short (500 or less) do not count. If I am on the SB I will complete vs 2+ limpers if the BB isnt some sort of raising nut. On the BB I am willing to call a min raise as long as there are 2 other callers and I close the action, or are fairly certain there will be no raise behind. If folded to me on the SB I will occasionally steal with these hands if the BB is a good player who will fold to a raise early, but I need to be certain he will fold &gt; 90% of the time.

Postflop- I I flop a made hand- 2 pair + - I will try to get it all in. With a draw, I play it very passively, frequently folding if I don't think I'm getting the right implied odds. If the pot eclipses 500 and I think an all in move will get everyone to fold half the time, I do it, but otherwise I'm very conservative.

I am conservative it has served me and others well. I feel there is just so much equity to be gained by waiting for a few players to bust.

[QuickLearner]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I would like to hear some opinions on suited connectors/1 gappers/2 gappers/ Axs as marginal hands in the early blinds. Here's my personal opinion.
.
.
.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll limp the SCs and Axs at a passive table but I don't have much faith in the gappers early, even for a single bet. Collin suggests playing them up to a point; do you think his advice is too conservative?