Chip Ferguson’s Turbo SNG Article

[jogsxyz]

Here is how David "el blondie" Colclough shows a series of folded hands in his blog.

Hands 37-45: I fold J6o, J7o, Q4o, J3o, K2o, T7o, J8o, Q9 and 8c3c.

Instead of a separate line for each fold, he strings them all together into one long line.

[jjshabado]

Very interesting article. I don't read the magazine much, and don't play sit 'n' gos, but I found this very informative.

I liked all hands being in. Gives a better feel for what was happening.

[tangerine]

well written. great to see hand by hand thinking in sng.

Example
Hand 61: This hand is only a fold if he is pushing tighter than 22+,A2+,K2+,Q2s+,Q6o+,J7s+,J9o+,T8s+,98s, which I don’t think he is.
This shows that how a sng pro has a strong feel for ICM calculation? since there's no way we could approx calcultate the ICM during the
play.

Thanks.

Looking forward to the new book that Colin has written.

[NozeCandy]

The link in the OP no longer works.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
The link in the OP no longer works.

[/ QUOTE ]

The article is in the June issue.

[barongreenback]

I liked the article but I do wonder how SnGs are not overrun by bots. I say that without meaning to imply any critism of the skills of good SnG players but just that the decisions made in this article do seem to be ideal tasks for a computer.

Interested in others' thoughts.

[Jiganti]

Link no longer works. New link please.

[Unregistered]

Permanent link here:

http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/i...guson0607.html

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Hand 21: Solid discussion of why a low-mid pocket pair should rarely be played for a raise out of position – calling and raising are both problematic, and so Chip correctly advocates a fold via process of elimination.


[/ QUOTE ]

OK I play the 11s not the 110s, but still this particular hand confused me. Here's the quote from Ferguson's article:

[ QUOTE ]
Hand 21: In this hand I was dealt 6h 6c in the small blind. Supadphat (1,535) minraised in MP and I folded.

Commentary: Unfortunately we don’t have odds for set value, and we’re out of position. Also, the villain will likely bet most flops, which we will have to fold. We don’t really know where we are here, so we just fold and wait for a clearer spot. If I had a hand like 88+, AQ I would shove over the top, but 66 seems to be too weak a holding for that. I expect the villain to call with 77 or 88, because I’m going to assume that he is not a strong player, as I always do when I am readless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you please explain why folding 66 is correct to a minraise? There is 280 in the pot and you'd need to call 120. Isn't this a good risk/reward scenario for playing a small pair out of position? It's very easy to get away from if you don't flop a set.

Would your play be different if the blinds were 25/50? I guess I am confused why 66 is a fold here while 88+ is a shove. A lot of SNG articles I've read advocate calling minraises with small pairs because of the potential for a big payoff if you flop the set, and the "no set-no bet" play largely negates the positional advantage.

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of SNG articles I've read advocate calling minraises with small pairs because of the potential for a big payoff if you flop the set, and the "no set-no bet" play largely negates the positional advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]Stack sizes are very important. A min raise that represents 10% of your stack is very different from one that represents 3% of your stack. A typical rule of thumb in a ring game is that effective stacks should be 10x whatever you have to call so that you get enough value when you hit your set to make the call worth it. I'm no STT expert, but I'd think that you'd want to play quite a bit tighter than the 10x "rule" due to ICM considerations.