Sit 'N Go strategy-reviews?

[Collin Moshman]

Also, please note there is a typo in the introduction on p. 4. The equation should read:

$0.05 = $1,000 Prize / 20,000 Chips

rather than "$1,000 buyin" / 20,000 Chips.

[scorer]

suzzer99, he plays 55 and up sng's....

[MelchyBeau]

I believe hand 1-2 was badly played, and I started a post about this in the STTF forum a few days ago.

It seems that the author is afflicted with Fancy Play Syndrome. Also enamored with small pocket pairs and Ace-Rag.

[gotmarc]

I haven't recieved my copy yet, but is there any advice on the single table bubble in this book? Upon reading HOH3 and answering problems 37-42 I realized I'm a total donkey at the bubble of these things.

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe hand 1-2 was badly played, and I started a post about this in the STTF forum a few days ago.


[/ 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.

[Jeff76]

[ 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.

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).

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.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
There are 23 hands in Part one, and I have read about 30-35 hands in Part 2, with virtual no discussion of buy-in levels. To confirm my own impressions, I just skimmed back through those hands. I saw a buy-in mentioned once, and that was for an equity calculation example, not directly relevant to the strategy discussion.

I am disappointed by what I consider to be a glaring omission in this book. Discussing a SnG hand without knowing the buy-in seems to me to make no more sense than discussing a NL cash hand without knowing the stack sizes.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a ridiculously wrong claim. The main error people usually make is talking about buy-in levels, or blind levels for cash games, or whatever. It's the skill and style of your opponents that matter, NOT buy-in level.

Yes, conditions do change. Which is precisely why you should NOT be talking in terms of buy-in. You should only be talking in terms of opponent tendencies.

Sure, there are some tendencies related to buy-in, or blind level of cash games. But tendencies change, and then live vs. online is of course a difference too. But I've been in ridiculously tight .50/$1 cash limit games, and ridiculously soft and easy $30/$60 games.

Read HoH. He generally doesn't talk about buy-ins, other than to say "major tournament", or "single table online tournament". He talks about player tendencies. Never saw any complaints about that book.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
In summary, it is your opponents' styles that require strategy modifications, regardless of whether these players are buying in for $5 or $500 -- and the strategy and hand examples in the book are designed to give you the flexibility to adjust your strategy to succeed, so that you'll be prepared even if you encounter unexpected opposition at a particular buyin.

[/ QUOTE ]

I posted my answer before I read this, but you explained it better than I did. nh sir.

[jeffnc]

[ 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 ]

This is classic bad advice because it presents only 2 options. Having said that, even if busting postflop with KK is a possible outcome, that does not necessarily mean limping with it is wrong.

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

This is classic bad advice because it presents only 2 options. Having said that, even if busting postflop with KK is a possible outcome, that does not necessarily mean limping with it is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]I didn't say there were only two outcomes. I highlighted the outcome of getting stacked post flop if you let people in cheap because it is a situation that is easy to avoid and there is little value in not avoiding it.

If you look at the rest of my post, what I said is that you really want to avoid playing a multiway pot OOP with KK, and that is the reason you don't limp KK UTG. You would only limp with KK UTG if you believed the value would get from playing your hand deceptively outweighed the value you would get from either winning the blinds or getting called by a weaker hand in a raised pot (which is tremendous value with a strong favorite like KK). My belief is that this kind of deception in a STT is almost never a higher ev that what you get from raising.

BTW, I have no clue as to why we are discussing this. Is limping KK UTG something this book advises or considers?