Top mistakes by 2+2ers in low-stake SNGs

[linuxrocks]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm definitely in the minority, but I don't see any of these as mistakes. My comments below:

1. If you are in the SB and a small stack is in the BB, you are not doubling up the small stack when you push and he calls and wins. For example, let's say the blinds are 300/600, antes are 50, five players, the small stack has 1200 chips, and you have 6000 chips. If you fold, the small stack has 1700 chips. If you push and lose, the small stack has 2600 chips.

If a push is mathematically correct AND you still have a good-sized stack if you lose the push, then why wouldn't you do it (unless you want to keep the small stack alive to bully the others)? Metagame considerations in a sit-and-go are generally overrated, IMO.

Not pushing in the SB in this situation is exactly the same as being in the BB and folding to the small stack SB's push. EXACTLY the same. You are risking 900 to win 1700 chips AND knock out an opponent, whether you are pushing from the SB or calling from the BB.

2. Pushing over limpers -- in the example you gave, I am not crazy about pushing. But if you change the blinds to 75/150, I am pushing everytime. The profit is in the FE, and it's pretty big in this case.

3. Big stack on the bubble -- If the blinds are big enough (say 300/600), then one or two somewhat risky pushes in the same orbit will often put you so far ahead that you can push every hand. By "somewhat risky", I mean that you still have a workable stack if you are called and lose.

4. Pushing in the BB when the SB completes the flop -- it's only thin if they call every time. They don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can always find a situation where the above mentioned stuff is not a mistake. That was not the intention of this post. In vacuum, you can always argue, but when you are playing, you are probably making those mistakes thinking that you have assigned the right range or have enough FE etc. Re-consider these.

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm definitely in the minority, but I don't see any of these as mistakes. My comments below:

1. If you are in the SB and a small stack is in the BB, you are not doubling up the small stack when you push and he calls and wins. For example, let's say the blinds are 300/600, antes are 50, five players, the small stack has 1200 chips, and you have 6000 chips. If you fold, the small stack has 1700 chips. If you push and lose, the small stack has 2600 chips.

If a push is mathematically correct AND you still have a good-sized stack if you lose the push, then why wouldn't you do it (unless you want to keep the small stack alive to bully the others)? Metagame considerations in a sit-and-go are generally overrated, IMO.

Not pushing in the SB in this situation is exactly the same as being in the BB and folding to the small stack SB's push. EXACTLY the same. You are risking 900 to win 1700 chips AND knock out an opponent, whether you are pushing from the SB or calling from the BB.

2. Pushing over limpers -- in the example you gave, I am not crazy about pushing. But if you change the blinds to 75/150, I am pushing everytime. The profit is in the FE, and it's pretty big in this case.

3. Big stack on the bubble -- If the blinds are big enough (say 300/600), then one or two somewhat risky pushes in the same orbit will often put you so far ahead that you can push every hand. By "somewhat risky", I mean that you still have a workable stack if you are called and lose.

4. Pushing in the BB when the SB completes the flop -- it's only thin if they call every time. They don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can always find a situation where the above mentioned stuff is not a mistake. That was not the intention of this post. In vacuum, you can always argue, but when you are playing, you are probably making those mistakes thinking that you have assigned the right range or have enough FE etc. Re-consider these.

[/ QUOTE ] The mistake is usually in NOT doing these things. Your original post seems quite results-oriented to me.

[notTHATjonmayer]

This post is just a long-winded excuse for being results-oriented or weak-tight. Maybe both.

Saying it's important to think about what ranges actually are is a good point, but i'm not sure it was ever really said in OP.

Either way, the main point that a good 16 player can pass up edges has been brought up many times. The thing that makes a good 16 player, though, is NOT passing up edges. It's finding as many as possible and taking all of them. It's true that with some variance will go up, but if a play is clearly right, as is often the case in the examples you gave, you can't not take it because it's not "+EV enough"

[mmorpg]

[ QUOTE ]
This post is just a long-winded excuse for being results-oriented or weak-tight. Maybe both.

Saying it's important to think about what ranges actually are is a good point, but i'm not sure it was ever really said in OP.

Either way, the main point that a good 16 player can pass up edges has been brought up many times. The thing that makes a good 16 player, though, is NOT passing up edges. It's finding as many as possible and taking all of them. It's true that with some variance will go up, but if a play is clearly right, as is often the case in the examples you gave, you can't not take it because it's not "+EV enough"

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it really that unreasonable to pass up on a slight +EV advantage in order to wait for a better one? Especially when you risk crashing out but you still have a healthy stack.

[darom03]

I have begun using a higher "standard" calling range for the BB for villains I have not played with before.

I simply assign them a 30% calling range, thus making shoves not nearly as profitable as a more standard 25% range.

It sounds very generic, I know, but it's a good guideline for the 27's. Especially against people who seems a bit tight, since they probably know enough to recognize the situations where I could push any2 from the SB.

[futuredoc85]

the concept behind this is that what we are actually trying to maximize is overall EV for each SNG, and that is not the same as taking every single +EV spot. i.e. taking a +.1% edge which leads to a +.2% edge on the next hand and a +.4% edge on the hand after that is less optimal than folding the +.1 edge if it will lead to a +.7% edge which in turns leads to a +2.0% edge.

[linuxrocks]

[ QUOTE ]
This post is just a long-winded excuse for being results-oriented or weak-tight. Maybe both.

Saying it's important to think about what ranges actually are is a good point, but i'm not sure it was ever really said in OP.

Either way, the main point that a good 16 player can pass up edges has been brought up many times. The thing that makes a good 16 player, though, is NOT passing up edges. It's finding as many as possible and taking all of them. It's true that with some variance will go up, but if a play is clearly right, as is often the case in the examples you gave, you can't not take it because it's not "+EV enough"

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, I am not being results-oriented. I am actually winning these flips as I am running hot. I guess I was trying to get at passing up small edges because they are much smaller than you think. That's all.

And I quote from above

[ QUOTE ]

the concept behind this is that what we are actually trying to maximize is overall EV for each SNG, and that is not the same as taking every single +EV spot. i.e. taking a +.1% edge which leads to a +.2% edge on the next hand and a +.4% edge on the hand after that is less optimal than folding the +.1 edge if it will lead to a +.7% edge which in turns leads to a +2.0% edge.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well said.

[DevinLake]

I'm not going to say whether anyone's arguments are results oriented or not, because I honestly didn't read a lot of them closely.

But, over a significant sample of sngs, you should be results oriented to a certain level.

I didn't learn what I should be pushing over limpers and what I shouldn't by running numbers (I probably should have). I learned by trial and error. A trend I noticed was at low levels they were limping medium aces and pocket pairs and calling pushes. So, obviously you have to exercise restraint when trying to punish limpers.

[tshort]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, I don't see the need for this and there are probably many threads discussing about over-valuation of big stack by ICM.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. ICM slightly undervalues big stacks.

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not going to say whether anyone's arguments are results oriented or not, because I honestly didn't read a lot of them closely.

But, over a significant sample of sngs, you should be results oriented to a certain level

[/ QUOTE ] Yes, you should be results oriented up to the point that all of your chips are in the middle. But the OP was upset that his AJ was called by KQ with 150 dead chips in the middle, because he busted out when all the cards were played. That's what is meant by being results oriented, and it's not a good thing.