Regarding Harrington's book number 3

[fasteddy1970]

I'm a huge adherant to the style advocated by Dan Harrington and in almost all ways, take his advice on how to play. I'm pretty sure it's the only reason I'm a winning player albit at low stakes. In book 3 he advocates incredibly tight play on the bubble in a single table S&G. He does this through 5 or 6 different hands.

Maybe it's the low stakes I play at when I play single table ( $10. and $20.)but I would have a hard time folding the hands he advocates folding on the bubble to an all in bet. Anyone else have this issue or is Harrington's advice just simple (actually not so simple) math and thus to be followed even at low stakes games with lots of maniacs?

[Gelford]

Try visiting the single table tournament forum and start by reading the faq there.

There is no need to go into it here in the books forum, as the STTF is the place to be with questions like these. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[fasteddy1970]

I'm asking about advice given in a specific book so it seems that the book forum is the place to ask the question but since I didn't receive any replies, maybe you're right.

[Gelford]

I am right, I could write a lot about how to play sngs and what tools and skills you need ... ending a story by explaining the logic, but given there is the forum and a FAQ covering most of the stuff, It would be a waste of effort. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

SNGs play is in some ways an unique kind of poker.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi fasteddy1970:

In a regular tournament the difference between finishing on the bubble and just making the money is a very small percentage of the prize pool. In a SNG it's usually 20 percent. That changes a lot of things and thus produces the tight sdvice.

Bes wishes,
Mason

[fasteddy1970]

Mason: Yes, that part of Harrington's logic I understood. It was the incredible tightness that was hard to wrap my puny (when it comes to math) little brain around.

Is it possible that he is talking about much higher stakes than the $20. and $10. single table s&gs that I play and thus giving players a bit more credit for what they're going all in with. Or, as I asked before, are the folds just pure math and the rest is meaningless? Thanks

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
the folds just pure math and the rest is meaningless

[/ QUOTE ]

[Gelford]

Well ... I gave you the directions to the STTF forum and their FAQ, but since you came back empty handed, here is what you are looking for, taken from the STTF faq.


Notice, it is all math.

Enjoy [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


Dethgrind gives a clinic on ICM

[Jbrochu]

[ QUOTE ]
Mason: Yes, that part of Harrington's logic I understood. It was the incredible tightness that was hard to wrap my puny (when it comes to math) little brain around.

Is it possible that he is talking about much higher stakes than the $20. and $10. single table s&gs that I play and thus giving players a bit more credit for what they're going all in with. Or, as I asked before, are the folds just pure math and the rest is meaningless? Thanks

[/ QUOTE ]


They're pushing much weaker hands on the bubble in high buy-in STT's than at the lower buy-ins. Stack dynamics and position are a much bigger part of the bubble picture as you move up in buy-ins.

For a quick snapshot of the $EV math involved at the bubble and why calling tight is generally right (especially at the lower buy-ins) register for a free trial of the bubble trainer on prego poker. Put it in "call" mode and put yourself in one of the blinds. The program will give you a hand and your opponent a range. You decide whether to call or fold and the program will tell you if you made the correct decision (based on ICM). This should be an eye opener for you. (You can do this yourself manually provided you have access to a poker odds calculator and and ICM calculator. Check out Gelfords reply in this thread for details.)

[fasteddy1970]

Thanks Jb; Very helpful post.