I feel like I have enough faith in my midlevel game online that I don't need to chase early unless I know I have something... Plus, the times that I do get a big chiplead REAL early, I tend to get into "fancy play syndrome"... I think I play a little better when some of the pressure is on...
Statistics: Posted by MVPSPORTS — Sun May 08, 2005 11:31 am
]]>
A strategy I do employ in the early stages of the tournament is to resist the temptation to take advantage of obvious blind-stealing situations. When the blinds are 15/30, I'm in the button and the betting is folded around to me, I'll still fold anything short of a premium hand. I'll even fold the small blind a lot of times to try to get a reputation as a wuss.
The blinds at that point really aren't worth fighting over, and by not attacking them now, I'm not putting people on the defensive -- lulling them into a false sense of security, if you will. That way, when I start attacking those 75/150 and 100/200 blinds, I catch them off guard and they'll believe that I must have a good hand because I haven't gotten a reputation.
Shifting gears: Re: the standard strategy of playing tight early, which almost every expert recommends. Just read a page in Harrington's book in which he gives a very good reason for playing a little looser sometimes in the early stages.
Suppose you're in a STT with Gus, Phil, Doyle, Howard, Layne, Larry, Moe and Curly. Standard strategy is to be ubertight early and let the idiots sort things out among themselves. So Larry, Moe and Curly are there throwing their chips around the table willy-nilly, and you're being ubertight while the others are scarfing up Larry, Moe and Curly's chips. Then it comes time to start loosening up and getting aggressive, and now you're trying to extract Larry, Moe and Curly's chips frm Gus, Phil, Doyle, Howard and Layne. What's wrong with that scenario?
Statistics: Posted by flafishy — Sun May 08, 2005 10:27 am
]]>
The main point here is to give up the idea that it is the big stacks "duty" to call those short stack all-ins and knock out the short stacks. I know that idea is out there. When I first started I used to think that was my job. I learned that it isn't a good strategy for me and dropped it.
Statistics: Posted by Sunbob — Sun May 08, 2005 9:46 am
]]>
Around the bubble is when you really need to be in stealing mode because that's when everyone else is going to be afraid to commit any chips to less than a premium hand, and for the most part, they're going to give up their blinds willingly.
Being loose around the bubble does NOT mean just throwing all your chips into the pot at the drop of a hat. You still need to be in control of your chips. But you want to loosen up your starting-hand requirements considerably and challenge people who are afraid of their own shadow and playing scared. Most of the time, your aim is to attack the blinds ferociously and not give them a chance to see a flop if you can help it -- that's all.
You still have to protect yourself. I don't know where you get the idea that it's your duty as the big stack to take out the small stacks at all cost. That's not true at all. Your only real duty is to scarf up those blinds when you can afford to put a few chips at risk and have at least something in your hand that might cover your ass in case someone decides to put up a fight.
MVP, that KQ and a bit of a chips cushion are perfect weapons to challenge a weak opponent or two. Put a 2.5x or 3x raise out there with it if you're first in the pot. If somebody fights back and reraises all-in, well, you have the luxury of deciding whether you have the odds to call him or to just toss it away. Most of the time, you're going to scarf up some short stacks' blinds with that move.
But to feel that you have a duty to call a guy's all-in with that hand is incorrect. He's got a hand he wants to double up with, don't let him. Walk away. You've still got your chip lead, he's still on the short stack, and you have the luxury to be able to wait for the next opportunity to initiate an attack when you've got the upper hand.
Tightening up and playing a waiting game absolutely is not the correct strategy. Everyone else is doing that, which gives you the leverage to have your way with them.
Statistics: Posted by flafishy — Sun May 08, 2005 2:10 am
]]>
Do you guys see any difference in quality of play between $30 and $50 SNGs...? I tried the $100s a couple times, but they all play ubertight, and I couldn't get past first base...
Statistics: Posted by MVPSPORTS — Sat May 07, 2005 7:42 pm
]]>
I think fishy is right . . ."If you have something like a 6:1 chip lead and they're really getting pressured by the blinds, then you should call hands like that. But not when you're in a situation where they would be right back in the game with you if they took you for a big pot." I'm actually a little bit tighter than that on the bubble and prefer it to be 1/8th or 1/10th of my stack. I can't tell you how many times I have doubled someone up when they were down to their last chips - only to have them come back and knock me out.
There is a big difference between being the aggressor and being the caller. Pound those short stacks every chance you get. Don't let them keep their blinds but don't double them up.
Dodge, weave, pound and steal until you get ITM - then you can go for the gold. I may not win as many SnGs as I could or should, but my ITM is over 50% so far this year. That means I am making money. Actually the SnGs are the only place I am making money - my ring game sux right now.
Statistics: Posted by Sunbob — Sat May 07, 2005 6:05 pm
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>