I personally think table image is overrated at the $10 level. I would venture a guess and say that out of the 10 players in any given $10 SNG on PP, 7 are just plain bad, 1 is decent, and 2 are rather good. The 2 that are good are likely to be playing more than one table, therefore not paying strong attention to your image; the rest just don't plain recognize things like that, and if they DO, they may not even implement their knowledge when making decisions. I play $10 SNG's like a machine. I set up 3 at a time, and bounce back and forth, making robot-like decisions with my hands. Aside from very obvious reads about a few players, I would have no idea what everyone plays like. I believe SNG's are just as much strategy as poker.

With that mini rant in mind, I would say that it is NEVER a good idea to raise with 44 from the BB in an attempt to create a loose table image. A ring game would be different, obviously. When you say that you're "convinced that having the table image of only betting strong hands is correct, for SNGs" my guess is that this seems to work for you because only betting strong hands in SNG's is the right way to play them, and not particularly related to your table image.

Good luck!

Good point about the strong hands. However, judging from the SNGs I've played this morning on PP, I think you might have to revise those numbers. Half the table were good players. It was TOUGH.

A question for you (anyone who plays multi-table SNGs): Does this diminish you ROI? Do you have any statistics about it?

I've noticed several who are obviously playing multi-tables and they are pretty easy to beat, for me, anyway. They aren't paying attention. (I know they are multi-ing because it takes them a LONG time to just fold.) I'll multi limit tables, but I can't see the advantage to doing SNGs. I'm simply not smart enough, I think.

Dunno, Nash. I know more about them than they know about me, and isn't information about your opponents a valuable thing to have?

When I play limit to clear a bonus, I play three or four, because it's primarily a math thing. But in a NL or PL SNG, I prefer to concentrate on my opponents. (After the first 3 levels, such as I'm waiting for, now.)

Why do you think it's a fantastic idea?

It's a fantastic idea because it provides a better profit. Sure, knowing how your opponent plays is tremendously important, but often in SNG's the decisions you make are much more influenced by the situation (the stacks, the blinds, position, etc.) than a particular read. A good SNG player doesn't necessarily need a read to make a "correct" decision to be profitable, I guess is what I'm getting at.

And I agree Nash, I don't start multitabling until I'm sure I can be profitable at a specific level. I recently came out of self-imposed poker exile and had to start with a $100 BR. I waited until that was rather healthy and I had some good ROI #'s to start playing 2 or 3 at a time.

Cactus Jack:

Here's why I think it's a great idea:
(1) Far most importantly, playing multiple tables means you can win faster if you're a winning player. Let's put it this way, by example. What if you have a 75% ROI at a single table, but only a 20% ROI if you're playing four tables at once. What is your better option out of those two? The four tables. From my perspective, I have a pretty consistant 50-55% ROI, give or take, when I'm three tabling. For it to be profitable for me to play just one table at a time, I'd have to have a better than 150% ROI, which is basically impossible.

(2) It stops you from making dumb moves based on fancy play syndrome. It stops you from thinking that you can read your opponents hands when he doesn't play rationally. It stops you from making gutsy bluffs or "world class laydowns"..... basically, its part of my philosophy that a mechanical approach to 10+1s is the way to go.

As far as knowledge being valuable, that is true as far as it goes. However, as Socrates often argued, it is far better to KNOW that you don't know anything than to think you know something and be wrong.

...or as my Daddy says, "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing." (I think he cribbed that from Mark Twain, too.)

I'll mulit limit games to clear a bonus, but not an SNG. All I know is, I pick up pretty quickly when a guy is playing another table. They don't win on my table. Even $10 SNGs are getting tougher. And on Party no less.

Back to the orginal question, Nash. Does my theory of being perceived as a very tight player who only plays big hands seem plausible for later in the game when blind stealing becomes so important?

Yes, that's the way I play my SNGs. You definitely want a tight image going into round 5.

However, I'll remind you that there is a GOOD way to multitable and there is a BAD way to multitable. If you try and play 3 tables without having alot of experience and a set PLAN of what you want to do in that SNG, you're going to fail. I'd imagine that most of your opponents succumb to one or more of those problems. I guarentee that I more than double my hourly rate by multitabling, so you can overcome any multitabling weaknesses that exist.

At least I've got that going for me: I KNOW I don't have enough experience.

When I'm trying to clear a bonus, I multi table, playing ubertight and strictly by the math. SNGs simply require too much concentration for me to do well as it's more feel than math, at least for me. I have a plan and as long as I follow that plan, I'm alright, but there always come a point when it's make-or-break and if I haven't been paying close attention, it's most likely break.

Glad I'm doing the table image correctly. At these levels, they can't tell a steal from a regular bet. No doubt at higher levels, it won't work as well, unless your Dan Harrington. Most advice given by the experts doesn't take into account the level one is playing, which is why the loose-early plan doesn't work. If they think you're loose, they'll call everything. Which is fine if you're catching, but if you're catching, you don't need to steal the blinds, anyway.