OK, Back to the drawing Board!

[starstealer]

[Dumb Snowman]

Only thing I like more about having someone watch is they can yell at me when I start doing playing stupid (Which I'm prone to do) and can actually help me do better right then and there. But tournament reports are great as well and I encourage people to share them.

[Aisthesis]

Tex, here's where I'm at much more than I have been in MTTs: Play the player(s) much more, without rigid criteria regarding specific hands to raise, re-raise, etc.

All of these good strategies with which you are familiar have their place, but I think to get really good ROIs, you need to adjust them to specific situations.

A few examples: In general, more people play LAG early than they should. Correct counter-strategy? Definitely "tight is right." But not too long ago I played a $20 (can't remember whether it was SNG or big multi) where the starting table was just squeaky (I think TightWad may have been watching). I think I missed some opportunities by not trying a few LAG plays (again, CONTROL is the key!!). And, of course, when I finally did find my AA, I won very little off it.

Also, with your re-raise AK strategy. This has great value against players who will raise AJ or even AX (and they abound), and particularly against those who'll call your big raise with a hand like that. Similarly against players who will fold JJ or TT after raising it (I really DON'T want to get into coinflips for my stack early, but a dominated hand, sure).

Another example from a 2-table SNG where I finally finished 2nd. At the 25/50 level, I believe it was, I'm sitting on TT in MP and raise. Well, I already knew the player to my immediate left was LAG, and he re-raised heavily. I fold. My mistake on this hand was in my opinion actually the raise. Maybe I should have called the re-raise, but I thought the risk is just way too high that I'm looking at a coinflip for too many chips here, and any overcard is very dangerous. TT as overpair is too unlikely, I'm out of position, and any overcard could have me beat. But I'd like to see the flop on that kind of hand for any kind of "normal" raise. By the same token, I think there are even some early situations where TT could easily be worth re-raising (high fold probability from the opposition, and an attractive pot).

One final thought: I really do think the ante level makes a little more LAG profitable. Otherwise, I'm beginning to think that one should thoroughly integrate both table texture and table image into one's strategy. One of the main reasons that the old "tight play early" and "looser and more aggressive later" is a good strategy is that the foolish LAG players are simply GONE later in the tourney, hence making for a tigher field, where some looseness has its place. But I think you can get a definite edge in all this by looking more closely at the specifics of what people are doing at your own particular table. An EXTREMELY important read is the distinction between those players who want to get their stacks into the pot and those who don't. And this can change quickly as a good player's stack changes in size. This player may have been playing extremely tight and cautiously with his medium stack, but now that he's short-stacked or just tripled up to get a more secure position, he may play very differently.

[TexasKowboy]

Aisthesis,

I see what your saying and I have a bad habiit of playing a SnG or a Ring the first hour of a MTT because of my hand selection. I am going to play just the MTT and pay attention to the player the first hour like I do the second hour. Go after the LAG as I do in a SnG.

Thanks for the post.

[Dumb Snowman]

I have a bit of a difference of oppinion with you, aisthesis. You are correct that many people play way too LAG in the beginning of a tournament, but I don't believe tightening up is the only answer. The fact that they're playing LAG means that they will very likely call when their hand is dominated after the flop. For example:
You're in the CO with ATs, and make a raise to 3.5BB after one limper. That limper calls with JT. The flop brings you both a ten. That LAG WILL be willing to put a lot of chips in, maybe even all of them, and you can double up.

My idea is this, play very Loose passive preflop, and tight-ultra-agressive post flop. Say you limp in with 68s from the button (Which you should if you get at least a caller, IMO) And flop bottom two. You can more than likely push that hand aggressively and take a lot of chips. BUT if you miss, no big deal, just check fold. The beauty of the beginning of a tourney is that it's so easy to double up early, without much risk. You can pay T30 out of your 1k stack for a chance of doubling up, or better.

Playing TAG in a tourney really makes you depend on good hands preflop, which you aren't gonna get that often, and even if you do, people might not call much of a raise. Playing Loose passive preflop will get some people in the pot, and then you can just proceed forward when you have a good hand.

I like the way kowboy said it. Play it like an omaha tournament; limp with a lot of hands, and only proceed if you get hit big on the flop.

[TexasKowboy]

The early rounds it seems that every hand is raised at least 3 X the BB then doubled to 6 times with severial callers. If your in LP or on the button with small PP or soooooted connectors is it worth calling?

[Dumb Snowman]

I would call 3BB in the early rounds, probably not 6 though. I'm not usually playing by pot odds here, but implied odds. If he raises to 90, and has another 900 I call. If he raises to 200, and has another 800, I probably fold.

[Aisthesis]

Hmmmm... I agree with you in part, Flop. But I don't think I go quite that far.

Your 68s in LP is actually a good example. These suited connectors are rare, and I don't really classify that as all that loose. I'm even experimenting a little bit with unsuited connectors. On the other hand, hands I really DON'T like are stuff like QX (open or suited) and even KX (same). I mean, effectively ANY hand at all can give you trips or 2 pair, but the probability is low that you're going to hit that. A connector actually has around 10% chance of hitting a good straight draw (I figured 2% of the time you'll hit 2 pair sometime back--that's just not realistic).

The thing I don't like with excessive limping is bleeding away too many chips that are actually worth double (or more) their value later if you do have an opportunity to double up or triple up.

I'm sure there are also just some "taste" issues involved here. For one thing, I like to have a tight table image, because I can then steal a lot more effectively when I need to. But of course, a loose table image buys you the ability to get callers on your stronger hands, so I don't think that's by any means the only way to play. Secondly, I also don't mind playing from a decent short-stack. The main thing is that I don't get so short-stacked as to no longer be dangerous if I decide to throw it around. When that happens you definitely do get very dependent on some cards hitting. And really some of my best finishes come after getting a little short early.

Also, there are various kinds of LAG players. A lot of these people who will play something like KX or worse from MP then don't make real bets on their K. Actually, it's pretty logical, because their TP might be a good hand, but they have a very high risk of getting outkicked. Playing connectors or AXs against such player can be very nice, because they can give you pot odds to draw to your straight or flush. But if you have a bunch of LAG players who like to put their whole stacks in on the flop, I'm not terribly inclined to play these straight or flush draw type hands. I feel like they're not going to let me draw effectively, so why even bother.

Anyhow, while I think my taste runs more toward the tight side, I think the only thing I really disagree with in your post is the "with little risk." To double up on one hand early, you have to have all your chips out there, and without the nuts (which is unfortunately rare), there's actually some major risk involved. There are only 2 ways in which to win chips with no risk: 1) You have the stone cold nuts, 2) Your opponents fold.

[Dumb Snowman]

Well there is little risk IMO. You're risking 30 chips, and then if the flop hits you hard, you'll put chips in as, normally, a huge favorite. Obviously there will always be SOME risk. But hey, no risk, no reward right?