Russ's sit & go strategy

[Rich]

Hi Russ,

I read that post with your strategy on the single table tourneys at Party.
I hadn't actually played one of them there before, but the Cryptologic
tourneys have a very similar structure (although they are limit) and I've
played them a number of times.

I decided to try a couple and give your strategy of playing supertight for
the first 3 rounds a shot. I did it twice at the Party $5+1 tourneys. Once
I came in 5th, and the second time I came in 3rd. Now, obviously my two
results aren't enough to judge a strategy by, but they did raise some
questions about it in my mind.

The first time though I almost used your idea of just sitting out for 3
rounds. Then I decided I would only go in with huge pocket pairs and I
didn't get any. So, I was at the T645 (or whatever it is) when 50/100 came
along. And there lies the problem. There were 6 players left, and I
believe I was in 5th with that stack. I was looking at a number of larger
stacks - I think the biggest was T2400.

Now, you say that the tournament really begins at 50/100, so let's go with
that idea. There I was at what you say is the beginning of the tournament
with one of the shortest stacks. Now, if you told me that I could pay $5+1
to start off with 6 players and that same payout, but that I would have to
have a relatively small stack, I would never agree to that arrangement. I
would want to have an average stack at least.

You talk about beginning to steal at the 50/100 level and higher -- there
were only a few players that I would have considered stealing from at that
point and the bigger stacks were already starting to pound them (and me).
I didn't last very long.

The second time through I held to pretty much the same scenario of only
playing very large pairs in the first 3 levels. This time I was able to
almost double up in one of the early rounds. I had AA in the big blind and
everyone folded to the small blind who had a slightly smaller stack. He
raised to 250, I went all in, he called and turned over A8o. My hand held
up.

Now I continue to play tight until we're a few hands into the 50/100, and
2 players go out on the same hand in 7th and 6th. I have about T1000,
which is still not a big stack with 5 players and T8000 total out there,
but it was enough to work with. I went on to finish in third, but I could
have done better. I lost a couple of big hands to the chip leader (I had
the best hand preflop in one, the second was a coin flip and I lost it,
too).

Now, the important thing from my perspective is that I think I would not
have had a chance had I not won that hand earlier with the AA. If I came
into that last 7 with T645 I think I would have been very lucky to even
make it into third.

How many times would you hope to get AA or KK in the first 30 hands of one
of these tourneys? I think it would have to happen a lot more often than
the odds would indicate for someone to have a chance to win in the long
run playing this strategy. I think it is pretty unlikely for a person to
win one of these tourney's without doubling up at least once by the time
50/100 comes around. I don't think T645 is going to do it on a regular
enough basis for you to even finish 3rd enough times to break even, let
alone 1st or 2nd.

I can see the advantage of hanging around a bit - obviously you can't win
if you go out early. But I think your strategy is possibly a recipe for a
lot of 5th-3rd place finishes.

I'd be interested in hearing your feedback on this (and from the other
folks here). Are you really saying that if I'm on the button or the small
blind when it's 15/30 and the pot is unraised with several limpers, that I
should not limp with 77 or 99 or JJ to try to make a set? I think that
playing tight early does make sense, but that a player needs to take a few
more risks than you describe if they hope to win.

I also don't buy the "you don't know how to play any other hands so don't
even bother" approach (my paraphrase). That doeesn't sound like a master
poker strategist to me. It sounds more like a shortcut for newbies that
saves you from having to explain how to really play poker to them.


Rich

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com

[J.B.]

I think this strategy on 1 table tourneys is one of the worst I have
ever seen. Think about it, if you wait for the 50/100 level and you
only have a little over T600 in chips you can only make a total of 6
calls. Better hope you get lucky and catch a flop in one of those six.
Just a thought.

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RGP ACCESS at http://www.LiveActionPoker.com

[Dave L]

I try to make one big play early on, and get a decent sized chip lead from
one hand (say 1500+), then sit back and let the table duke it out.

I will still play monster hands, and on occasion will even bluff limpers out
of their blinds (when you dont bet for 3 rds, then suddenly make a play a t
a pot, they usually fold). But generally, i play tight tight tight, until
the rest of the pack is either eliminated, or I fall below 4th position in
chips.

Strategy varies from tourney to tourney. If I am at a very tight table,
I'll be the maniac (but a controlled maniac). If its very loose, (i.e.
almost every hand has someone going all in) I won't play anything but
premium hands in late position (until later rounds). Also, even with a
monster hand, if it is late in the tourney and 2 people are all in against
each other, I'll fold unless I have a SIGNIFICANT chip lead.

And, of course, unless I have The ABSOLUTE NUTS, i wont ever make a play at
a dry side pot or small side pot.

"Rich" <anonymous@paranoid.org> wrote in message
news:3f258f73$0$63824$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> Hi Russ,
>
> I read that post with your strategy on the single table tourneys at Party.
> I hadn't actually played one of them there before, but the Cryptologic
> tourneys have a very similar structure (although they are limit) and I've
> played them a number of times.
>
> I decided to try a couple and give your strategy of playing supertight for
> the first 3 rounds a shot. I did it twice at the Party $5+1 tourneys. Once
> I came in 5th, and the second time I came in 3rd. Now, obviously my two
> results aren't enough to judge a strategy by, but they did raise some
> questions about it in my mind.
>
> The first time though I almost used your idea of just sitting out for 3
> rounds. Then I decided I would only go in with huge pocket pairs and I
> didn't get any. So, I was at the T645 (or whatever it is) when 50/100 came
> along. And there lies the problem. There were 6 players left, and I
> believe I was in 5th with that stack. I was looking at a number of larger
> stacks - I think the biggest was T2400.
>
> Now, you say that the tournament really begins at 50/100, so let's go with
> that idea. There I was at what you say is the beginning of the tournament
> with one of the shortest stacks. Now, if you told me that I could pay $5+1
> to start off with 6 players and that same payout, but that I would have to
> have a relatively small stack, I would never agree to that arrangement. I
> would want to have an average stack at least.
>
> You talk about beginning to steal at the 50/100 level and higher -- there
> were only a few players that I would have considered stealing from at that
> point and the bigger stacks were already starting to pound them (and me).
> I didn't last very long.
>
> The second time through I held to pretty much the same scenario of only
> playing very large pairs in the first 3 levels. This time I was able to
> almost double up in one of the early rounds. I had AA in the big blind and
> everyone folded to the small blind who had a slightly smaller stack. He
> raised to 250, I went all in, he called and turned over A8o. My hand held
> up.
>
> Now I continue to play tight until we're a few hands into the 50/100, and
> 2 players go out on the same hand in 7th and 6th. I have about T1000,
> which is still not a big stack with 5 players and T8000 total out there,
> but it was enough to work with. I went on to finish in third, but I could
> have done better. I lost a couple of big hands to the chip leader (I had
> the best hand preflop in one, the second was a coin flip and I lost it,
> too).
>
> Now, the important thing from my perspective is that I think I would not
> have had a chance had I not won that hand earlier with the AA. If I came
> into that last 7 with T645 I think I would have been very lucky to even
> make it into third.
>
> How many times would you hope to get AA or KK in the first 30 hands of one
> of these tourneys? I think it would have to happen a lot more often than
> the odds would indicate for someone to have a chance to win in the long
> run playing this strategy. I think it is pretty unlikely for a person to
> win one of these tourney's without doubling up at least once by the time
> 50/100 comes around. I don't think T645 is going to do it on a regular
> enough basis for you to even finish 3rd enough times to break even, let
> alone 1st or 2nd.
>
> I can see the advantage of hanging around a bit - obviously you can't win
> if you go out early. But I think your strategy is possibly a recipe for a
> lot of 5th-3rd place finishes.
>
> I'd be interested in hearing your feedback on this (and from the other
> folks here). Are you really saying that if I'm on the button or the small
> blind when it's 15/30 and the pot is unraised with several limpers, that I
> should not limp with 77 or 99 or JJ to try to make a set? I think that
> playing tight early does make sense, but that a player needs to take a few
> more risks than you describe if they hope to win.
>
> I also don't buy the "you don't know how to play any other hands so don't
> even bother" approach (my paraphrase). That doeesn't sound like a master
> poker strategist to me. It sounds more like a shortcut for newbies that
> saves you from having to explain how to really play poker to them.
>
>
> Rich
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
>
>

[Lance Schmidt]

Hi Rich,

I tried Russ's strategy this weekend and I was three for three on it. In
three games I placed third, second, and first; however, your mileage will
vary. Definitely not a large enough sample to prove it works but there
seems to be some good advice in it. Only in one of those tournaments did I
have the kings to play in the first 30 hands.

The way I interpret Russ's strategy is as follows:

There are too many players in the pot early on which decrease your chance of
winning pots. Before using Russ's strategy I was suffering death by a
thousand paper cuts. I would limp into a pot or make a moderate raise and
have everyone call it. The flop would miss me or some would have the proper
the odds to chase if I wasn't willing to commit a large amount of my chips
at that point. So you play tight and don't suffer a lot of little losses.
Due to the way a tournament pays out the fewer the chips you have the more
they are worth to until you reach a certain number of chips after which your
chips become less valuable. I am sure some can explain this concept better
than me and actually give you the parity point.

Once it is go time, at the 50/100 level, you use position and make
aggressive moves. Most people will assume that you have the cards you are
representing because they haven't seen you in many pots. He talks about
having cards to back up your move, which seems important to me. I am still
having trouble deciding who to put pressure on but I am by no means an
expert. My general approach has be the small but not tiny stacks. An
important thing that Russ mentions is not calling opened pots with medium
pairs or KQs. This is known as the gap concept. Basically you need better
cards to call then to open a pot. Notice he also mentions to stay out of
multi-way pots. Why take the risk of tripling up one opponent or getting
eliminated? The second opponent decreases your chance of winning.

Once you make it to the final three you have secured your self a chunk of
the money. Even if you go out third you have a small profit and the money
to play in another tournament. My assumption about this strategy is that it
expects you to be a better short handed player than you opponents. I am not
that great of a short handed player, but through loosening up and aggressive
raising I was able to move up the money ranks.

Now my apologies to Russ, I probably gross simplified his theory and missed
some important points. I am sure he correct any misconceptions that I have.

Best Regards,

Lance.


"Rich" <anonymous@paranoid.org> wrote in message
news:3f258f73$0$63824$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> Hi Russ,
>
> I read that post with your strategy on the single table tourneys at Party.
> I hadn't actually played one of them there before, but the Cryptologic
> tourneys have a very similar structure (although they are limit) and I've
> played them a number of times.
>
> I decided to try a couple and give your strategy of playing supertight for
> the first 3 rounds a shot. I did it twice at the Party $5+1 tourneys. Once
> I came in 5th, and the second time I came in 3rd. Now, obviously my two
> results aren't enough to judge a strategy by, but they did raise some
> questions about it in my mind.
>
> The first time though I almost used your idea of just sitting out for 3
> rounds. Then I decided I would only go in with huge pocket pairs and I
> didn't get any. So, I was at the T645 (or whatever it is) when 50/100 came
> along. And there lies the problem. There were 6 players left, and I
> believe I was in 5th with that stack. I was looking at a number of larger
> stacks - I think the biggest was T2400.
>
> Now, you say that the tournament really begins at 50/100, so let's go with
> that idea. There I was at what you say is the beginning of the tournament
> with one of the shortest stacks. Now, if you told me that I could pay $5+1
> to start off with 6 players and that same payout, but that I would have to
> have a relatively small stack, I would never agree to that arrangement. I
> would want to have an average stack at least.
>
> You talk about beginning to steal at the 50/100 level and higher -- there
> were only a few players that I would have considered stealing from at that
> point and the bigger stacks were already starting to pound them (and me).
> I didn't last very long.
>
> The second time through I held to pretty much the same scenario of only
> playing very large pairs in the first 3 levels. This time I was able to
> almost double up in one of the early rounds. I had AA in the big blind and
> everyone folded to the small blind who had a slightly smaller stack. He
> raised to 250, I went all in, he called and turned over A8o. My hand held
> up.
>
> Now I continue to play tight until we're a few hands into the 50/100, and
> 2 players go out on the same hand in 7th and 6th. I have about T1000,
> which is still not a big stack with 5 players and T8000 total out there,
> but it was enough to work with. I went on to finish in third, but I could
> have done better. I lost a couple of big hands to the chip leader (I had
> the best hand preflop in one, the second was a coin flip and I lost it,
> too).
>
> Now, the important thing from my perspective is that I think I would not
> have had a chance had I not won that hand earlier with the AA. If I came
> into that last 7 with T645 I think I would have been very lucky to even
> make it into third.
>
> How many times would you hope to get AA or KK in the first 30 hands of one
> of these tourneys? I think it would have to happen a lot more often than
> the odds would indicate for someone to have a chance to win in the long
> run playing this strategy. I think it is pretty unlikely for a person to
> win one of these tourney's without doubling up at least once by the time
> 50/100 comes around. I don't think T645 is going to do it on a regular
> enough basis for you to even finish 3rd enough times to break even, let
> alone 1st or 2nd.
>
> I can see the advantage of hanging around a bit - obviously you can't win
> if you go out early. But I think your strategy is possibly a recipe for a
> lot of 5th-3rd place finishes.
>
> I'd be interested in hearing your feedback on this (and from the other
> folks here). Are you really saying that if I'm on the button or the small
> blind when it's 15/30 and the pot is unraised with several limpers, that I
> should not limp with 77 or 99 or JJ to try to make a set? I think that
> playing tight early does make sense, but that a player needs to take a few
> more risks than you describe if they hope to win.
>
> I also don't buy the "you don't know how to play any other hands so don't
> even bother" approach (my paraphrase). That doeesn't sound like a master
> poker strategist to me. It sounds more like a shortcut for newbies that
> saves you from having to explain how to really play poker to them.
>
>
> Rich
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
>
>

[JNorth]

I think that the early portion of the tournament provides excellent
opportunities to build up a stack so that you can do more blind
stealing later on in the tournament. I try to use a ring game
strategy for entering pots in the first stages of the tournament
(raise with premium hands to limit field, limp in unraised pots late
with pairs and suited aces and suited connectors to try and flop big).
If you play ultratight early in these tournaments you are giving up
too much as you are less likely to get the chips of the 2 or 3 bad
players at the table. Essentially, you are spotting the other good
players a head start. To give yourself a best chance of beating these
tournaments you need to play the early rounds and play them well.

"Lance Schmidt" <LanceSc@ExtendSys.com> wrote in message news:<bg4c6o$egf$0@198.60.252.254>...
> Hi Rich,
>
> I tried Russ's strategy this weekend and I was three for three on it. In
> three games I placed third, second, and first; however, your mileage will
> vary. Definitely not a large enough sample to prove it works but there
> seems to be some good advice in it. Only in one of those tournaments did I
> have the kings to play in the first 30 hands.
>
> The way I interpret Russ's strategy is as follows:
>
> There are too many players in the pot early on which decrease your chance of
> winning pots. Before using Russ's strategy I was suffering death by a
> thousand paper cuts. I would limp into a pot or make a moderate raise and
> have everyone call it. The flop would miss me or some would have the proper
> the odds to chase if I wasn't willing to commit a large amount of my chips
> at that point. So you play tight and don't suffer a lot of little losses.
> Due to the way a tournament pays out the fewer the chips you have the more
> they are worth to until you reach a certain number of chips after which your
> chips become less valuable. I am sure some can explain this concept better
> than me and actually give you the parity point.
>
> Once it is go time, at the 50/100 level, you use position and make
> aggressive moves. Most people will assume that you have the cards you are
> representing because they haven't seen you in many pots. He talks about
> having cards to back up your move, which seems important to me. I am still
> having trouble deciding who to put pressure on but I am by no means an
> expert. My general approach has be the small but not tiny stacks. An
> important thing that Russ mentions is not calling opened pots with medium
> pairs or KQs. This is known as the gap concept. Basically you need better
> cards to call then to open a pot. Notice he also mentions to stay out of
> multi-way pots. Why take the risk of tripling up one opponent or getting
> eliminated? The second opponent decreases your chance of winning.
>
> Once you make it to the final three you have secured your self a chunk of
> the money. Even if you go out third you have a small profit and the money
> to play in another tournament. My assumption about this strategy is that it
> expects you to be a better short handed player than you opponents. I am not
> that great of a short handed player, but through loosening up and aggressive
> raising I was able to move up the money ranks.
>
> Now my apologies to Russ, I probably gross simplified his theory and missed
> some important points. I am sure he correct any misconceptions that I have.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Lance.
>
>
> "Rich" <anonymous@paranoid.org> wrote in message
> news:3f258f73$0$63824$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> > Hi Russ,
> >
> > I read that post with your strategy on the single table tourneys at Party.
> > I hadn't actually played one of them there before, but the Cryptologic
> > tourneys have a very similar structure (although they are limit) and I've
> > played them a number of times.
> >
> > I decided to try a couple and give your strategy of playing supertight for
> > the first 3 rounds a shot. I did it twice at the Party $5+1 tourneys. Once
> > I came in 5th, and the second time I came in 3rd. Now, obviously my two
> > results aren't enough to judge a strategy by, but they did raise some
> > questions about it in my mind.
> >
> > The first time though I almost used your idea of just sitting out for 3
> > rounds. Then I decided I would only go in with huge pocket pairs and I
> > didn't get any. So, I was at the T645 (or whatever it is) when 50/100 came
> > along. And there lies the problem. There were 6 players left, and I
> > believe I was in 5th with that stack. I was looking at a number of larger
> > stacks - I think the biggest was T2400.
> >
> > Now, you say that the tournament really begins at 50/100, so let's go with
> > that idea. There I was at what you say is the beginning of the tournament
> > with one of the shortest stacks. Now, if you told me that I could pay $5+1
> > to start off with 6 players and that same payout, but that I would have to
> > have a relatively small stack, I would never agree to that arrangement. I
> > would want to have an average stack at least.
> >
> > You talk about beginning to steal at the 50/100 level and higher -- there
> > were only a few players that I would have considered stealing from at that
> > point and the bigger stacks were already starting to pound them (and me).
> > I didn't last very long.
> >
> > The second time through I held to pretty much the same scenario of only
> > playing very large pairs in the first 3 levels. This time I was able to
> > almost double up in one of the early rounds. I had AA in the big blind and
> > everyone folded to the small blind who had a slightly smaller stack. He
> > raised to 250, I went all in, he called and turned over A8o. My hand held
> > up.
> >
> > Now I continue to play tight until we're a few hands into the 50/100, and
> > 2 players go out on the same hand in 7th and 6th. I have about T1000,
> > which is still not a big stack with 5 players and T8000 total out there,
> > but it was enough to work with. I went on to finish in third, but I could
> > have done better. I lost a couple of big hands to the chip leader (I had
> > the best hand preflop in one, the second was a coin flip and I lost it,
> > too).
> >
> > Now, the important thing from my perspective is that I think I would not
> > have had a chance had I not won that hand earlier with the AA. If I came
> > into that last 7 with T645 I think I would have been very lucky to even
> > make it into third.
> >
> > How many times would you hope to get AA or KK in the first 30 hands of one
> > of these tourneys? I think it would have to happen a lot more often than
> > the odds would indicate for someone to have a chance to win in the long
> > run playing this strategy. I think it is pretty unlikely for a person to
> > win one of these tourney's without doubling up at least once by the time
> > 50/100 comes around. I don't think T645 is going to do it on a regular
> > enough basis for you to even finish 3rd enough times to break even, let
> > alone 1st or 2nd.
> >
> > I can see the advantage of hanging around a bit - obviously you can't win
> > if you go out early. But I think your strategy is possibly a recipe for a
> > lot of 5th-3rd place finishes.
> >
> > I'd be interested in hearing your feedback on this (and from the other
> > folks here). Are you really saying that if I'm on the button or the small
> > blind when it's 15/30 and the pot is unraised with several limpers, that I
> > should not limp with 77 or 99 or JJ to try to make a set? I think that
> > playing tight early does make sense, but that a player needs to take a few
> > more risks than you describe if they hope to win.
> >
> > I also don't buy the "you don't know how to play any other hands so don't
> > even bother" approach (my paraphrase). That doeesn't sound like a master
> > poker strategist to me. It sounds more like a shortcut for newbies that
> > saves you from having to explain how to really play poker to them.
> >
> >
> > Rich
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
> >
> >

[JD]

newgca@aol.com (Newgca) wrote in message news:<20030729021034.00612.00000794@mb-m25.aol.com>...
> >I think this strategy on 1 table tourneys is one of the worst I have
> >ever seen. Think about it, if you wait for the 50/100 level and you
> >only have a little over T600 in chips you can only make a total of 6
> >calls. Better hope you get lucky and catch a flop in one of those six.
> >Just a thought.
>
> Did anyone say play this way? I said try it once and see how well you will do.
> I'll bet I could sit out the first two rounds and still esily have a better
> record than you.

I'll have to go look up that post. I've been playing the cheap NL
one-table tourneys for just a few days, and the opening strategy
seemed pretty obvious. I play super-tight (play QQ and AKo, maybe AQo
and AJs depending on the situation) until the maniacs commit suicide
and the blinds get high enough to have an impact, then I play
aggressively and can usually steal the blinds a number of times, and
maybe double-up once or twice. In five tourneys (top three positions
pay), I've finished 3, 3, 5, 3, 2. (The 5th place finish I lost to a
2-outer on the river, so not much I can do about that)

My biggest problem now is that I'm having trouble with the heads-up
part, even when I'm the big stack. Part of it has just been bad cards
(can I really be aggressive with 53o? Should I?). I'd love to hear
advice on dealing with the final phase of the tournament.

Oh, and one good "good beat" story from last night (it's a good beat
because it was me, of course). I went all-in with 99 in late position
with third-smallest stack at 850, 8 players at the table. The big
stack behind me (on the button) raises all-in, and he gets called
all-in by a middle-stack limper. They turn over TT and JJ. Flop
brings my 9, and I triple up to become the new big stack :)

[AquaDeals]

I see people do this all the time on UB and Party. They usually sit out the
first 3-5 rounds. Because the blinds are low, you don't loose a lot by
sitting out, but then again, you could fold through the blinds and do the
same thing. What you are missing by sitting out is the opportunity to pick
up easy hands. If you sit out 4 rounds, that is 40 hands you are missing.
I'm sure some of those 40 would be playable, with one, maybe 2, guaranteed
winners. Just play tight agressive and you'll be way ahead of anyone
sitting out.

"Newgca" <newgca@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030729021034.00612.00000794@mb-m25.aol.com...
> >I think this strategy on 1 table tourneys is one of the worst I have
> >ever seen. Think about it, if you wait for the 50/100 level and you
> >only have a little over T600 in chips you can only make a total of 6
> >calls. Better hope you get lucky and catch a flop in one of those six.
> >Just a thought.
>
>
> Did anyone say play this way? I said try it once and see how well you will
do.
> I'll bet I could sit out the first two rounds and still esily have a
better
> record than you.
>
> Russ Georgiev

[Russ Georgiev]

"Lance Schmidt" <LanceSc@ExtendSys.com> wrote in message news:<bg4c6o$egf$0@198.60.252.254>...
> Hi Rich,
>
> I tried Russ's strategy this weekend and I was three for three on it. In
> three games I placed third, second, and first; however, your mileage will
> vary. Definitely not a large enough sample to prove it works but there
> seems to be some good advice in it. Only in one of those tournaments did I
> have the kings to play in the first 30 hands.
>
> The way I interpret Russ's strategy is as follows:
>
> There are too many players in the pot early on which decrease your chance of
> winning pots. Before using Russ's strategy I was suffering death by a
> thousand paper cuts. I would limp into a pot or make a moderate raise and
> have everyone call it. The flop would miss me or some would have the proper
> the odds to chase if I wasn't willing to commit a large amount of my chips
> at that point. So you play tight and don't suffer a lot of little losses.
> Due to the way a tournament pays out the fewer the chips you have the more
> they are worth to until you reach a certain number of chips after which your
> chips become less valuable. I am sure some can explain this concept better
> than me and actually give you the parity point.
>
> Once it is go time, at the 50/100 level, you use position and make
> aggressive moves. Most people will assume that you have the cards you are
> representing because they haven't seen you in many pots. He talks about
> having cards to back up your move, which seems important to me. I am still
> having trouble deciding who to put pressure on but I am by no means an
> expert. My general approach has be the small but not tiny stacks. An
> important thing that Russ mentions is not calling opened pots with medium
> pairs or KQs. This is known as the gap concept. Basically you need better
> cards to call then to open a pot. Notice he also mentions to stay out of
> multi-way pots. Why take the risk of tripling up one opponent or getting
> eliminated? The second opponent decreases your chance of winning.
>
> Once you make it to the final three you have secured your self a chunk of
> the money. Even if you go out third you have a small profit and the money
> to play in another tournament. My assumption about this strategy is that it
> expects you to be a better short handed player than you opponents. I am not
> that great of a short handed player, but through loosening up and aggressive
> raising I was able to move up the money ranks.
>
> Now my apologies to Russ, I probably gross simplified his theory and missed
> some important points. I am sure he correct any misconceptions that I have.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Lance.


Actually, I believe you have the gist of it.

Stealing in position is the key.

Russ Georgiev
>
>
> "Rich" <anonymous@paranoid.org> wrote in message
> news:3f258f73$0$63824$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> > Hi Russ,
> >
> > I read that post with your strategy on the single table tourneys at Party.
> > I hadn't actually played one of them there before, but the Cryptologic
> > tourneys have a very similar structure (although they are limit) and I've
> > played them a number of times.
> >
> > I decided to try a couple and give your strategy of playing supertight for
> > the first 3 rounds a shot. I did it twice at the Party $5+1 tourneys. Once
> > I came in 5th, and the second time I came in 3rd. Now, obviously my two
> > results aren't enough to judge a strategy by, but they did raise some
> > questions about it in my mind.
> >
> > The first time though I almost used your idea of just sitting out for 3
> > rounds. Then I decided I would only go in with huge pocket pairs and I
> > didn't get any. So, I was at the T645 (or whatever it is) when 50/100 came
> > along. And there lies the problem. There were 6 players left, and I
> > believe I was in 5th with that stack. I was looking at a number of larger
> > stacks - I think the biggest was T2400.
> >
> > Now, you say that the tournament really begins at 50/100, so let's go with
> > that idea. There I was at what you say is the beginning of the tournament
> > with one of the shortest stacks. Now, if you told me that I could pay $5+1
> > to start off with 6 players and that same payout, but that I would have to
> > have a relatively small stack, I would never agree to that arrangement. I
> > would want to have an average stack at least.
> >
> > You talk about beginning to steal at the 50/100 level and higher -- there
> > were only a few players that I would have considered stealing from at that
> > point and the bigger stacks were already starting to pound them (and me).
> > I didn't last very long.
> >
> > The second time through I held to pretty much the same scenario of only
> > playing very large pairs in the first 3 levels. This time I was able to
> > almost double up in one of the early rounds. I had AA in the big blind and
> > everyone folded to the small blind who had a slightly smaller stack. He
> > raised to 250, I went all in, he called and turned over A8o. My hand held
> > up.
> >
> > Now I continue to play tight until we're a few hands into the 50/100, and
> > 2 players go out on the same hand in 7th and 6th. I have about T1000,
> > which is still not a big stack with 5 players and T8000 total out there,
> > but it was enough to work with. I went on to finish in third, but I could
> > have done better. I lost a couple of big hands to the chip leader (I had
> > the best hand preflop in one, the second was a coin flip and I lost it,
> > too).
> >
> > Now, the important thing from my perspective is that I think I would not
> > have had a chance had I not won that hand earlier with the AA. If I came
> > into that last 7 with T645 I think I would have been very lucky to even
> > make it into third.
> >
> > How many times would you hope to get AA or KK in the first 30 hands of one
> > of these tourneys? I think it would have to happen a lot more often than
> > the odds would indicate for someone to have a chance to win in the long
> > run playing this strategy. I think it is pretty unlikely for a person to
> > win one of these tourney's without doubling up at least once by the time
> > 50/100 comes around. I don't think T645 is going to do it on a regular
> > enough basis for you to even finish 3rd enough times to break even, let
> > alone 1st or 2nd.
> >
> > I can see the advantage of hanging around a bit - obviously you can't win
> > if you go out early. But I think your strategy is possibly a recipe for a
> > lot of 5th-3rd place finishes.
> >
> > I'd be interested in hearing your feedback on this (and from the other
> > folks here). Are you really saying that if I'm on the button or the small
> > blind when it's 15/30 and the pot is unraised with several limpers, that I
> > should not limp with 77 or 99 or JJ to try to make a set? I think that
> > playing tight early does make sense, but that a player needs to take a few
> > more risks than you describe if they hope to win.
> >
> > I also don't buy the "you don't know how to play any other hands so don't
> > even bother" approach (my paraphrase). That doeesn't sound like a master
> > poker strategist to me. It sounds more like a shortcut for newbies that
> > saves you from having to explain how to really play poker to them.
> >
> >
> > Rich
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
> >
> >

[MikeJfromFarAway]

If you're even considering making calls, I think you have the wrong
idea. At this point, the idea is to make a big raise in order to
steal pots . . .

.. . . which leads me to the problem with operating like this. If you
have T600, (assuming a PartyPoker setup), and there are only five
other players left, they we each have an avg of about 1500 chips.
More likely, you will have 2 players with around T2000+, and the other
four at the table will be around the starting chip levels. Way more
often than not, the big stacks are super-aggressive, not so savvy
players. That's how that got such big stacks so quickly. Usually,
the short stacks will all be thinking "gee, if I can outlast a couple
more people, I'll be able to get into the money," and will be playing
ultra-tight.

This leaves you with a couple potential scenarios:

a). You can limp in or open for T100 with your hand. This is bad,
because even if the other short stacks fold, you can be certain that
one of the big stacks will either call or raise you. If the flop
misses you, you're dead. After the flop, the big stack will almost
certainly call any of your bets, so your only real option at this
point is to move all-in with your chips, and try and bluff the pot.
Because you only represent 1/4 to 1/5 of his stack, the big stack may
go ahead and call you down anyway. The only thing you can hope for in
a limping situation is that you flop the absolute nuts, because
otherwise, I think you are asking for trouble.

b). You can make a raise for 1/2 of your stack. Assuming the short
stacks have trash and fold (rather than have a big hand and reraise
you), you will be up against the big stacks. Your raise will only
represent around 1/8 of their stacks. Do you think they will call?
My online experience tells me that they will call with almost
anything. Or, if they have a mediocre hand, or maybe even Axo, they
may reraise you. Again, you are trapped in a lousy spot for all of
your chips.

c). If you happen to make a big hand, I would almost always raise
all-in. More often than not, one of the big stacks will call you,
almost certainly with a worse hand than you are holding. Maybe they
will draw out on you, but make them pay for calling you with a lesser
hand. If you think you're ahead pre-flop, at this stage, I think you
need to go for it.

d). If you have a cruddy hand, but the big stacks have both folded
(which will infrequently occur, you can go for the steal, but you
might as well go all-in with your raise. Any raise at all will eat
about 1/3 of your chips, so you might as well go the whole way to push
the stealees off hands that they might play with a smaller raise.

Now, if you are playing a sit 'n go at PokerStars, you are in a
completely different type of tournament.

Any opinions on my ramblings would be appreciated.

MikeJ




J.B. <anon@anon.com> wrote in message news:<3f259bd2$0$194$75868355@news.frii.net>...
> I think this strategy on 1 table tourneys is one of the worst I have
> ever seen. Think about it, if you wait for the 50/100 level and you
> only have a little over T600 in chips you can only make a total of 6
> calls. Better hope you get lucky and catch a flop in one of those six.
> Just a thought.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Posted using RGP ACCESS at http://www.LiveActionPoker.com

[Stephen Gorrell]

I gave this a try last night at Party's 30+3 NL Sit n' Go's. This is the one
I play the most anyway, so why not. Here are my thoughts and observations.

Tourney 1, 15/30, BB, catch Qx of clubs, hit the Check/Fold button, 2
players limp in. Flop comes Kx of clubs, rag. Hit the Check/Fold button,
everybody checks. Another club on the turn. Everybody checks. Hmm... No
pairs. 2nd nut flush. Ok, all in. Called by a guy with K's and, he hits
another K on the river for the boat and I'm gone.

Tourney 2, 50/100, haven't played a hand yet. Catch AA in early position
(cool, things are working just like the plan), go all in, get called by AQ,
board comes J,T,9,8,x. Gone again.

Tourney's 3-7, best hands I see up to the 50/100 level are KQ, JJ, AJ, etc.
The tables on this weeknight are much tighter than they are on the weekends.
Typically I had one at 2K or so, 4 in the 1200-1600 range, and me at about
700. Play is agressive with most pots getting raised. Strategy says make
your first move an all-in. Gotta do something. I think I survived two of
them and managed to squeek into 3rd both times.

So, a bad night. Conclusions about the strategy?

1. If the cards are running against you, this (or any other strategy you
care to come up with) won't help.
2. If you tend to agressively play hands like KQ and 99 early in these types
of tourney's this will help you survive to the money more often than you do
now. If you've already tightened up to premium hands only in early rounds
and routinely make the 50/100 level anyway then stick with what you have.
3. It is my opinion that the best way to make the money in any tourney is to
avoid getting all of your chips in on coin-flips (medium pair vs. AK for
example) like the plague. If you usually do this twice a tourney prior to
the money then you are by definition limiting yourself to making the money 1
time in 4. Personally I want to get there more often than that.

--Steve

[Augie Chiausa]

The key to optimizing your chances in a tourney are to play your best poker
every single hand. There's no shortcuts. Small mistakes hurt a whole lot
more in tournaments than they do in ring play. Exploit every edge, and
avoid losing all your chips in marginal situations. There are a few key
situations where laying down the best hand would make sense, but these are
few and far between. There are also situations where it makes sense not to
bust someone out. They too are rare.

Russ is an idiot.

[MikeJfromFarAway]

Just a quick comment about "Tourney 1"--

I think your all-in bet at this level is a bad move. You have bet
700+ (presumably) chips in an attempt to get 90. Plus, assuming that
your opponents are not morons (as one of them obviously was in this
case), who is going to call that bet? The only way you should expect
to get called is if you are beaten. Basically, I think you have to
look at this situaion like this--the vast majority of the time, your
opponents will fold in this situation, and you will pick up a rather
insignificant number of chips. When they don't fold, however, you are
almost a lock to be knocked out.

I think a better idea would have been to make a pot-sized bet, destroy
the odds for anyone who still had a chance to suckout on you, and move
on.

MikeJ

"Stephen Gorrell" <sgorrell@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<o5SVa.27$4b5.1865796@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>...
> I gave this a try last night at Party's 30+3 NL Sit n' Go's. This is the one
> I play the most anyway, so why not. Here are my thoughts and observations.
>
> Tourney 1, 15/30, BB, catch Qx of clubs, hit the Check/Fold button, 2
> players limp in. Flop comes Kx of clubs, rag. Hit the Check/Fold button,
> everybody checks. Another club on the turn. Everybody checks. Hmm... No
> pairs. 2nd nut flush. Ok, all in. Called by a guy with K's and, he hits
> another K on the river for the boat and I'm gone.
>
> Tourney 2, 50/100, haven't played a hand yet. Catch AA in early position
> (cool, things are working just like the plan), go all in, get called by AQ,
> board comes J,T,9,8,x. Gone again.
>
> Tourney's 3-7, best hands I see up to the 50/100 level are KQ, JJ, AJ, etc.
> The tables on this weeknight are much tighter than they are on the weekends.
> Typically I had one at 2K or so, 4 in the 1200-1600 range, and me at about
> 700. Play is agressive with most pots getting raised. Strategy says make
> your first move an all-in. Gotta do something. I think I survived two of
> them and managed to squeek into 3rd both times.
>
> So, a bad night. Conclusions about the strategy?
>
> 1. If the cards are running against you, this (or any other strategy you
> care to come up with) won't help.
> 2. If you tend to agressively play hands like KQ and 99 early in these types
> of tourney's this will help you survive to the money more often than you do
> now. If you've already tightened up to premium hands only in early rounds
> and routinely make the 50/100 level anyway then stick with what you have.
> 3. It is my opinion that the best way to make the money in any tourney is to
> avoid getting all of your chips in on coin-flips (medium pair vs. AK for
> example) like the plague. If you usually do this twice a tourney prior to
> the money then you are by definition limiting yourself to making the money 1
> time in 4. Personally I want to get there more often than that.
>
> --Steve

[MikeJfromFarAway]

"Stephen Gorrell" <sgorrell@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<__bWa.5082$yQ2.438@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>...
> "MikeJfromFarAway" <m994770@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2e53e0c0.0307301501.1398e69e@posting.google.com...
> > Just a quick comment about "Tourney 1"--
> >
> > I think your all-in bet at this level is a bad move.
> It certainly turned out that way
>
> > You have bet
> > 700+ (presumably) chips in an attempt to get 90.
> No, I bet 700 in chips to double-up on anybody who either thought I was
> trying to buy the pot (which I was in position to do) or was dumb enough to
> call with a drawing hand.
>
> > Plus, assuming that
> > your opponents are not morons (as one of them obviously was in this
> > case), who is going to call that bet?
> This is Party remember. I figured I had the best of it by a good margin. No
> pairs on the board. The only hand that could beat me going in was the Ax of
> clubs, and after it was checked to me I didn't think it was live. So who is
> going to call? Ac X might give it a shot hoping to catch a forth club. Trips
> will have a hard time backing away. Two pair could try it, especially if
> they were top two pair. A middle straight was possible and if someone had
> one he might have a hard time laying down. Sure enough, the top two pair
> called. Excellent!
>
> > The only way you should expect
> > to get called is if you are beaten.
> Not even slightly true on Party. People call with amazingly bad crap all the
> time. Like three all-in before the flop, one with AA, one with AQo, and the
> third caller has... drumroll please, 66! Naturally he catches a 6 on the
> river, just like he knew he would, and then watches in amazement as he
> looses to the AQo because the 6 was also the 4th diamond giving AQo a Q-high
> diamond flush. This is followed by five minutes of rant from 66 talking
> about his "bad beat".
>
> > Basically, I think you have to
> > look at this situaion like this--the vast majority of the time, your
> > opponents will fold in this situation, and you will pick up a rather
> > insignificant number of chips. When they don't fold, however, you are
> > almost a lock to be knocked out.
> When they don't fold I'm odds-on to get a big pot. I believe I have the best
> hand. I'm looking to get called. If someone wants to draw against me I want
> it to be as expensive a crap shoot for them as I can make it. If I miss-read
> the hand and one of them is trap-passing with the Ax of clubs, then I take
> my lumps and move on to the next tourney.

I just fundamentally disagree with you on this point. I my view, much
more often than not, the only way your all-in bet gets called is if
you are up against Axs. What do you think the potential caller puts
you on? I have been in situations exactly like yours before, and
barring some sort of a read, I will always fold. Anyone who wants to
wager their whole stack for 30-45 of my chips can have them. They'll
get no call from me . . . unless I have the nuts.


MikeJ

[Stephen Gorrell]

"MikeJfromFarAway" <m994770@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2e53e0c0.0308020723.1bb3b8d0@posting.google.com...
> "Stephen Gorrell" <sgorrell@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:<__bWa.5082$yQ2.438@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>...
> > "MikeJfromFarAway" <m994770@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:2e53e0c0.0307301501.1398e69e@posting.google.com...
> > > Just a quick comment about "Tourney 1"--
> > >
> > > I think your all-in bet at this level is a bad move.
> > It certainly turned out that way
> >
> > > You have bet
> > > 700+ (presumably) chips in an attempt to get 90.
> > No, I bet 700 in chips to double-up on anybody who either thought I was
> > trying to buy the pot (which I was in position to do) or was dumb enough
to
> > call with a drawing hand.
> >
> > > Plus, assuming that
> > > your opponents are not morons (as one of them obviously was in this
> > > case), who is going to call that bet?
> > This is Party remember. I figured I had the best of it by a good margin.
No
> > pairs on the board. The only hand that could beat me going in was the Ax
of
> > clubs, and after it was checked to me I didn't think it was live. So who
is
> > going to call? Ac X might give it a shot hoping to catch a forth club.
Trips
> > will have a hard time backing away. Two pair could try it, especially if
> > they were top two pair. A middle straight was possible and if someone
had
> > one he might have a hard time laying down. Sure enough, the top two pair
> > called. Excellent!
> >
> > > The only way you should expect
> > > to get called is if you are beaten.
> > Not even slightly true on Party. People call with amazingly bad crap all
the
> > time. Like three all-in before the flop, one with AA, one with AQo, and
the
> > third caller has... drumroll please, 66! Naturally he catches a 6 on the
> > river, just like he knew he would, and then watches in amazement as he
> > looses to the AQo because the 6 was also the 4th diamond giving AQo a
Q-high
> > diamond flush. This is followed by five minutes of rant from 66 talking
> > about his "bad beat".
> >
> > > Basically, I think you have to
> > > look at this situaion like this--the vast majority of the time, your
> > > opponents will fold in this situation, and you will pick up a rather
> > > insignificant number of chips. When they don't fold, however, you are
> > > almost a lock to be knocked out.
> > When they don't fold I'm odds-on to get a big pot. I believe I have the
best
> > hand. I'm looking to get called. If someone wants to draw against me I
want
> > it to be as expensive a crap shoot for them as I can make it. If I
miss-read
> > the hand and one of them is trap-passing with the Ax of clubs, then I
take
> > my lumps and move on to the next tourney.
>
> I just fundamentally disagree with you on this point. I my view, much
> more often than not, the only way your all-in bet gets called is if
> you are up against Axs. What do you think the potential caller puts
> you on? I have been in situations exactly like yours before, and
> barring some sort of a read, I will always fold. Anyone who wants to
> wager their whole stack for 30-45 of my chips can have them. They'll
> get no call from me . . . unless I have the nuts.
>
> MikeJ

And I absolutely agree with you, unless you're playing a low-buy-in NL HE
Sit n' Go on Party where people make every kind of crap call imaginable,
especially if they have a chance to bust someone out and enough chips to
survive it without cripling themselves if they loose. So I took my read,
made my move, got exactly what I wanted, and got busted. Poker happens. Next
tourney please.

In a 2-table Sit 'n Go on PokerStars you'll loose your ass with this play. A
majority of players there are capable and a number of them like to trap.
With a suited flop and strong bet top two pair folds every time and the nut
flush calls and hopes you're dumb enough to bet it again on the river.

--Steve