200 SnG challenge

I've neglected SnGs and tournaments recently (blame the donks at shorthanded 25nl), and it's an area of my game I want to focus on. So, I'm gonna plough through 200 $5 SnGs as briskly as I can. Due to lack of available time I'm probably gonna aim for about five or six a day on average, thus running this for just over a month, but I don't want to set myself a specific time period to do this in as I believe that's -EV (if I feel 'rushed' at any point, for example).

I'm going to post results (whenever I can be bothered) and interesting hands here as I go. At the end I'll post comprehensive stats.

Why am I doing this?

- To gain a decentish sample size of SnGs, as I have very few in my db at the moment (I know 200 is nowhere near comprhensive though).

- To gain second (and third, fourth..) opinions on questionable hands, and hopefully identify any leaks.

- I believe posting results here for all to see may encourage me to play optimally

- To encourage others to do the same!

Anyone else in?

Sounds like fun. I just need to fit this into my plan of playing more NL... But why not. If I drop out early or don't manage to fill my quota of SnGs played, it's not like I've lost anything.

Can i ask Chris what parts of your game that these tournaments are going to improve. The reason i asked is that for the last 6 months i have only really played in sit & go,s and watched my bankroll rise and fall. I have started to only play in MTT,s now and ring games and i can say that for some reason i,m having one great time. I seem to be getting placed in almost every tournament i join and i put this down to the practise i got at the sit & go tables. looking forward to seeing just how well you do m8 and gl in your endeavours.

I'll do it - don't really have any set poker plan at the moment. I've got $100 on Party Poker from a free money bonus i'll use, but i'll do $10 - not enough money in $5 games to make it worth the time. What site are you on Chris, and what size SnG's?

Stars $5s, single-table. If I was on Party it'd be $10s too as they charge 20% rake on the $5s. ^^

I might throw in a few $10s and some games on other sites too just to try and counter boredom later on.

Incidentally, 0/3 so far. AQ < AK, flopped straight flush draw < flopped 2 pair, and 44 < A5s (I was shortstacked, but not so shortstacked as to make his call reasonable). I picked a nice time to run bad!

I'd forgotten how bad the play at some of these is.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t50 (8 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from (Format: Plain Text)

CO (t400)
Button (t1575)
SB (t1815)
BB (t2490)
UTG (t2330)
UTG+1 (t2005)
Hero (t1050)
MP2 (t1835)

Preflop: Hero is MP1 with Qd, Jd.
6 folds, SB raises to t200, BB calls t150.

Flop: (t400) Td, 8s, 5d (2 players)
SB bets t150, BB raises to t2290, SB calls t1465 (All-In). <--- he instacalled

Turn: (t4305) 7c (2 players, 1 all-in)

River: (t4305) 9h (2 players, 1 all-in)

Final Pot: t4305

Results below:
SB has Ah Ks (high card, ace).
BB has 7d 7s (three of a kind, sevens).
Outcome: BB wins t4305.

NICE CALL SIR.

One 2nd, one bubble. I'm logging results on a spreadsheet so they look pretty (there's too much red for my liking atm though )

Wow. I'm surprised competition is still pretty bad, even at $5. This is a major problem I'm facing. Do I play Sit 'n Gos or low limit rings? Either way, it seems I start pushing because of donks like these...then it all goes down hill.

I'm doin the same thing, chris (see blog )
Was trying to make it all $20 sngs, but their availability at titan is limited, so the majority of sngs i play are $10 for now.

good luck with them - i think it's gonna be a great boost for all of you who try it. SnGs are probably the most consistent way of adding to your BR.

I'll join in.
I'll 4 table the $10+1s on Party.

1) 4th
2) 5th
3) 3rd.
4) 1st.

9/10 (NL HE) and 5/10 (Limit O/8)

Out to this little doozie in the Hold em one

***** Hand History for Game 4550948194 *****
40/80 Tourney Texas Hold'em Game Table (NL) (Tournament 24999969) - Mon Jun 19 15:31:12 EDT 2006
Table Table Mountain (Real Money) -- Seat 2 is the button
Total number of players : 10
Seat 1: Mutt1020 (1720)
Seat 2: sjsbrown (2300)
Seat 3: lordsteevy (2120)
Seat 4: robhammer (2000)
Seat 5: nutjob555 (1785)
Seat 6: triggerfox (1651)
Seat 7: jsims_21 (1660)
Seat 8: txlnghrn111 (1880)
Seat 9: maverickklf (2091)
Seat 10: ROLO225 (2793)
lordsteevy posts small blind (20)
robhammer posts big blind (40)
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to robhammer [ Kh, Ks ]
nutjob555 calls (40)
triggerfox folds.
jsims_21 calls (40)
txlnghrn111 folds.
maverickklf folds.
ROLO225 raises (150) to 150
Mutt1020 folds.
sjsbrown folds.
lordsteevy folds.
robhammer raises (385) to 425
nutjob555 folds.
jsims_21 folds.
ROLO225 calls (275)
** Dealing Flop ** : [ 6h, 5d, 6s ]
robhammer bets (600)
ROLO225 calls (600)
** Dealing Turn ** : [ Td ]
robhammer bets (975)
robhammer is all-In.
ROLO225 calls (975)
** Dealing River ** : [ Ad ]
Creating Main Pot with $4100 with robhammer
** Summary **
Main Pot: 4100 |
Board: [ 6h 5d 6s Td Ad ]

Mutt1020 balance 1720, didn't bet (folded)
sjsbrown balance 2300, didn't bet (folded)
lordsteevy balance 2100, lost 20 (folded)
robhammer balance 0, lost 2000 [ Kh Ks ] [ two pairs, kings and sixes -- Ad,Kh,Ks,6h,6s ]
nutjob555 balance 1745, lost 40 (folded)
triggerfox balance 1651, didn't bet (folded)
jsims_21 balance 1620, lost 40 (folded)
txlnghrn111 balance 1880, didn't bet (folded)
maverickklf balance 2091, didn't bet (folded)
ROLO225 balance 4893, bet 2000, collected 4100, net +2100 [ As Jd ] [ two pairs, aces and sixes -- As,Ad,Jd,6h,6s ]


Didn't get one single playable hand in the O/8 - won all 3 hands I played, but ended up beaten by a total trash hand when I had almost every out imaginable. That's Party Poker cashed out and uninstalled - off to Pokerstars!

Well i'm 0 and 4 from mine, stupid idea.

3rd one at P'Stars was my own fault - had 4 to my first Royal Flush and called all in to try and get it.

4th one, played v. well, then these 2 hands consecutively;

PokerStars Game #5302266660: Tournament #26720500, $10+$1 Hold'em No Limit - Level IV (50/100) - 2006/06/19 - 17:11:21 (ET)
Table '26720500 1' 9-max Seat #4 is the button
Seat 1: robwhufc (3235 in chips)
Seat 3: snabelji (1450 in chips)
Seat 4: SirFoldALot (1525 in chips)
Seat 5: wellis (995 in chips)
Seat 6: Scha (1155 in chips)
Seat 7: ArneBjarne (1835 in chips)
Seat 8: jackcu (3305 in chips)
wellis: posts small blind 50
Scha: posts big blind 100
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to robwhufc [Js Jc]
ArneBjarne: folds
jackcu: folds
SirFoldALot said, "gl"
robwhufc: raises 200 to 300
snabelji: folds
SirFoldALot: folds
wellis: raises 400 to 700
Scha: folds
robwhufc: raises 400 to 1100
wellis: calls 295 and is all-in
*** FLOP *** [Tc 4s Ks]
*** TURN *** [Tc 4s Ks] 2♠
*** RIVER *** [Tc 4s Ks 2s] 5♠
*** SHOW DOWN ***
wellis: shows [Qs Qd] (a flush, King high)
robwhufc: shows [Js Jc] (a flush, King high - lower cards)
wellis collected 2090 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 2090 | Rake 0
Board [Tc 4s Ks 2s 5s]
Seat 1: robwhufc showed [Js Jc] and lost with a flush, King high
Seat 3: snabelji folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 4: SirFoldALot (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: wellis (small blind) showed [Qs Qd] and won (2090) with a flush, King high
Seat 6: Scha (big blind) folded before Flop
Seat 7: ArneBjarne folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 8: jackcu folded before Flop (didn't bet)

PokerStars Game #5302273842: Tournament #26720500, $10+$1 Hold'em No Limit - Level IV (50/100) - 2006/06/19 - 17:12:09 (ET)
Table '26720500 1' 9-max Seat #5 is the button
Seat 1: robwhufc (2240 in chips)
Seat 3: snabelji (1450 in chips)
Seat 4: SirFoldALot (1525 in chips)
Seat 5: wellis (2090 in chips)
Seat 6: Scha (1055 in chips)
Seat 7: ArneBjarne (1835 in chips)
Seat 8: jackcu (3305 in chips)
Scha: posts small blind 50
ArneBjarne: posts big blind 100
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to robwhufc [Kc Ks]
jackcu: folds
robwhufc: raises 200 to 300
snabelji: folds
SirFoldALot: folds
wellis: raises 400 to 700
Scha: folds
ArneBjarne: folds
robwhufc: raises 1540 to 2240 and is all-in
wellis: calls 1390 and is all-in
*** FLOP *** [6s Qc 5s]
robwhufc said, "no friggin way"
*** TURN *** [6s Qc 5s] 3♦
*** RIVER *** [6s Qc 5s 3d] 2♣
wellis said, "oops"
*** SHOW DOWN ***
robwhufc: shows [Kc Ks] (a pair of Kings)
wellis: shows [Ah Ac] (a pair of Aces)
SirFoldALot said, "brutal"
wellis collected 4330 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 4330 | Rake 0
Board [6s Qc 5s 3d 2c]
Seat 1: robwhufc showed [Kc Ks] and lost with a pair of Kings
Seat 3: snabelji folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 4: SirFoldALot folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: wellis (button) showed [Ah Ac] and won (4330) with a pair of Aces
Seat 6: Scha (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 7: ArneBjarne (big blind) folded before Flop
Seat 8: jackcu folded before Flop (didn't bet)

Kind of think i was manouvered into that one. Out 3 hands later when my KQ was called by the 5th AA i've had against me in 2 days (haven't had one myself). Oh well, always tomorrow!

To be fair, SB had a couple of good reasons to call here:

1) BBs massive overbet of the pot screams "Missed flop - please go away" here. If you actually hit a big hand here, you'd probably reraise, but not nearly as much as BB did.

2) 2 over cards gives him outs, even against the vaunted "top pair" - assuming that his opponent wasn't holding a Ace-8, in which case his call would be pretty brutal.

The turn card (after all the chips were in) makes the all-in call look much worse, however. Put an ace or a king up there, and all of a sudden it's not so donkeyish-looking a move.

I'm not saying I would have insta-called that with that hand - but with a good read on your opponent (and I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that SB wasn't bright enough to have this going for him to be able to make this call), this call is much easier to make than you would initially think.

The thing is, BB doesn't need to have hit a big hand to be way ahead. He only needs one pair, and even if BB is overbetting a draw it's probably about a coinflip. Even at the $5s, you seldom get people making a play like this with nothing at all.

Results-oriented much? Put an ace or a king up there and he's hit a 6-outer, having gone in for all his chips with most likely 6 outs (see above). If someone with 72o calls a big preflop push and the flop comes 772, does that automatically make his play good?

Even with an "Overbets with weak hands" read I can't call here, as again all villain needs is a weak made hand to have me drawing slim.

I suggest that getting too 'clingy' to big hands postflop may be a leak in your game, judging by what you've said. If you have PT, take a look at how you're playing AK/AQ postflop, because if you play as you've suggested I don't see how you can be doing anything except spewing chips.

General tournament play to be honest, considering how different it is from ring game play.

Timing of blind stealing, whether to play tight or laggy for the first few levels, how the hell to play heads up with short stacks, when to abuse the bubble etc etc.

I'd still like to know how on earth you get by on the bubble with an uber loose-passive donk with a big stack to your left though, aside from praying for cards. Say you have 10BBs, there are two other guys with roughly equal stacks, and uberdonk has you all well outchipped. What range of hands are you pushing (say from the SB if he is BB, folded to you) if you think he's calling with any paint, any mid+ suited, and any mid+ connecting? :/

And you know what, in this situation I'm laying it down almost every time, especially given this stage of the tournament. We all know that there are plenty of players out there who push the crap out of their draws, and a good player (which I've already established that the BB isn't) with good notes might be able to put SB on this type of hand.

Sometimes to beat a donkey, it helps to get inside the mind of a donkey - part of improving as a player is looking at the same hand from multiple different angles, for we all know that there is never one correct way to play a hand.

I think this is a great idea Dorkus. Since my return to poker a few weeks ago, I have played SnGs almost exclusively to try to build up an expertise there. I think it's a rewarding way to play, both bankroll and enjoyment wise. I'm also reading the Harrington books, which I find are very helpful for SnGs.

One comment I would make though: I'm not familiar with your bankroll, but I started with the $5 SnGs and I found that after a point, they started to worsen my game. I'd play what I thought was a pretty good strategy, tight early on, no bluffing, big value bets where necessary but generally not risking my chips. Then as 2-3 players got eliminated and the blinds got bigger, I'd pick my spots and steal cheaply (2x - 2.5x) to build my stack, with people respecting my raises because of my small flop %. Finally, I'd play super conservative at the bubble to make 3rd place, then switch gears again and go maniacal once it's down to 3.

I found it to be an effective strategy, but the problem is that it didn't pay off quite as well as it should have because there were basically too many random players skewing the results. I'd get 3-4 callers on my big bets holding AKs, players who weren't paying attention and so my gear shifts were totally unnoticed, etc. And yeah, in the long run this can work out well, but in the short run it meant I had to limit my arsenal rather than building it out. It also made the swings, even at the $5 game, bigger, as I'd commonly see my KK bust me out early, often to A-low.

I grew frustrated, and tried all kinds of higher limits, including a few where I should never have treaded (they read my moves alright, but then proceeded to play me like a fiddle). I have found I'm most comfortable in the $10-20 buy-in range. It's a slightly bigger chunk of my bankroll than I usually favour, but my games have been more enjoyable, I have learned and applied more, and my results and ROI have been modestly better.

Just a thought...

I will also add: in addition to your ROI calc, I also kept tabs on my ITM stat and my 4th place stat. I found those 3 combined told me how well I was playing (I took it further and calculated my % finishes at every level, then charted them, but I am an Excel geek).

I think these 3 stats best represent SnG success. There are different ways to be a profitable SnG player (basically lots of ITM finishes but mostly 3rds or fewer but more 1sts), but they'll all get captured this way. And 4th place finishes is something good to track too, ideally it should be your least common finish (below 8% or so).

For what it's worth, after about 300 games over the past month at Stars at the $6 9-player level, my ROI was about 8% with a 40% money finish. Reasonable results, heavy on the 3rd place, and probably not helped by my penchant for turbos and 3-tabling!

I would disagree.

On most occasions on the bubble people are playing tightly, and thus the bubble is a great time to accumulate chips. With this of course comes the danger of bubbling, but the flipside is that should you get ITM, you will have a bigger stack to push around with. I'd gladly take a few more 4ths if by my bubble play it also meant gaining a few 1sts. It's obviously not as important as in big MTTs with hugely skewered payout structures, but bubble abuse is still a big part of the SnG game.

ITM% is unimportant to me. As long as I profit I don't particularly care whether that profit comes from mainly winning 1 in 4, or mainly finishing third in 2 out of every 3.

I don't really care about 4th-9th either, so I group them as "X", as whether you finish 4th or 9th your loss is the same.

One of my personal rules I have written down is never to play turbos. In my eyes, they are tournaments that are more geared towards taking lots of risks and having to deal with too many marginal all ins (and thus needing to get lucky to do well) rather than using your skill to outplay your opponents in the normal 10 min blind tourneys.
just my 2c

nice posts beriac

Hi ChuckTs

I play turbos for 2 reasons, 1 legitimate and 1 not:

1 - I often don't have time to play full length SnGs, and/or want to get more in to reduce my variance. This is basically impatience and is my illegitimate reason.

2 - I believe that my "low M" game (when there are less players, the blinds are higher, and survival is the order of the game) play is better than most of the people at that level. When to steal, when to push, when to call, etc. This I believe is my legitimate reason.

But I ought to consider a switch to non-turbo, I recognize.

However, I might say the same about your penchant for 6-player. At a full 9- or 10-player table, with a bit of patience 2-3 noobs will knock themselves out and pay everyone else's rake and then some. Patience almost ensures profitable play. However, I find that in 6-player my swings have been much wilder. I got into the 6-player SnGs when I played Titan but have since had to force myself back to full tables.

If anyone could make a serious case for switching to non-turbo in light of my points, I would consider it!

I personally haven't found a way to consistently beat turbos at the level I beat normal speed sngs, but if you feel you can make a profit from them, then all the power to you! I'm sure there is a way to get your full edge to work for you in turbos, I just haven't found it yet for myself.

This is how I see it, correct me if I'm wrong: Low M-style games are often found at the end of sngs. In 6-handers, you at least get the chance to set a table image, and when in those low-M stages of the game, people will fold to your steals because you've had the chance to advertise that you are a tight player.
In turbos however, you all but start off in a low M game. That way, you get no chance of advertising a playing style, and you've got to play a blind-stealing game from the get-go. People are much more likely to call you, as they won't see you as a tight player, and thus your steal attempts won't work aswell. Basically you have to gamble, and thus decrease your usage of your skill edge. Like I said, this is just the way I see it - and is also why I don't play turbos; I like to set a super-tight table image.

sorry i'm kind of rushing - have to run off to work, I hope that my post makes sense

I totally get what you're saying, ChuckTs, but I'm not sure if I agree or not. I agree with everything (end of SnGs have a low M, you need to create a tight image to take advantage, and in a short table non-turbo you have time to do it) except the argument that you start at low M in a turbo.

In a Stars turbo, you start with 1,500 chips and at level 1 the blinds are 10/20, for an M of 50. M drops to 33 at level 2 and 20 at level 3 (still green zone, and this assumes no one so much as wins or loses a chip... if a couple of donks go all in and lose and their chips get spread around, M can keep pace). Then it starts to drop real fast. At level 4, we're at M=10, and so on.

Granted, you don't have a lot of time to work with at high M, but I tend to fold all but 1-2 hands the first 4 times around the table, which people seem to remember at least sometimes.

Point well taken that all other things equal, it's harder to create a tight table image with less time per level. I wonder what the impact of fewer players is...

At a couple of other forums I post at, most players there swore up and down that you had to play fast and loose early in order to accumulate chips - while I agree that accumulating chips is always a goal in any tournament, playing solid poker (albeit in fewer hands) is still better strategy than playing reckless poker. I consider myself a tight-aggressive player - although when we get down to 3 or less I tend to become hyper-aggressive.

Here's the biggest differences I've seen in Turbos vs. Regular SnGs:

Big hands tend to get paid off more in Turbos, and players move all-in much quicker.

That's it - Turbos are the only SnGs I bother to play anymore, because i can play more tourneys, and because I've been profitable at those for 6 months now.

well IMO, the biggest thing is that you're supposed to play looser in order to adjust to the blinds hitting you more frequently, and most people who play them do.
Similar to Turbos, but the dif. being that in turbos the blinds raise more quickly. There is a difference.
The difference between turbos and 6-handed sngs is that generally the blinds get so high so quickly in turbos that the 'gambling' that happens is usually an all in, instead of the 'gambling' that happens in slower paced games, where a player might gamble and see a flop, as opposed to risk all of his chips.
I like to be able to use my tight image to raise with marginal hands late in the tourney without having to call an all in, or even to get too pot committed with say a KT if someone calls my raise.

To illustrate what I mean (sorry, I sometimes have trouble getting my points across) say in a normal turbo, you're playing tight for the first 20 minutes, and have played say one hand in which you took a small pot down.
So blinds are at say 30/60 and two people have busted.
Now it's time to get aggressive, but you have to do it with marginal hands (KT, A7, QJ type hands). So you start raising the normal 3BBs or 4BBs, to steal blinds (only 90 chips in total).
You'd be doing the same thing with a normal-paced game, but say if the bigstack, not giving a hoot about 180 chips, calls you and leads out on the flop when you miss. You have to fold, and now you're getting shorter and shorter on chips.
In a turbo (again, at least in my experiences), you basically get stuck here and are forced to wait for a premium hand because you don't want one of the big stacks either calling you and doing what he did before again, or putting you all in when you hold say a marginal 44 or K9.
This is where I prefer the normal-paced games. You're given time to recoup your losses and come back to start getting aggressive again, and dominating the table.

later edited in:
The obvious difference with the two is that you are given ample time in the regular-paced games as opposed to the very fast-paced turbos. This allows for one big advantage with normal sngs: you are given plenty of time to adjust your game and wait for decent hands if you have been having a bad run of cards. In a recent $20 sng i played, i literally did not see a hand better than AT, the next on the list being 77, and lost both hands. I still had enough time to steal blinds and recoup my losses to take myself to 2nd place, though 1st was well in my grasp - it was my poor heads up play that led me to second place.

I'm also curious - what are your thoughts on turbo MTTs, if you play them Beriac?

I'd also add (as i just stated) that it is also MUCH harder to come back from a shortstack in turbos, and that you do make a good point.


p.s. sorry to hijack the thread, Dorkus it's just that i think we got a nice debate goin on here

Likewise apologies Dorkus, didn't mean to hijack.

Anyway... You make very good points ChuckTs. When you get short-stacked in a turbo, you're kind of screwed (or at least need some luck), whereas some patient play could more likely save you in a normal game, either cause you can wait for good cards or you'd be more likely to survive in time for maniacs to know themselves out.

I suppose if I break it down, the reason I have had success playing turbos is:

(1) Everyone else knows the blinds are going up too, and they do some crazy things as a result. Even though you can't be as patient in a normal game, you can still be relatively tighter than your table-mates.
(2) I figure the turbos are where the really impatient people play. I often see some idiot go all in first hand with crap. I rarely call something like that early on without aces, but even if someone else wins the chips it still knocks a guy out and splits a 9-man pot among 8.

Maybe the results are more random in turbos, but I still think you can outperform.

I think the question of short- vs. full-table and turbo vs. normal are 2 separate questions.

I've played turbo and non-turbo MTTs, and I find the same is true: you obviously have to be less picky in a turbo MTT, but what's crazy is how the others at the table become even more loose than you. So I've enjoyed turbo MTTs, I recently won a 45-person 5-table SnG/MTT, and I've placed well in bigger ones as well.

I played a pair of turbo 9-person SnGs last night and won both of them without seeing a pair above 9's and only 1 AK between 'em, so it doesn't purely come down to your hole cards...

Hijack away, it's a very interesting read.

One point which I don't think anyone has touched on is that you don't necessarily need to have as high an ROI at the turbos as at the 'standard' SnGs in order for them to be more profitable in terms of $/hr. Say the average turbo takes 2/3 of the time of a standard SnG, well even if you have an ROI for turbos that is less than your ROI for the standards, as long as it's more than 2/3rds then your winrate is actually better.

The slight tradeoff comes with the larger role luck has to play in the turbos, but as Beriac has touched on there are ways to somewhat counteract this, and the incredibly donkish play you get at many turbos makes up for it anyway.

That said, I'm playing the standard ones. A 200 turbo challenge might follow, but we'll have to see.

Played only 3 today cos of the footy - 1 win, 2 no places (featuring me horribly overplaying 66 while on sort-of-tilt after KK loses to 88, and a standard coinflip loss on the bubble). Interesting point of the day was one of the SnGs still being 9 handed at 75/150, and 8 handed at the end of 100/200 (iirc that's the one I won, too, despite having no real clue how to play at a full table with such short stacks - i knew enough to know that the people still limping for 1/6th of their stacks or something silly were idiots though ).

Chris's super hand of the day that makes absolutely no sense without telling you of reads (I'm not a calling station, honest guv!).

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t200 (2 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from (Format: Plain Text)

Hero (t6604)
BB (t6896)

Preflop: Hero is Button with 2s, Js.
Hero calls t100, BB raises to t600, Hero calls t400.

Flop: (t1125) 2c, 4d, 8h (2 players)
BB bets t600, Hero raises to t1800, BB calls t1200.

Turn: (t4725) 7h (2 players)
BB bets t800, Hero calls t800.

River: (t6325) 5h (2 players)
BB bets t1200, Hero calls t1200.

Final Pot: t8725

yeah, very strange play....curious what the hell he had :P

I actually just finished one of the most memorable, and toughest SnGs in the challenge so far...actually in my history of sngs tbh.

final 3 started off with blinds at 30/60 i think, and went all the way to 200/400. I think there were a total of 2 or 3 called all ins the whole time, and every time the shortstack took it down. I at one point was beat in a hand down to 340 chips with blinds at 340. I was on the button, and had to fold a 74, then got lucky on the BB, SB and the next hand aswell to come back to the chiplead (!)
anyways long story short, the worst of the three of us (who was still pretty solid) finally bubbled the other player who was probably a little better than me, and ended up beating me heads up.
longest damn 3-handed session i've ever had.

Seat 3: Qhr1s (button) (small blind) showed [2s Js] and won (8850) with a pair of Deuces
Seat 9: hand4hire (big blind) showed [9c Tc] and lost with high card Ten

I typed "thou shalt not bluff" in the chat immediately after.

loool
sure, i get his pf raise, then flop c-bet....but then call your raise and keep bluffing? hah
jeez