On the subject of "sitting out" during tournament play.

[Jack Daniels]

If you can fold your way into the money, more power to you.

What about live play? If you were in the Main Event and seated with Phil Hellmuth (who paid for his buy-in), would you insist that his seat be forfeited when he didn't show up for the first two levels on day one? His chips are there and being blinded away, but he's essentially sitting out. Thoughts?

 

[Insomniac_1006]

What about live play? If you were in the Main Event and seated with Phil Hellmuth (who paid for his buy-in), would you insist that his seat be forfeited when he didn't show up for the first two levels on day one? His chips are there and being blinded away, but he's essentially sitting out. Thoughts?

I think you're barking up the wrong tree, I never said to kick out post and folders. I like to take their blinds. (see my post @5:03 p.m.) It is just not a stratagy that I care to use for myself, but give me another year and I might get there:dontknow: .

If it's in the rules it is a valid strategy to use.

 

[Jack Daniels]

I never said to kick out post and folders.

True, you didn't say that. Though I still don't truly seem to understand how autofolding from a sitout is totally different than manually folding everyhand.

 

[Insomniac_1006]

Okay. That's all I've got, my defense rests.

Cheers

 

[mendozaline]

True, you didn't say that. Though I still don't truly seem to understand how autofolding from a sitout is totally different than manually folding everyhand.

Jack, let me try since I started this mess. (Although it has been a lively debate).

I tend to agree with Insomniac_1006 and can say that he basically caught my main point.

The "sitouts" aren't doing anything illegal. No one is saying they are. You should have heard the support team at pokerstars. They were adamantly supporting any player's right to sitout, and basically saying the same thing you are.

But to me, and maybe to Insomniac and others, the difference is that they are not actually playing poker in the strictest sense of the word. True, it amounts to the same thing as physically sitting there looking at your cards, and coming to the decision that they are going to fold, based on some poker theory that they're operating under. And doing that every single hand you play in, until you get to the point you want to get to.

But their only theory in this case, is if I don't do anything to screw it up, I might make it into the money. Not that that's much different than what I do when my stack size is big enough according to certain rules I use, it's just that in one case you're evalutating each hand in real time to according to some method, whereas in the other case, you're saying, I'm just not going to play the hands, because doing nothing (including presumably looking at your cards) is only going to help me, seems a little absurd on the face of it.

Add to that the fact that the sitters-out are kind of cluttering up the tables, and that's basically the objection. It stikes me more as "gaming the system" than finding a viable "poker strategy".

As long as it's in the rules, people are going to do it, but I can't help wondering if it's good or bad for poker.

 

[pigpen02]

Although I like to play against sitouts, I never do it myself. Perhaps, as DaFrench points out, I should do it some. There is one tournament I played a day or so ago that I would have possibly placed in the "top 5 get tickets" instead of sixth had I sat out when I was ahead. As to "gaming the system" more than finding a viable "poker strategy", there is no difference. It is like par on a golf course. If there are 50% sitters in a tournament, and at any point you have significantly fewer chips than them, you need to take a hard look at your game. In huge freerolls, the cloud of sitters does not make it to the money. However, LOTS of people bust out before the cloud is blinded away.

I understand your (and others) frustration at having to play and not know how many active players are at a table. It especially ticks me off to have the sitters NOT on my left. Then someone else is picking off the easy blinds and building their stack. If I have two immediately to my left, YAAAAA! MY FREE BLINDS!

 

[bornstuck]

silly to the author of this article.... sitting out in a tournament is just the equivalent of folding every hand that you getting. is it not?

 

[bobban147]

i only sit out in these situations...

2000 players... top 100 players....

or say the average stack is say 10000, and ur holding 25k+, take a break. refresh your mind and come back strong when average catches up...

orrrrr, keep an eye, tighten up significantly, dont play anything but AA, KK, AK, and something you realy love ...

 

[mendozaline]

I understand your (and others) frustration at having to play and not know how many active players are at a table.

You bring up a good point. All the proponents of sitting out as a tactic keep saying it's the same thing as sitting there, looking at your cards, and choosing to fold. But is it?

I tried it for awhile last night in the 10,000 players Hubble Freeroll on PokerStars (finished 190th). I was curious about whether or not I could see the cards I was being dealt, and jump in (sit-in) in time if i liked the cards, and found that you can.

Ok, so what does that mean? Suppose there are four players sitting out. Does that mean I'm playing with 5 total, counting myself or 9? My methods require me to know the answer to that question. So, which is it?

Well, if they aren't looking at their cards, and they are automatically being folded, for all intents and purposes, I can consider those cards "unseen" as if they were still in the deck, and say that I'm playing with 5 total. Fair enough.

But if they're really looking at the cards, and silently deciding to let the software fold for them, {added: or jump in if they like the cards} then I could really be playing with 9 players. There's no way to really know. How important is it?

Suppose I'm in the cutoff, and with 9 players and my stack size I would take a certain action with 99 or better, AK suited or unsuited. But with 5 players, in the same position and stack size I would take that same action with 66 or better, AQ suited or unsuited, and ATs or better.

Say I get 66s and take that action, and lose to 77s. Then not nowing the actual number of players who are looking at cards and making decisions affected the outcome of a hand I played in a real way.

Farfetched? Maybe.

 

[rainsoaked]

But wait a minute...........if 9 players are being dealt cards, it's a 9-handed table whether they all look at their cards or not. Oh, I think I see. If you were certain the sit-outs were actually sitting out and would auto-fold, you'd play a wider range and consider it short-handed?

But it's still full-ring being dealt so I'm not sure how the scenario described above would work.

I just bet into sit-outs when the opportunity presents itself and keep doing it until they either blind out or play back.

 

[mendozaline]

Oh, I think I see. If you were certain the sit-outs were actually sitting out and would auto-fold, you'd play a wider range and consider it short-handed?

Exactly! It's not how many cards are being dealt out that's the issue. It's the number of pairs of cards that are being looked at with the intention of playing if they are good cards (or in some cases even if they are bad cards, as you all well know).:deal:

If you have AA, and you're in a showdown with one other player, your odds are about 88% chance to win.

In that same showdown with a full donk ring of 9 other players, your odds of winning are only about 38%.

So, it's crucial to know how many people are looking at their cards and deciding whether or not to play. If they looked at them, and let them pass, we can maybe assume they don't have AA or whatever (I'm speaking in generalities, but you get the idea). If they didn't look at them, then we can assume they're still in the deck.

 

[Jack Daniels]

If they didn't look at them, then we can assume they're still in the deck.

This is slightly flawed theory. In poker, ALL cards are considered to be unseen and still in the deck UNLESS they have actually been seen. For example, at a table with nine players, after the initial deal, you hold KcKh. Now the eight other players each have two cards as well. But even so, for purposes of calculation, there are currently 50 unseen cards available. Flop comes out with any three cards on it. There are 47 unseen cards. Who acts how is irrelevant to how many unseen cards are there. You don't get to claim you have a better chance of hitting an ace because a bunch of players folded therefore it's more likely that aces are left to be dealt.

 

[spals]

In freerolls I will lay low for the first 10-30 minutes, even sitting out sometimes. I have found that there are less donks calling your pre-flop raises if you sit out for a bit.

 

[Flops'm&Bets'm]

Sit outs are valid in live play, Ultimatebet is actually the abnormality.

I have to Agree on many points concerning 'Sit-Out's'...

And Freerolls are the main-stay of the Sit-Out realm.
Sit&Go's they will happen in smaller fields.

I have noticed certain European Regions, I won't say which, but it appears from my notes.
This is the strategy based on the Math of the matter.
# of Orbits minus # of Blinds contributed to the relative Stack of Reason to 'Sit'..and how many Blind sets can I pay and still finish ITM??

So if you are sitting on a M20 BB level, how many people are presumably going to be out before you have to actually play some more cards.?..
And in what time frame..?? 15 min. 1/2 Hr. - 45 mins.??

The strategy I have noticed is maniac play Shoving All-In with good hands, Stealing Blinds, Buying Pots, and suckering someone to call out of frustration. THEN acquiring a triple up in Chips (say) then sitting out..3 levels of blinds which does not even put a small dent in a 4500 Chip stack.
Which equals to 45 min. of play and roughly 3-4 orbits per level.

So from Level I-IV..you would lose 1200 in Chips if you sat out and played not a single hand (@ 4 orbits per level) On PokerStars.

Try it in FreeChip Play and experiment...9/18/45 player Sit & Go's

I seems to be an anomaly Only at PokerStars. I have realized to some extent that players that are sitting out will do it for various reasons. Those being..

• 1-2 players at the table are Hyper-Agressive Maniacs by stealing blinds and buying Pots.
• They are Multi-Tabling and play only 'select' Hands
• They have accumilated enough of a stack to get ITM
• They are only interested on small ROI and TLB points and achieve the FPP points to get to a desired level.
• Legitimate reasons (Emergencies, Family Issues, lapse in Time management)
• Wait out the Donkeys to actually play a solid game.

The thing that is frustrating about sitters in general, is out of 9 players at a certain table and there are 4-5 playing, makes it a daunting task to build a reputable stack, without actually trading chips back and forth, and accumilating eventual blinds of the sitters as the small consolation.
By Playing Agressive enough to knock out some live players in the hopes of getting moved to an 'Action' table

Getting moved is good and bad, as being at a passive table and accumilating a small but steady stack..while moving to a table that is extremely LAG and 3-4 are always in the action raising up the pots to levels that are 'Bullied' around. Then you wind up being a rock..and may as well sit, or get pot committed! As the agressors will have 20BB Stacks over you.

It is good as some have mentioned to have sitters on your left, as many times you will get a walk on your BB, and get BB/SB in one 'Call'.

Players that Sit Out in General have little discipline to 'FOLD' and once they have accumilated enough mathematically to get ITM, they call it a game. Their Play is weak and they rely on luck more than skill to go 'Deep' in a MTT so out of intimidation they 'Sit Out'.

It is a Strategy none the less, and as frustrating as it seems more sitters = higher range of playable hands and better pot odds.

~Be aware of the Monster Stacks that sneak to your table and suddenly join in~

 

[mendozaline]

You don't get to claim you have a better chance of hitting an ace because a bunch of players folded therefore it's more likely that aces are left to be dealt.

I don't think that's quite what I'm saying, because I agree with this statement. What I'm saying is that if that bunch of players didn't even look at their cards, than that is no different to me than if they were still in the deck. If they did look and folded, then I agree with you.

That's kind of the whole point I'm making.

 

[111-THEMAD-111]

My brain hurts................

 

[pigpen02]

I don't think that's quite what I'm saying, because I agree with this statement. What I'm saying is that if that bunch of players didn't even look at their cards, than that is no different to me than if they were still in the deck. If they did look and folded, then I agree with you.

That's kind of the whole point I'm making.

Jack said if they did or didn't look, the cards are concidered in the deck because they haven't been seen by you. If you are basing odds on fold action, that is generally wrong.

 

[shinedown.45]

I thought this might be a good place to find out what others think about "sitting out" during tournaments. Now, I'm not talking about sitting out for 3 minutes to go do whatever, I'm talking about sitting out for long periods of time, or sitting out in a Sit n Go, when it's almost down to the final table, or at the final table for a long time.

I've been playing mostly at Ultimatebet.com, and I rarely if ever saw anyone sit out for a long time, but recently I started to play some big tournaments and Sit n Gos at PokerStars, and sitting out runs rampant over there.

To say that it is bizarre, is an understatement. Yesterday, when we went to the final table of a 30 player Sit n Go, a full 4 guys were sitting out. Now, this whole tourney only took about 30 minutes, so where the hell were these guys and what were they doing.

The support team at PokerStars adamantly supports the right to sit out the whole tournament, but I'm just not buying it. Why join a 30 minute tourney, if you're going to sit out?

According to the support team, it's not an advantageous strategy, and I can see that point on a 5000 to 10000 player tourney, where you have to amass 100s of thousands of chips to place in the money, but I'm not buying it totally.

For instance, if you sit out for the first half hour, 2000 people will have busted out already, and you really won't be at that much of a disadvantage chipwise with the leaders yet.

Or, how about the guy who sits out on "the bubble" while others play?

I will be very interested to hear what others think about this.

Oh yeah, and if it's so natural a thing to do, like they are telling me, why don't we see that at Ultimatebet.com?

I see it all the time, mostly from those who do not have confidence in their skills to hold the chip lead that they have and decide to sit out to make the bubble or move up a spot on the pay ladder by letting the others knock eachother out.
As for any problems I have against sitouts.......none that i can think of.

 

[USFDoh]

I love sitters. In the couple of Iron Man (Silver and Bronze) freerolls that I played on Tilt, I've been at tables with at least 4-5 sitters. Easy money.

As a note, in the Bronze one at least 45 "sitters" made the money.

 

[mendozaline]

I have to Agree on many points concerning 'Sit-Out's'...

...........~Be aware of the Monster Stacks that sneak to your table and suddenly join in~

Flops, this was a great post. I had a feeling something like this was going on, the first time I saw a table full of sitouts.

By the way, can you elaborate on this last sentence? How can someone "sneak" to your table? Aren't they moved there by the program?

 

[mendozaline]

Jack said if they did or didn't look, the cards are concidered in the deck because they haven't been seen by you. If you are basing odds on fold action, that is generally wrong.

pigpen, I don't want to beat a dead horse and start pissing people off, but there's a slight subtlety to what I'm saying, that I don't think is being grasped.

I'm not really talking about "basing odds on fold action". I agree with you and Jack on that issue. What I'm talking about is the fact that I'll use different rules (play different cards) depending upon how many opponents I'm up against. It's dynamic and requires alot of thought (for me) on my part. In other words, it's not easy for me to keep sliding the scale of the cards I'll play, when I'm never really sure how many people I'm playing against. It's almost as if I have to generalize my rules somewhat (i.e., I'm forced out of my game) because of the fact that the sitouts can jump in anytime depending upon whether or not they like the cards.

This, of course, is assuming that a sitout is sitting there looking at the cards he's dealt, and then deciding whether or not to jump in. I may have just considered him as "out" a second ago, but then when I looked down at my cards, he snuck back in. Next thing I know he's playing AA against me, and a second ago, I didn't even think he was in.

I'm a little surprised no one else has come to the conclusion I have, but maybe it's not so critical to most players. Maybe most good players are not quite so formulaic (sp?) as I am and don't really care if they're up against 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9.

Let me put it this way, by posing a question. Suppose there were 9 hands being dealt at a table (2 cards each face down), but only 5 people sitting there. (The other four players were physically in another room.) Also, suppose you played different starting hands for 5 players, then you did for 9. Which would you play, the 5 players starting hands, or the 9 player starting hands?

Answer that question, and we can put this to rest.

 

[mendozaline]

Ok, here's a quote from a response I got from ultimatebet.com's support team:

Rest assured that, the moment players sit out, by no means will they be able to see the cards that would have been dealt to them. Thus, no "jumping in" is possible at UltimateBet.Com.

That's it in a nutshell. At PokerStars you do see the cards when you're sitting out, and can jump in if you like them. And they think it's ok.

 

[phatjose]

I play at UB semi regularly, and you definitely CAN jump back in if you see your hand before it is auto folded, as I will routinely run into this after I get up to use the bathroom or get a drink or something.

 

[arahel_jazz]

On all three sites I play on, (FTP, bodog, Ultimatebet) you can jump-in after the cards are delt (if you are quick enough and not UTG).

However, one significant difference is that on Full-Tilt, you are really check-folded out - I've actually won a hand at the high blinds when somebody limped and checked to the button.

On Bodog - your blind is automatically folded if one person at the table limps.

I'm not sure about Ultimate Bet - that interface sucks anyway.

 

[111-THEMAD-111]

This was a lively subject but I feel your trying to out think it. If you have a bunch of people sitting out and you are just trying to snag there blinds go with a minimum bet and if they happen to pop in play your hand or fold. No big deal.