Collin Moshman - Sit 'n Go Strategy study group

[MiguelC18]

I'm in too.

My opinion on this question: 9 man vs. 10 man will be a very small, almost unnoticeable adjustment. 2000 chips vs. 1500 chips will be a small adjustment. 2000 chips vs. 1000 chips will be an adjustment, the principles still apply but you'll really need to take down the early pots you play in, or you'll enter push/fold mode too far from the bubble. 500 chips vs. 2000 chips will be a significant adjustment. The whole tourney will essentially be push/fold and as such the value of winning the blinds in the earliest levels is rarely worth risking your whole stack. The value of winning the blinds in the later stages is monumental.

6max is a whole different game, and while some of the basic principles still apply everything needs to be re-worked, the payouts are different, the aggression is different, the opening requirements are different, the players who choose to play are different.

thanks for the details, I totally agree. not so experienced player here, ready to learn.

I study Moshman book now, and I'm willing to discuss both points that I don't understand well and those what I think I understand.

I am not sure though, that it is practical to play our training sessions in special place where only members will play.
1) we are not so many, it'll be hard to coordinate time and place
2) we need "ordinary" players too to master Moshman strategy

I think, we could make some list of torneys where we can meet to practice together with every other folks and then share our hand histories.

I am playing at FTP and FullFlush.
MTT freerolls on both sites and SnG STT full ring 0.5$ at FTP.

I agree with you here, I would be interested in something like this. I have not read the book yet but sharing hand histories and looking over how strategy applied relates to the strategy we are learning makes sense. Not sure how we can work it out, but it would be nice.

 

[pcgnome]

They are in Europe right now - but I am sure at some point one of them would drop by to post in this thread.

Oh yeah...I've seen some of the pictures on FB. I've skimmed through the book a few times, and I would be interested if I have the time.

 

[WiZZiM]

Havent ever read it. But comes highly recommended by quite a few players..

The only thing I have to say is that once you learn all the information remember that most good players now also know the same information. So try to find ways to use that against them especially around the bubble

 

[basse]

Havent ever read it. But comes highly recommended by quite a few players..

The only thing I have to say is that once you learn all the information remember that most good players now also know the same information. So try to find ways to use that against them especially around the bubble

Yeah, I agree. But for me, that is the next level. Currently I need to learn more basic concepts first.

 

[WiZZiM]

Yeah, I agree. But for me, that is the next level. Currently I need to learn more basic concepts first.

Oh yah dont get me wrong basics are very important. But the number 1 thing I see potential good thinking players do is become restricted by the rules of icm.

A lot of icm is just common sense. So where possible simplify things to make it easier to use in game.

 

[basse]

Alright, I'm gonna try to give my understanding/view of the first sections of Part One.

Part One, Low Blinds: Introduction, Critical Concepts

The introduction starts out by pointing out how cEV is not the same as $EV, and that earning more chips has diminishing returns, while your own chips become worth more the less you have of them.

The first part to the "Critical Concepts" section expands on this, talking about tournament equity, and gives an example of two players going all-in, and how part of their tournament equity is distributed to the remaining players, rather than all being won by the winner.

Pot odds are then introduced: Having X to 1 odds in a pot where it cost you y to call means that if you win, you get back x = X * y. A bunch of examples are given, for example, even with only 2 outs, getting 26 to 1 pot odds means that you should be calling against a single opponent. Similarly, how to calculate cEV is explained: Say your pot odds are X to 1 again, and it costs you y to call, then cEV = probability of winning * X * y - probability of losing * y.

Finally, the aggression principle is introduced: Being the better/raiser is better than being the caller, due to the potential for your opponent(s) to fold when you are the aggressor. Apparently David Sklansky dubbed this the gap concept.

Questions

• Tight-aggressive: Based on how it is discussed in the book, it seems that one's early goal (until becoming a "solid professional" ) should be to adopt a tight-aggressive style?
• Pot odds: The author claims that pot odds are the most important concept in determining whether to call a bet. Based on tournament equity, it seem that one should really be using ICM-based odds. So, do people just use pot odds, and require slightly better pot odds if they have a larger stack relative to the total number of chips?
• Hypothetical example that I am curious about: 5 players already called the BB preflop, and you are the SB. This means 12 (5 calls + BB player) to 1 pot odds for calling. What kind of hands do you call with in this situation? What kind of hands do you raise with?

 

[or3o1990]

Great idea! I've got the book and I skim through the bubble play every now and again. Rereading the whole thing couldn't hurt though! A couple things I have to say about the book.. It definitely is a great read and fundamental to beating sng's but I find that a lot of what's in the book doesn't apply at low stakes imo. It teaches a lot of aggression at the bubble but people call way, way to wide at the $15 level. Idk if it's because everyone has read this book, or because there's to many gambly fish! Just my opinion, either way I'm subscribed!

 

[or3o1990]

Questions

• Tight-aggressive: Based on how it is discussed in the book, it seems that one's early goal (until becoming a "solid professional" ) should be to adopt a tight-aggressive style?
• Pot odds: The author claims that pot odds are the most important concept in determining whether to call a bet. Based on tournament equity, it seem that one should really be using ICM-based odds. So, do people just use pot odds, and require slightly better pot odds if they have a larger stack relative to the total number of chips?
• Hypothetical example that I am curious about: 5 players already called the BB preflop, and you are the SB. This means 12 (5 calls + BB player) to 1 pot odds for calling. What kind of hands do you call with in this situation? What kind of hands do you raise with?

I defintely play a tight agressive style very early on. I only play premium hands but that's not how everyone plays. I see alot of mid suited connectors showing up against my raises and c bets.

I use pot odds definitely but also implied odds. I'm more open to limping low pocket pairs when in position.

When the blinds are low I'll occasionally limp pretty weak connectors from the sb as well as good suited connectors and mid pocket pairs. With the intention of abandoning them unless they turn into a monster. I'm not a fan of raising here without a very premium hand like JJ or better. At the table I play you've got to be ready to flip a lot of the time if you open the pot back up here.

 

[floweryhead]

Fair enough everyone's comments on my idea. I didn't think about it that way, and you're all right, it would be self defeating setting the strategy against itself. It's a shame we don't have access to a live training tool with a replayer. It'd be good to run through a sng and have a live chat debate about it...

On another note, Amazon have emailed me telling me the book is on it's way... so it could come tomorrow or in a month... I shall have to await and see

 

[basse]

Fair enough everyone's comments on my idea. I didn't think about it that way, and you're all right, it would be self defeating setting the strategy against itself. It's a shame we don't have access to a live training tool with a replayer. It'd be good to run through a sng and have a live chat debate about it...

On another note, Amazon have emailed me telling me the book is on it's way... so it could come tomorrow or in a month... I shall have to await and see

What we could do instead is share hand histories from SNGs in this thread and discuss them. I'm often hesitant to share in the actual hand histories subforum, since I only play freerolls and play money right now, and people seem to not want to see those. Further, there seems to be a desire for "interesting" hands, meaning complex post-flop decisions. In this thread, I would suggest that ANY hand goes. E.g. if somebody wants to post their preflop pocket aces hand to talk about how to play it, then that's totally fine here.

 

[Jacki Burkhart]

Fair enough everyone's comments on my idea. I didn't think about it that way, and you're all right, it would be self defeating setting the strategy against itself. It's a shame we don't have access to a live training tool with a replayer. It'd be good to run through a sng and have a live chat debate about it...

On another note, Amazon have emailed me telling me the book is on it's way... so it could come tomorrow or in a month... I shall have to await and see

We could rail eachother? I play a lot of SnGs on carbon...

 

[basse]

I defintely play a tight agressive style very early on. I only play premium hands but that's not how everyone plays. I see alot of mid suited connectors showing up against my raises and c bets.

I use pot odds definitely but also implied odds. I'm more open to limping low pocket pairs when in position.

When the blinds are low I'll occasionally limp pretty weak connectors from the sb as well as good suited connectors and mid pocket pairs. With the intention of abandoning them unless they turn into a monster. I'm not a fan of raising here without a very premium hand like JJ or better. At the table I play you've got to be ready to flip a lot of the time if you open the pot back up here.

Thanks for comments! I'm still at a stage where I do a pretty bad job even playing correctly according to pot odds versus outs, I haven't really started incorporating implies odds into my thinking as much. I have been tried to implement it to some extent when reasoning about drawing hands like 98s and such, but it's not clear to me how successful that has been so far.

I've been trying out limping with a fairly wide selection of pairs recently. If there has been no raising, but a fair amount of limping, I would probably limp with deuces. Is this wrong, in you guys' opinion? At what position do you think this is okay?

 

[intents09]

Questions

• Tight-aggressive: Based on how it is discussed in the book, it seems that one's early goal (until becoming a "solid professional" ) should be to adopt a tight-aggressive style?
• Pot odds: The author claims that pot odds are the most important concept in determining whether to call a bet. Based on tournament equity, it seem that one should really be using ICM-based odds. So, do people just use pot odds, and require slightly better pot odds if they have a larger stack relative to the total number of chips?
• Hypothetical example that I am curious about: 5 players already called the BB preflop, and you are the SB. This means 12 (5 calls + BB player) to 1 pot odds for calling. What kind of hands do you call with in this situation? What kind of hands do you raise with?

[/quote]

Yeah for now the author has explained a very basic but tried and true strategy. Especially in micro stakes there are often times where 3 people leave a sit n go within the first 5-10 minutes. By playing a TAG style, you will be watching that happen or taking those players out more often.

As for question 2, I'm a bit unsure of a solid answer. Would like to see some other responses. I don't consciously have many scenarios in memory where I was calculating pot odds in a sng. If I have 2-3 starting stacks I'm really not concerned much with anything but attacking blinds and waiting for spots we both hit.

I play tighter in this spot than many others, I understand raising thins the field but depending the stakes you're playing it doesn't always, and then it's a big pot going into the flop that will most likely be active and if you've missed completely the raise is wasted. So only raising fairly strong, maybe 99-JJ+ and AQs+. Calling can be much wider a range as it's half a bet. I'll call with almost anything here but the obvious trash like 93, 92, 72, 82, etc. If I'm in any way connected I'll see it and if suited even better. A lot depends on my stack and the field though. In a sng, as a short stack, with say 4-5 left, I'm rarely ever just calling here as wide. I'm hoping to have a push hand here if I'm doing anything. Call hands would now be suited connectors or 9T, TJ, JQ os's and up. Something not bad but not comfortable pushing right here with. If I have 2nd chip stack at 4-5 left though I'll limp most anything from the sb.

 

[basse]

We could rail eachother? I play a lot of SnGs on carbon...

That could be cool! I would definitely be up for that, although I'd rather rail than be railed so far, I think I still play pretty badly.

 

[intents09]

And I would be up for railing but I'm only on betonline currently. I'm playing 2-4 under 1 dollar sng's at a time for most of the day.

 

[pcgnome]

I thought that the idea of this thread was to discuss the ideas that are presented by the author in each chapter of the book, so we could get a better understanding of his concepts. I don't see any point in discussing how I would personally play each hand. It depends on the situation you are in, and a ton of other factors.

1. Tight aggressive. The author says in the introduction that when the blinds are small to play only hands that are the most profitable, and avoid getting into big pots unless you are certain they will be profitable. Otherwise, you will risk losing a large portion of your stack, and be forced to stack off with hands of lesser value early on in the game. It's a good idea to just sit, and observe the other players until the blinds get higher. Later on you have to loosen up, or you'll be eaten up by the blinds and anties.

2. pot odds. It's kind of hard to use the ICM model in the early stages of the tournament. Pot odds are just the pay off that you get from your investment in chips. I think it's important to note that an estimation is fine, and you'll get used to it after a while. Say for example you have nut flush draw after the flop. You will have a 35% chance to hit your flush, so any bet amount that is say less than a third of the pot is considered profitable in the long run.

3. In this example it would say your best bet is to raise 2-3X the BB with any pocket pair assuming everyone else is limping. Limping in is okay as well. Stacking off with hands like KK or AA is very dangerous, since these hands loose a certain amount of equity for each caller. As far as suited connectors go IDK. It just depends on the situation.

 

[WiZZiM]

I think a tight agrro style is good. However once you move up in stakes you will need to learn to loosen up considerably. Theres not as many fish in mid stakes games thus you need to take advantage of bad players and take their chips earlier in the match...

I dont tend to think about pot odds as much early game. I just try to focus on pot controlling early and making big folds early to make sure I get to the late game more often.

3. Call with anything remotely playable. Anything xonnected anything suited. Go for nut hands. If you struggle playing these postflop then post some hands that trouble you. However if you are multitabling you may want to fold these spots more often on favour of having more time for more important decisions

 

[Lekoo]

This is an great Idea! Because I have pdf version of the book, you can count me in!

 

[pcgnome]

Hand analysis is way more important to improve your game at the higher levels. When your playing the micros it's pretty much bingo poker, so I wouldn't bother unless it's a really tough spot.

 

[floweryhead]

What we could do instead is share hand histories from SNGs in this thread and discuss them. I'm often hesitant to share in the actual hand histories subforum, since I only play freerolls and play money right now, and people seem to not want to see those. Further, there seems to be a desire for "interesting" hands, meaning complex post-flop decisions. In this thread, I would suggest that ANY hand goes. E.g. if somebody wants to post their preflop pocket aces hand to talk about how to play it, then that's totally fine here.

Good idea... I'll wait til the book finally arrives... give it a once through... and then I'll find myself some time to devote for this thread.

I'm looking forward to it all

 

[Jacki Burkhart]

Questions

• Tight-aggressive: Based on how it is discussed in the book, it seems that one's early goal (until becoming a "solid professional" ) should be to adopt a tight-aggressive style?
• Pot odds: The author claims that pot odds are the most important concept in determining whether to call a bet. Based on tournament equity, it seem that one should really be using ICM-based odds. So, do people just use pot odds, and require slightly better pot odds if they have a larger stack relative to the total number of chips?
• Hypothetical example that I am curious about: 5 players already called the BB preflop, and you are the SB. This means 12 (5 calls + BB player) to 1 pot odds for calling. What kind of hands do you call with in this situation? What kind of hands do you raise with?

1) yes TAG is a great starting point. But I don't think you need to wait until you're a solid professional to branch out from TAG..in fact I dont think you'll ever reach the level of professional with just a TAG style. Play TAG until the situations are really comfortable and familiar to you, then start mixing it up and see how it goes.

2). Because this section of the book deals with early game, low blinds then yes pot odds and cEV are very important to consider. As you approach the bubble ICM becomes increasingly important but that doesn't come till later.

3) 12:1 pot odds I call with any 2 cards. Your example is actually 13:1 pot odds because of your SB already in there. Maybe fold the trashiest hands if you think the BB is likely to raise. At 9:1 pot odds (3 limpers) I start limping in SB with anything marginally playable such as 74o, 34s. At 11:1 pot odds I'll limp all but the trashiest hands. I'll fold 26o. 38o. 92o and play like top 90% of hands. With 13:1 or better you need to convince me not to play.

(Ex with 7 live hands 23o has 7.5% equity so you'd need exactly 12:1 pot odds for it to be a break even call...figure implied odds and you gotta limp along in those spots...)

 

[basse]

Hi all, sorry for the lack of posting, I had a crazy week with my research.

Anyway, on to

Hands to play during low blinds

Hands to play during low blinds are divided into 3 groups:

Premium hands: QQ+, AK
You pretty much always want to play these.

Speculative hands, these must satisfy 3 conditions:

1. You are middle or late position
2. The pot is unraised with at least 2 limpers
3. Your hand could develop into post-flop monster: 54s+, AXs, 22+, J9s+

The goal with these hands is described as: Get to see a cheap flop, muck hand if flop is not good, and racking in a big pot if you hit the flop. I'm looking forward to actually reading about how to then play these hands post-flop

Late position "steal" hands:
These must also satisfy 3 conditions:

1. You have a decent hand in late position: KTs+ as cutoff, KTo as button
2. Everyone before you folded
3. You think a raise is likely to take the pot uncontested

It is suggested that if people call, and you miss the flop, make a half-pot continuation bet if weakness has been displayed. Do not call anything.

Questions

• What are your interpretations of the late position "steal" hands? Do all speculative hands count if you are late enough? E.g. on the button?
• Does anybody want to supply some extra info from the section? My review is a bit rushed as I still have a bunch of work to do for tomorrow.

 

[intents09]

My interpretation of the late position "steal" hands is yes, speculative hands would count, and really with #3 saying You think a raise is likely to take a pot uncontested, you know, clearly with that kind of read and situation I think any hand here is acceptable to make the play. While preferably you'd like a hand that can turn big post flop if you are called, if you want to make plays like this consistently then you can't be concerned with what your holding. I understand it as a pre flop play for blinds and a postflop check/fold unless we've made a big hand.

 

[Katie Dozier]

Just as an FYI, Colin's wife, Katie Dozier, is also a goddess of the felt (46-table grinder) and is a CC member, a DragTheBar coach, and a lovely person.

Aw, thanks! Will def let Collin know about this cool thread.

 

[basse]

My interpretation of the late position "steal" hands is yes, speculative hands would count, and really with #3 saying You think a raise is likely to take a pot uncontested, you know, clearly with that kind of read and situation I think any hand here is acceptable to make the play. While preferably you'd like a hand that can turn big post flop if you are called, if you want to make plays like this consistently then you can't be concerned with what your holding. I understand it as a pre flop play for blinds and a postflop check/fold unless we've made a big hand.

I don't think the book suggest playing any hand here. It clearly suggests hands like KTo and such, which is much stronger than e.g. 72o. I'm also curious because, if you get called trying to steal with KTs, that hand is actually stronger than any suited connectors below T, right? Some of the speculative hands are really aiming at great post-flop potential, which might be less relevant when you can only get at most one-two callers in the pot.