Collin Moshman - Sit 'n Go Strategy study group

[NoWuckingFurries]

I think I'm still in the learning phase with playing middle pairs strongly. My two biggest weaknesses seem to be that, and then on the other hand playing too timidly because I worry that I'm too loose.

One of the changes that I noticed when I moved from 9 player $1 SNGs to 9 player $2.25 SNGs was the way that 88, 99 and TT are played, especially in the early stages. Players are far more likely to limp with them at the $2.25 level whereas people tend to play them much more as if they are a premium hand at the $1 level and are often quite happy to 3-bet shove with them pre-flop.

 

[scooba13]

One of the changes that I noticed when I moved from 9 player $1 SNGs to 9 player $2.25 SNGs was the way that 88, 99 and TT are played, especially in the early stages. Players are far more likely to limp with them at the $2.25 level whereas people tend to play them much more as if they are a premium hand at the $1 level and are often quite happy to 3-bet shove with them pre-flop.

Either way of playing medium pairs (too strong or too weak) is suboptimal, especially at low/medium blinds. The too strong way (label OMPP for Overplays Medium Pocket Pairs) is going to run into a bigger pair or called by overcards that outdraw the hand. The too weak way (label LMPP for Limps Medium Pocket Pairs) just turns the hand face up - it tells other players you don't have a hand you feel like raising with so you'll get raised off (especially out of position) on a lot of textures where it's unlikely you hit your set. If you like to limp medium hands you need to balance it with limping with strong hands to catch the players that try to exploit you - the problem then is that you will be playing these strong hands sub optimally.

 

[dj11]

Sub Optimally .????? If ever there was a moving target. Optimallity (word?) will vary between different players. You know this. It is the reason you can label someone with OMPP or LMPP or any of the other labels you use.

In poker we can not play optimally, most of the time. We can strive for it, but setting it as a goal is very much like ranging. We will seldom be able to put a player on a particular hand, so we range them. Same thought process in my mind should occur with that optimal thing. Which goes to bet sizing.

 

[NoWuckingFurries]

Either way of playing medium pairs (too strong or too weak) is suboptimal, especially at low/medium blinds. The too strong way (label OMPP for Overplays Medium Pocket Pairs) is going to run into a bigger pair or called by overcards that outdraw the hand. The too weak way (label LMPP for Limps Medium Pocket Pairs) just turns the hand face up - it tells other players you don't have a hand you feel like raising with so you'll get raised off (especially out of position) on a lot of textures where it's unlikely you hit your set. If you like to limp medium hands you need to balance it with limping with strong hands to catch the players that try to exploit you - the problem then is that you will be playing these strong hands sub optimally.

You might possibly be giving microstakes players too much credit for how much they are analaysing the play of their opponents. One of the big, big tells in my online play, to my mind at least, is that I open minraise AA and KK, whereas my standard open raise is 2.5 big blinds or - if a lot of people have limped before me - a raise bigger than 2.5 big blinds which is based on how many people have limped before me. It is very, very rare for me to minraise, so in my mind me minraising is a big red warning sign to opponents:

"Watch out, he has a monster hand!!"

It's still surprising to me just how many microstakes players, even those that I have played hundreds of hands against, either call my minraise or shove over me with ATo or something similarly marginal.

 

[scooba13]

You might possibly be giving microstakes players too much credit for how much they are analaysing the play of their opponents. One of the big, big tells in my online play, to my mind at least, is that I open minraise AA and KK, whereas my standard open raise is 2.5 big blinds or - if a lot of people have limped before me - a raise bigger than 2.5 big blinds which is based on how many people have limped before me. It is very, very rare for me to minraise, so in my mind me minraising is a big red warning sign to opponents:

"Watch out, he has a monster hand!!"

It's still surprising to me just how many microstakes players, even those that I have played hundreds of hands against, either call my minraise or shove over me with ATo or something similarly marginal.

Why not open raise your monsters the same as everything else you open? On the one hand if you minrse you might just possibly be giving bulletbusting hands like suited connectors and low pairs enough in the way of impled odds to call. On the other - if the villain is going to call 2 bets (or reraise light), isn't he going to call 2.5 or 3?

NWF gets label OmRM

 

[NoWuckingFurries]

Why not open raise your monsters the same as everything else you open?

Seems to make me more money?

 

[Landopope]

You might possibly be giving microstakes players too much credit for how much they are analaysing the play of their opponents. One of the big, big tells in my online play, to my mind at least, is that I open minraise AA and KK, whereas my standard open raise is 2.5 big blinds or - if a lot of people have limped before me - a raise bigger than 2.5 big blinds which is based on how many people have limped before me. It is very, very rare for me to minraise, so in my mind me minraising is a big red warning sign to opponents:

"Watch out, he has a monster hand!!"

It's still surprising to me just how many microstakes players, even those that I have played hundreds of hands against, either call my minraise or shove over me with ATo or something similarly marginal.

I did this today in a sng UTG with AA hoping to get re raised by a couple aggressive players. Instead it folded around and the BB called. i decided to c-bet on the flop with a big bet to give them terrible odds to call. The villain still decided to call with a gut-shot straight draw and hit it. I probably should of checked the turn but you know how us new players think AA is unbeatable lol. I know I cant look at just one example but it made me rethink how I play AA pre.

As for the book I have not read it but it is on my to-do-list because I am really bored of cash games. Will report back when I begin reading.

 

[atlantafalcons0]

Subscribed.

 

[LD1977]

I am primarily a cash player but have the book and love it (+ I gifted one copy to a friend).

Question for Colin:
I am not sure about proper use of HUD in SnGs, reason being that proper strategy changes a lot depending on size of blinds - meaning unlike cash games (where bigger sample = better) there is a problem regarding quality of data.

To clarify: Lets say I have played 200 hands vs 2 regular players (who play identical game), in one set of those one of us usually went out early and in other set we both went deep - the data will probably show the 1st guy to be MUCH tighter than the 2nd even though they play identical strategy (tight early, looser and more aggro later).

How do you use the HUD to give you a proper idea of someone's actual play?

 

[nabmom]

I am primarily a cash player but have the book and love it (+ I gifted one copy to a friend).

Question for Colin:
I am not sure about proper use of HUD in SnGs, reason being that proper strategy changes a lot depending on size of blinds - meaning unlike cash games (where bigger sample = better) there is a problem regarding quality of data.

To clarify: Lets say I have played 200 hands vs 2 regular players (who play identical game), in one set of those one of us usually went out early and in other set we both went deep - the data will probably show the 1st guy to be MUCH tighter than the 2nd even though they play identical strategy (tight early, looser and more aggro later).

How do you use the HUD to give you a proper idea of someone's actual play?

LD, I'm clearly not Colin, but I can tell you what I do with my HUD (PT4). It has setting for the tournaments where the stats I show will vary according to the number of BBs the player has. And it may be possible to have it configured to show stats based upon the blind levels (I'm not sure about that, but I bet it can). So the various levels of the game are represented in the HUD stats. If you go online to the HUD website, they'll have forum discussions about how to set up your HUD to account for this. There are also the preset HUDs that come with the software and there is a HUD specific to SnGs that will take this into consideration.

I hope that made sense!