When do you Gamble in Tournaments?

[lwestatbus]

I have been playing a lot of the Stars 36-player $2.20 SnG satellites to the Sunday $1/4 million (used to be $200k). The structure of these tournaments is that the top six players all get equal prizes, the $11 buy-in to the Sunday tourny and 7th place gets $6. This payout structure obviously skews play somewhat but I'm writing about a different issue.

I regularly get to the final table in these tournaments--maybe 7/8ths of the time--but often find myself short-stacked and eliminated before the final six payout. I think I've been the bubble-boy more often than I've busted out in the first eighteen. Also, often when I do make the final six it is because I was forced into a gamble with my short stack and won the gamble for enough chips to outlast the other short stacks.

In thinking about translating what I learn at these tournys into play at a more traditional payout structure I think that it is essential that I get to the end stage of the tournament with more chips than I am now. And, barring those situations when everything comes together in some miracle session, it seems that I'm going to have to gamble earlier.

E.g., if you are short stacked and will be pot committed just posting the next big blind King-Ten offsuit is a monster no matter what has happened in front of you.

So when do you start gambling in tournaments? When do you treat some marginal hand as if it were a monster?

[jimmer]

You might want to read Harrington on Hold'em Volume 2.

It spends a lot of time explaining about this scenario.

The key principle is based around (what is commonly known as) your 'M'.

This is calculated adding the big blind bet to the small blind bet, plus any antes. This gives you one 'M'.

You then need to decide how many 'M's you have.

For example. The small blind (SB) is 100 and the Big Blind (BB) is 200. You have a stack of 1500. This will give you an 'M' of 5.

Harrington then gives you practical advice on how to play depending on your 'M'.

For example. He would suggest that if you have an M of less than 5, your only move is fold or all-in.

You can then adapt your game depending on the type of tourney, the stage of the tourney, the amount of players that get paid etc.

I could be wrong (and I'm sure he will correct me if I am) but in the early stages of a tourney MrDarling doesn't like his 'M' falling below 7-8.

I'm unsure if he adapts this for the later stages. I'm guessing he probably does.

Does this answer your question?

[jeffonline]

As “jimmerâ€

[HalfSugar]

Playing Harrington's way using 'M' is obviously good but I used to use it way too strictly and it can be very detrimental to do that I think. Saying that, not knowing about it is way worse so get reading!

[lwestatbus]

Thanks, I'm still ploughing my way through Vol. 1. I hadn't made a priority of getting to Vol. 2 as I have usually not had much time to play tournys. But these little 36-player SnGs that end with six left often fit into my schedule so I've been playing them a lot. But, as indicated, they've exposed a hole in my game.

Any more ideas out there?

[jimmer]

Any more ideas out there?

Yeap.

You say you regularly get to the final table in these tournaments--maybe 7/8ths of the time--but often find yourself short-stacked and eliminated before the final six payout.

It sounds like you may be playing slightly too tight in the later stages, hence regularly being short stacked on the final table. You might find it more profitable to loosen your game slightly with 10-15 players left. This means you will get to the final table less, but when you do you will have a bigger stack which means you will cash more often.

To put things in context, you would be better off hitting the final table once with a big stack and finishing 1st, than you are hitting the final table 5 times with a small stack and picking up the odd 5th or 6th place finish.

[Jernej Zorec]

but it is a satelite, hence wining in those doesnt make it any different from finishing 6th

[jimmer]

but it is a satelite, hence wining in those doesnt make it any different from finishing 6th

Yeah, you are right. My mistake.

[kingetje]

when you register

[kompis]

when you register

true dat

[Ciso_B]

I used to be super tight and really avoid "gamble " situations compared to how I play the last half a year or so. I'm still tighter than the rest of the online world when it comes to "stacking off" , like you wont see me raise/calling shoves with small pocket pairs etc. But I do understand that chip utility is important in mtts, so providing you have FE and are the agressor, I think getting in the last bet/re shoving is fine alot of the time.

Good times to "gamble" are when you see weak limps , or a small late position riase. But also just firing at flops where theres a great chance that 1 bet will take it down too.

I don't strictly adhere to using harringtons "M" , but its a good idea to understand what it is because alot of people DO use it and you can use that information to aid you.

To answer your question plainly though, I view around 11bbs or under times when im starting to view the A10 etc hands as monsters.
On a sidenote , 10bbs-18bbs (the time before you're properly short stacked), is more important imo. I hate raise folding with that size stack, I'd rather not open at all for a bit then raise /fold myself short. At least if i find a hand with this stack size, Im apt to getting more chips from the double up then I would have if i raise folded a few times.

[lwestatbus]

but it is a satelite, hence wining in those doesnt make it any different from finishing 6th

Yeah, you are right. My mistake.

No apologies. While the issue shows up in these satellites and I really enjoy playing them my real concern is that the way I am playing will NOT work in a more traditional payout structure.

To put things in context, you would be better off hitting the final table once with a big stack and finishing 1st, than you are hitting the final table 5 times with a small stack and picking up the odd 5th or 6th place finish.

This is a very insightful comment. One of those "well that's obvious" ideas, only it wasn't obvious to me. The problem materialized to me in the form of busting out before a tantelizingly close payout in a satellite but I really need to be practicing for traditional tournys.

I think I need to take the idea on the road in some 36 player SnGs. (I'm still troubled by time available to play in larger tournaments.)

Cisco, thanks also for the notes.

Thanks to all.

[supafrey]

This is all well and good, but you need to realize that you're playing 36 man SIT AND GOES. They are not like mtts.... the M's get tiny super fast, and push/fold strategy works really well in the midgame. Playing tight and ultra aggro is prolly best.

[lwestatbus]

This is all well and good, but you need to realize that you're playing 36 man SIT AND GOES. They are not like mtts.... the M's get tiny super fast, and push/fold strategy works really well in the midgame. Playing tight and ultra aggro is prolly best.

Sorry, but I'm having trouble figuring which tourny has the M's get tiny super fast? The SnGs or the MTTs? I think you were referring to the SnGs with the rapidly declining M's and this is something I've been paying attention to.

It also seems that the tourny format can make a difference. I just browsed around some Stars regular tournys (not SnGs or Sats) starting up soon and while those marked "turbo" had blind levels of 5 min the others had blind levels ranging from 10 min, to 15 min, to 30 min. But you had to go to the tourny lobby and then to the Tournament Info button to find this out.

(There is a $2.20 IntelliPoker Sat that has almost exactly the same format as the Sats I've been playing except that the blind levels are twice as long--10 min. vs. 5. I'm able to play these differently, though I sure donked off a big chip lead last night with a moron push--but that's a different story.)

[supafrey]

SNGs become pushfests very, very quickly. Optimal strategy is very mindless in them. Look up bluefox's sng guide on here for a basic idea of how to treat them (the guide is for 10 mans, but the 36s are basically the same).