ITM or First?

[samsonite2100]

Here's a maybe quite stupid question:

I know the general rule is you start SnG's extremely conservative and get more aggressive as blinds go up. I have found, however, that a common situation is to be around 5 or 6 BB's in the late stages, in a dogfight with one or two other players for ITM. And I've also found that, in my limited experience, more than often it actually pays off to tighten up, cross your fingers, and let the other players fall on their swords. After which, yes, you usually get blinded out in third, but at least you earned.

Any thoughts on this? For the players here who've been playing much longer than I have (almost everyone), do you feel that in the long run it's better to play for first, or should ITM be the overarching goal?

[baudib]

I believe that most FTRers will tell you the opposite is true. With 5 or 6 BB near bubble time, play like a maniac.

[samsonite2100]

Yeah, which I usually do. I guess I'm talking more specifically about situations where you and one or two other people are at major chip deficits to one or two leaders and you know that the other short stacks will probably be taking cracks at it. I've played both ways and feel like I come out ahead when I go into "don't get knocked out" mode. I mean, naturally, if you get KK, you put your money in...

[zenbitz]

I don't think there is a straight forward answer here. Unless you are counting trophies, most 1 table SNGs pay 50-30-20-0.

1x 3rd and 1 x 2nd is exactly = 1x 4th and 1x 1st in pay out.

I don't mind limping ITM if I can do it with an average stack. But I will steal fearlessly and with impunity on the bubble if allowed to get away with it.

Different entries fees play differently though. There are enough competant people at PS turbo $27s that my ego doesn't suffer if I finish 3rd.

Also, the better you play Heads Up, the more willing you should be to take a smaller stack ITM. Now you only gots to beat 1 guy to get HU.

[vqc]

THe answer i have is Neither.
But usually playing for first will net u a higher ROI in the long run.
If u have a baby stack like 5-6BB, the correct play is usually to go big or go home.

[Aces]

I think it is entirely dependent on the dynamics of the table, where the big/small stacks are in relation to you, what your image is, how much you've pushed lately, and how the players in your blinds are playing. I do struggle with this as well, trying to decide whether to push with crapish hands to make it through another orbit or try to hang on waiting for the other guy to bust out. Any reads can be a big help here.

One lesson I'm trying to learn is not to overdo pushing any 2 if you don't absolutely have to.

[MAX]

Pushing with 5bb on the bubble is not playing for 1st. It's playing for survival. If you want to play a hand then you are ai. If you don't play a hand then you are blinded out in 8-12 hands.

There is no answer to which is better. Sometimes it is correct to try to limp into the money, other times you are passing up better oppurtunities.

[LeFou]

But usually playing for first will net u a higher ROI in the long run.

This is true, but can be dangerous for the inexperienced. "Playing for first" can become an excuse to make foolish calls/pushes, when all signs point to you getting busted. I am as guilty as anyone. Cf. AQ vs AA in most recent gauntlet.

"Oh well, I was playing for first, not to squeak ITM..." Actually, you were playing for busting, i.e. dumbly.

Play for first, but analyze it the way you would any other aspect of the game. Get knowledgeable about the actual likelihood of your pushes earning you some chips.

In lots of SNGs, the bubble is a great time to begin stealing. In some, it's definitely Not. You always need to know which kind you're in. etc.

[mpc2323]

I play to make FT no matter what!!..

Here's a maybe quite stupid question:

I know the general rule is you start SnG's extremely conservative and get more aggressive as blinds go up. I have found, however, that a common situation is to be around 5 or 6 BB's in the late stages, in a dogfight with one or two other players for ITM. And I've also found that, in my limited experience, more than often it actually pays off to tighten up, cross your fingers, and let the other players fall on their swords. After which, yes, you usually get blinded out in third, but at least you earned.

Any thoughts on this? For the players here who've been playing much longer than I have (almost everyone), do you feel that in the long run it's better to play for first, or should ITM be the overarching goal?

[nickthefool]

I guess you do that well in SnGs lol. I'm not sure which is best but i think my tactic definately sems to be play for first judging by my recent results.

Last 19 SnGs (since i moved up to $15s) :
1st : 5 times
2nd : 0 times
3rd : 1 time
4th : 5 times
5th-9th : 8 times

But maybe if i had been less aggressive on the bubble it might be something like 3/2/3/3 for the distribution of top 4 places, which would have the same payout.

Overall though i think if you play it well then being aggressive/going for first will probably give a higher ROI, but also a higher varience. The key to being aggressive is knowing when you are beat. Or possibly knowing when your opponent knows you are beat, depending what type of player you are up against.

[GatorJH]

This is true, but can be dangerous for the inexperienced. "Playing for first" can become an excuse to make foolish calls/pushes, when all signs point to you getting busted. I am as guilty as anyone. Cf. AQ vs AA in most recent gauntlet.

"Oh well, I was playing for first, not to squeak ITM..." Actually, you were playing for busting, i.e. dumbly.

Play for first, but analyze it the way you would any other aspect of the game. Get knowledgeable about the actual likelihood of your pushes earning you some chips.

In lots of SNGs, the bubble is a great time to begin stealing. In some, it's definitely Not. You always need to know which kind you're in. etc.

VERY WELL SAID!!!!

When I started playing SNG's I was guilty of making dumb moves in a feeble attempt to get in the money. I didn't even realize what I was doing till I started reviewing and analyzing my games. Then I would look at a particular hand and tell myself - Self, that was a pretty stupid bet.

Lately, I have discovered that I play better, and subsequently finish ITM more when my focus is on how I am playing the game (stealing pots at the right spot, reading oppt's, etc.) than worrying about trying to survive and finish ITM.

[Werddown]

I dont like pushing any 2 when I'm shorstacked (even though its neccessary to survive sometimes)... I stay alive long enough to get my card rush and then push my premium hands and hope they hold up.

Alot of times if you are shorstacked, and start playing like a maniac trying to get first place, you're getting called by the large stacks with all kinds of mediocre crap, and end up getting your A6 busted to 37 when he pairs the 3 on the flop.

I'm more inclined to play like a maniac when I'm the large stack, because I know everyone else is just trying to squeek into the money alot of the times, and the fold equity I have combined with the chance of sucking out on better hands even if they do call, and still having a decent enough stack to keep playing if lose, makes it worth it.

This is opposite of what I find most people suggesting, which is to play more aggressively with a smaller stack. You have to steal to keep from getting binded out, but I dont get overly aggressive stealing with junk as a shortstack if I've still got enough orbits to hit a nice doubling up hand.

The only downside is that alot of times if you play for survival and wait for premium hands to push, you just get all folds when they finally come.

[samsonite2100]

I'm more inclined to play like a maniac when I'm the large stack, because I know everyone else is just trying to squeek into the money alot of the times, and the fold equity I have combined with the chance of sucking out on better hands even if they do call, and still having a decent enough stack to keep playing if lose, makes it worth it.

My feeling, too.
It's pretty situational and depends on table feel. Sometimes, you do have to go gonzo at 5BB and hope for the best, but I do find that a lot of the time sheer plodding rock-hood is sufficient to get you ITM when the other short stacks are taking huge risks to double up.

[DrNoChance]

It's all very situational, but just don't make the mistake of sitting on your behind when you have a chip lead and you can tell that others are clearly trying to squeek into the money. Punish them, take their chips, and better your chances of going all the way in those situations.

[lowBoy]

I play to make FT no matter what!!..

Having trouble getting to the final table? My secret success strategy will work for anyone on Poker Stars and can be modified for other sites:

1) Go to the lobby of the SnG you wish to play
2) Click "Register"
3) Confirm your registration and click "OK"

Boom! You're in the final table of your SnG. I take a modest 5% cut of any winnings using this technique.

[lowBoy]

My attitude is generally go for first - I'm not afraid of pushing small edges and busting on the bubble if it means doubling up for a real shot at first. If I don't feel that I have the legit chance at first I'll try and squeak ITM, but I'll still be pushing hands to stay alive.

It's all very situational, but just don't make the mistake of sitting on your behind when you have a chip lead and you can tell that others are clearly trying to squeek into the money. Punish them, take their chips, and better your chances of going all the way in those situations.

Well said. Half of the last 5 or 6 tournies I've played, I was blessed with a group of passive-as-hell bubble players. It's nice to pwn people on the bubble with a medium stack and get ITM with a decent chip lead.

[KY_Ace]

You have to watch the players, and try to spot the loose ones that'll defend their blinds with crap. When I get down to 4 players and the blinds are 100/200 ( Bodog start with 1000 ). Unless there are 2 or more very loose players I'll gamble on a couple steals. Usually after I make it past the first steal I'll be in at least second and there's only one player that can bust me, unless they're tight my raising standards will be alot higher against the CL. I also won't steal without a real hand if the player in the BB likes to defend. There is alot of debate on whether or not to show when raising with a quality hand, I prefer to show. If someone raises 3 times in a row they probably have crap, if they show AK and JJ and don't show the the other, OK they stole one, but they're not playing crazy. I keep an eye on my frequency too, if I've raised the last 3 hands in a row and it's the loose guys BB I might fold a hand that I'd normally raise, say JTo. I won't steal with just any 2 cards either, even in the best situation, like when attacking the 3rd place guy when the 4th place guy is really short, I need to have outs, any ace, any king, anything suited, anything connected, J2o is still a fold, that shows them this guy has standards, he's not just raising every time. I can play well with a very short stack so even if the guy I'm stealing from happens to have a hand strong eneugh to call me and I don't suck out, I'm not out yet as long as I've got him covered, that's why I try to steal my way into 2nd or first the first chance I get. I also keep an eye on the BBs stack, he should have at least double the BB remaining before I try to steal with less than ace high, a very short stacked BB will see your raise as a opportunity to double up rather than a threat. Every time you fold no matter what your reason is, it makes them think you have higher raising standards than you really do.

[kashpot]

Here is my take on the situation. When I first began to play( which was in July), I played purely to get into the money. I don't think that is much different from what most other newbies do in the beginning. Then, after months of continous play (and I do mean CONTINOUS) I have begun to see things differently. Reading some of my favorite forums, studying players, notes and hand histories, there is no other way than PLAY FOR FIRST.
As mentioned, this doesnt mean make silly pushes with Jx,Qx or K something. Neither does it mean to sit back and watch others take each other out; thus limping into the money. I read Erick Lindgrens' MAKING THE FINAL TABLE and developed the mindset of playing to win. The opposite mindset has you folding TPTK so as not to lose any chips. I suggest reading some of the strat posts by Rippy and grab hold of what he is made of.

Actually, I sweated an opponent for about an hour as he played several SNGs. He was uber aggressive and though I knocked him out of our table; he darn near had the fear of God in me with his play. And I felt it was neccessary for me to figure out how he plays: 1) so as to know how to combat him and 2) so i could have the same mindset and reaction among my opponents.

GO BIG OR GO HOME

[konahead]

Thats a dangerous game you play - I can usually spot, and destack, the type of opponent you're describing - since they believe they can walk all over you. A perfect opponent to slowplay - I'm just waiting for the right spot to take his chips...

And they usually fold to aggression. It's like the schoolyard bully - they back off if you're not afraid of them...

[zenbitz]

But usually playing for first will net u a higher ROI in the long run.

This is true, but can be dangerous for the inexperienced.

Rest of this post was great... but is the above REALLY true? I'm not even sure exactly what vqc means...

Are you (both) saying that "aggression on the bubble" will net a higher ROI in the long run? I don't (necessarily) disagree... but there (as Le Fou stated) times when this is bad.

I have been making a distinction between 5 players left and 4. The key is simply figuring out villains calling ranges and pushing appropriately. Some times (the games with better players) EVERYONE is (correctly) at push/fold with blinds 50/100. Relative stack sizes are also important. With 5 players left, all even stacks plays differently from 1 big 2 medium 2 small - and how you play depends on who has what stack.

HOH2 (although not real applicable to "modern" SNGs online with decent players) says to pick on medium stacks.

If you know you are going to get called, you have to hold out for a PP or Ace. You can typically push SB if folded to you as well, as long as BB is typically tight (will fold anything but K-high/A-high/2 paint/pair)

As an aside... I don't think the suggestion that you should tighten up once in the money is very valid in most top-3 pay SNGs. Maybe if the blinds are still low, but I think here is actually a good time to get aggressive - especially if you limped into 3rd. Maybe "change it up" once ITM is a better approach.