Bottom line, the 7th week in was a good one, climbing from $482 to $555. From one perspective, that's more than a month's worth of gain in a week, so right on (typed with Good Times inflection). [To reach my stated goal of climbing from $300 to $1000 in a year, the stack needs to increase $58/month.]
That said, my progress this week was mega choppy. Reached an intra-day peak of $587, but then dropped down to $550ish, and sat in that neighborhood for the rest of the week.
Played 52 ST SNGs (all $5 + $.30), and won $102.40 overall, with an ROI of 37%....more than twice my ROI for the prior period. [For the uninitiated, the ST SNGs I play are 6-handed; everyone starts with T300; the blinds start up at 15/30 and increase every 3 minutes; only 1st ($19.50 on a $5 + $.30 SNG) and 2nd ($10.50) are paid] With that likely-unsustainable ROI, the SNGs saved my bacon. Why so much success? I don't know, but my strategy is very, very simple. Depending of course on my remaining stack and where we are relative to the $ bubble, I break the universe of playable hands into "pushing" hands and "calling" hands, with the latter range being much narrower. Bet sizing is almost irrelevant, as I'd say upwards of 90% of bets in these SNGs are of the all-in variety. I focus primarily on just making the final two (the $). I have a fair amount of confidence in my heads up play, and once in the $, I always feel like I have at least a good chance of taking down 1st. I'm interested in Sushi's and take on my (and his) strategy in these. Others' input too please.
My cash game play was really blah. Only played 826 hands, and dropped $33, for an ROI of -9%. I moved up from $.05/$.10 NLHE to $.10/$.25 (all 6-max, deep stack and generally with an ante). While playing $.10, I always seek out the deep-stack tables. At those stakes, I had no problem buying in deep (with my bankroll, I can easily buy in for 200 BBs). Unthinkingly, I continued to buy in at deep stack tables at the $.25 levels, but I don't have the bankroll to buy in deep. Buying in at $25 at a table where others are typically buying in for twice that felt disadvantageous, although I'm unsure exactly why. May be psychological, because with 100 BBs I obviously have plenty of play. I'm interested on any input here. If you can only buy in 100 BBs (the max at normal tables), does it make sense to buy in "short" at a deep stack table or to buy in for the max at a normal table? It's always nice to lots of money on the table to be able to go after (suggesting a deep stack table makes the most sense), but it's also somewhat damaging to one's image to be the short stack. Very interested in input, and to any suggestions on how to alter my play when I sit with a max of 100 BBs at a table where the average stack is 150-200 BBs. This feels like one of those super basic questions I should definitely know the answer to, but alas I don't. Maybe just my own psychology that's getting in the way. None of this is to say that my indecision had much influence on the results over the last week. Super small sample size (typed with obligatory lisp), but I felt uneasy about it.
Also, any thoughts as to when it makes sense to move up from $.10 to $.25? Sitting at $550, it seemed fine, but there was no great science that went into the decision. Premature at $550? Seems in line with what I remember hearing earlier. During Cake Challenge II, I recall Marsh indicating that he'd migrate from $.02/$.04 to $.05/$.10 at a bankroll of $200. I never discussed with him if 100 BBs (assuming buying in at 5% of 'roll) was the trigger, and if so why. Interested on anyone's take on the proper time to move up.
Overall, pleased with the results of Week 7, but need to ground myself a bit more in my ring game play....
$100 swing...the wrong way
13 years ago
1 comment:
By and large I never call unless it is an all in. ST SNG's for me are essentially shove/fold decisions, the only exception is if I have a monster hand and feel I can get a donk to come over the top if I raise small *or* if the field thins enough that shoving is too much of an overbet based on stack/blind ratios. I play very conservatively around the bubble and would rather fold a decent hand hoping to lock up at least 2nd place than to try to become overwhelming chip leader with a likely shot at 1st place. Prolly less EV+ in the long run but I just feel better getting in the money and taking my chances on HU play, similar to what you're saying.
Cash game, I buy short, hit, then run. If you're looking to get better at poker then deep stack is a better training ground. Playing short stacked means having easier decisions, lower variance, and being able to rat hole your profits. Btw, I would not in the least way consider 100xBB to be "short" regardless of what the other stacks are.
There's a book (I forget which one) which, rightfully so, says that No Limit would be more accurately described as Stack Limit. If you have 100xBB and everyone else has more then it really doesn't matter (math-wise at least) whether they have 101xBB or 999xBB though I will grant that there is a psychological element to monster stacks. Likewise, if you have 500xBB and everyone else has 100xBB, again it doesn't matter since the most you can win/lose is 100xBB. I would say the most important thing to do is to make sure that your bet sizing takes the stack sizes into consideration. I'll try to dig up the book and bring it to TuNP for you.
Correct time to move up? No simple answer on that one. Having been ridiculously overrolled has led to me playing sloppy so I'd say that there is something to be gained by playing aggressive stakes for your roll. Just make sure that you're not over doing it and are willing to move back down if you pass a threshold. If you're playing deep stacked, I'd be more inclined to stay at the lower stakes for variance sake. If you want to transition, try playing a mix of stakes if you are multitabling.
Post a Comment