Rāda ziņas ar etiķeti sit n go. Rādīt visas ziņas
Rāda ziņas ar etiķeti sit n go. Rādīt visas ziņas
trešdiena, septembris 10, 2008
A minor triumph
I have not been playing quite so much for the last few days, but at the weekend I played in one of those 180-player SNG's at PokerStars (NLHE). $20 + $2 entry, 20 tables. With a lot of luck and a following wind, I managed to achieve third place (and was actually in the lead at the point we were down to the last 9-player table). Obviously the variance with these events will be enormous, but meanwhile the $428.40 third prize will pay for another 19 entries, and they're very enjoyable events (albeit that they take over 3 hours!), so I will probably try some more ...
piektdiena, septembris 05, 2008
SAGE System review
The Sit-And-Go Endgame (SAGE) System is a heads-up strategy for NLHE which was developed by Lee H. Jones (author of "Winning Low Limit Hold'em" and formerly the manager of PokerStars poker rooms) and James Kittock (a mathematics professor). It's a solid and unexploitable heads-up strategy that can help you overcome weak and strong players alike. Once you're down to the last two players in a sit 'n' go, first place pays you 50% of the prize pool while second place leaves you with only 30%, so a significant proportion of the prize-money changes hands in these situations.
The system applies only to heads-up, no-limit games in which the ratio ("R") of the smaller stack size at the table divided by the current big blind is less than ten, and is at its strongest when it's less than 8.
It's deceptively simple: all you have to do is work out the power index ("PI" - a calculated numeric value) of your instant pre-flop hand and compare it against the relevant line of the table of R's on a little chart and you can see whether your PI is high enough to be a "yes"; if it's a yes, that means you go all-in if you're the small stack, and you call the all-in (or raise "all-in", i.e. enough to put your opponent all-in). It really is as simple as that, and the little chart is small and easy enough to be reduced to a "sticky note" about 5cm square which you can put on the side of your screen.
Determining your hand's PI is easy: (i) assign each of your cards a number based on the card's rank. For face cards, assign the following power numbers: J = 11, Q = 12, K = 13, and A = 15; (ii) double the power number of the higher ranked card in your hand and adding the number of the lower ranked card (i.e. 2H + L, where H is the higher number and L is the lower number); (iii) add 22 if you're holding a pair, or add 2 if your cards are suited.
Although SAGE is an unexploitable strategy, it's not always the optimal strategy. As R increases past 7 and especially past 10, it's not quite so clever.
It's even easier to use than I've made it sound. I think this area was a considerable "leak" in my game, and a highly relevant one given how often I seem to be in the prize-money. I'll report back later on how it's going for me, but at the moment I strongly welcome it. It seems to work by more or less stifling your opponent's creativity and poker abilities, reducing him to an automated system. Opponents often fold hand after hand as you continue to push your entire stack into the pot.
You can read an article about the system by Lee Jones himself here, and more of his articles here.
The system applies only to heads-up, no-limit games in which the ratio ("R") of the smaller stack size at the table divided by the current big blind is less than ten, and is at its strongest when it's less than 8.
It's deceptively simple: all you have to do is work out the power index ("PI" - a calculated numeric value) of your instant pre-flop hand and compare it against the relevant line of the table of R's on a little chart and you can see whether your PI is high enough to be a "yes"; if it's a yes, that means you go all-in if you're the small stack, and you call the all-in (or raise "all-in", i.e. enough to put your opponent all-in). It really is as simple as that, and the little chart is small and easy enough to be reduced to a "sticky note" about 5cm square which you can put on the side of your screen.
Determining your hand's PI is easy: (i) assign each of your cards a number based on the card's rank. For face cards, assign the following power numbers: J = 11, Q = 12, K = 13, and A = 15; (ii) double the power number of the higher ranked card in your hand and adding the number of the lower ranked card (i.e. 2H + L, where H is the higher number and L is the lower number); (iii) add 22 if you're holding a pair, or add 2 if your cards are suited.
Although SAGE is an unexploitable strategy, it's not always the optimal strategy. As R increases past 7 and especially past 10, it's not quite so clever.
It's even easier to use than I've made it sound. I think this area was a considerable "leak" in my game, and a highly relevant one given how often I seem to be in the prize-money. I'll report back later on how it's going for me, but at the moment I strongly welcome it. It seems to work by more or less stifling your opponent's creativity and poker abilities, reducing him to an automated system. Opponents often fold hand after hand as you continue to push your entire stack into the pot.
You can read an article about the system by Lee Jones himself here, and more of his articles here.
otrdiena, septembris 02, 2008
Small update
Not all that much to report, here. I am back at home/work, and will probably work now until nearly Christmas without more than some weekend breaks, but I don't normally work on Saturdays or Tuesdays. Poker continues: I am playing almost entirely $16-entry "turbo" ("fast"-moving) single-table 9-player sit 'n' go's at PokerStars. They take typically about 45-50 minutes each. The prize-money is: first place $67.50; second place $40.50; third place $27.00.
I can play two at a time, by starting a new one each time the most recently entered one is reduced from nine to five or six players. That said, I have once been knocked out first, in 9th place, when I went all-in with KK and lost to a player with AJ who flopped an Ace, as can easily happen. I'm actually slightly surprised this sort of thing has not happened more often, but I do play very, very few hands until three people have been knocked out and the blinds have gone up two or three times.
At the moment, I'm getting into the prize-money 48% of the time, so my account-level is gradually increasing. If that figure stays steady, then over a series of about 600 events, mathematically there "should" be only a 5% risk of my losing 11 consecutive times, and less than a 5% risk of my hitting a longer losing patch equivalent financially to 17 consecutive losing events.
I'm hoping not to play as many as 600 of them, though. If I keep going steadily enough, I'll move up to the $27-entry events at some point, and am wondering to what extent the overall standard of play is higher in those. My guess is that whereas there's no discernible difference between the $11 events and the $16 ones, the $27 ones may be a rather different proposition.
Coming up soon: brief reviews of Collin Moshman's book, and the SAGE system!
I can play two at a time, by starting a new one each time the most recently entered one is reduced from nine to five or six players. That said, I have once been knocked out first, in 9th place, when I went all-in with KK and lost to a player with AJ who flopped an Ace, as can easily happen. I'm actually slightly surprised this sort of thing has not happened more often, but I do play very, very few hands until three people have been knocked out and the blinds have gone up two or three times.
At the moment, I'm getting into the prize-money 48% of the time, so my account-level is gradually increasing. If that figure stays steady, then over a series of about 600 events, mathematically there "should" be only a 5% risk of my losing 11 consecutive times, and less than a 5% risk of my hitting a longer losing patch equivalent financially to 17 consecutive losing events.
I'm hoping not to play as many as 600 of them, though. If I keep going steadily enough, I'll move up to the $27-entry events at some point, and am wondering to what extent the overall standard of play is higher in those. My guess is that whereas there's no discernible difference between the $11 events and the $16 ones, the $27 ones may be a rather different proposition.
Coming up soon: brief reviews of Collin Moshman's book, and the SAGE system!
sestdiena, augusts 30, 2008
Sit 'n' go ...
Greetings from France!
I have decided that the "significant accident" in my previous entry was perhaps not quite so significant after all. I could have bet less than going all in, something like $50 or so to deny the opponent the right odds to continue with, for instance, a straight draw, then going all in on the turn anyway ... but mostly I think this was just a "bad beat" and one should not dwell on them, irritating though they are.
I have been playing more $200NL at 6-max tables with small profits but nothing much else to report. I am wondering whether it's a good idea to change tables after every half-hour or so, unless I particuarly like the opponents, in an attempt to make it harder for them to "work out my style". There's certainly no shortage of 6-max tables. I've also been re-raising pre-flop a little bit more, in late position (on the button) with mostly good effects.
Late last night I played in two $16 sit 'n' go's, and won both of them ...
I've also played in a couple of those bigger 180-player (20-table) events, but I think single-table sit 'n' go's are much more suitable for my purposes. The variance is obviously going to be far lower. Those bigger events take about 3 - 4 hours and only 10% of the players are in the prize money (and the prize-money for 10th to 18th places is only twice the entry-fee anyway, so only 5% of the players actually win anything worth having). An ordinary sit 'n' go takes 30 to 70 minutes and 33% of the players are in the prize-money, so one's pattern of results will obviously be far more consistent for the hours put in. I said originally that I would play 100 of the $10 sit 'n' go's and then review the results, but I've been making steady profits from them and have moved up to the $16 games now, which are a little faster-moving as well (they are what's called "turbo tables" at PokerStars, so you get in a bit more play for your money, overall.)
In Paris now for the weekend, and will be home (and back at work!) early on Monday morning ...
I have decided that the "significant accident" in my previous entry was perhaps not quite so significant after all. I could have bet less than going all in, something like $50 or so to deny the opponent the right odds to continue with, for instance, a straight draw, then going all in on the turn anyway ... but mostly I think this was just a "bad beat" and one should not dwell on them, irritating though they are.
I have been playing more $200NL at 6-max tables with small profits but nothing much else to report. I am wondering whether it's a good idea to change tables after every half-hour or so, unless I particuarly like the opponents, in an attempt to make it harder for them to "work out my style". There's certainly no shortage of 6-max tables. I've also been re-raising pre-flop a little bit more, in late position (on the button) with mostly good effects.
Late last night I played in two $16 sit 'n' go's, and won both of them ...
I've also played in a couple of those bigger 180-player (20-table) events, but I think single-table sit 'n' go's are much more suitable for my purposes. The variance is obviously going to be far lower. Those bigger events take about 3 - 4 hours and only 10% of the players are in the prize money (and the prize-money for 10th to 18th places is only twice the entry-fee anyway, so only 5% of the players actually win anything worth having). An ordinary sit 'n' go takes 30 to 70 minutes and 33% of the players are in the prize-money, so one's pattern of results will obviously be far more consistent for the hours put in. I said originally that I would play 100 of the $10 sit 'n' go's and then review the results, but I've been making steady profits from them and have moved up to the $16 games now, which are a little faster-moving as well (they are what's called "turbo tables" at PokerStars, so you get in a bit more play for your money, overall.)
In Paris now for the weekend, and will be home (and back at work!) early on Monday morning ...
Abonēt:
Ziņas (Atom)
