4/5 players left in the SnG. Play to win or play for 3rd?

Post the HH poker room...
read this -
http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...oker-36043.htm

And then go buy HOH or TOP.

If people are playing tight, I raise (not push) and take their blinds, if they play back, you can be confident they have a hand (since they're only playing for 3rd)

You don't want to be playing for 3rd... the money is given to 1st place! Don't see why you have to push to pick up some blinds... raising should do the trick.. instead of pushing.. what are you pushing anyway? What type of hands?

Bit difficult to say without the hand history, but one of the key rules when you're on the bubble is not to tangle with a player who has a stack that can knock you out unless you have a monster, particularly if one of the players is so shortstacked that he's all in (or almost all in) the next time he has to post the BB.

Rather than "play to win", your philosophy should be to try to maximise your expected value from every situation. Read the post from Scuba Chuck about expected value. I haven't run the numbers but my guess would be that your A4 push would be pretty -EV since the shortstack was so short.

Something similar happened to me. Another player graciously said "I don't understand that all-in. A standard raise would have worked just as well."

Made sense to me.

By playn to win.. coming in 3rd place is actually winning. Also.. when you are pushing.. make sure you dont push into the guy that is "palying to win" because he will gamble with you more often then not.. Ill usually call an all-in with a lot of hands if I see someone keep pushing. Chances are my hand will be ahead.. even if not by much.

ok let me give my 2 cents -

i believe the reason he didn't just make the standard raise is that it will leave him comitted, and even if someone comes over the top, he will have pot odds to call with almost any hand.

for example if he has 5,000 chips, and the blinds are say 300/600, and he makes the standard raise to 1800, that's a large proportion of his stack. if the chipleader (who isn't in the blinds) put him all-in....he has to call 3,200 to win a pot of 10,900 - that's more than 3-1 so he has to think he is atleast a 30% or better to make a +EV call, so basically any cards he thinks might be live. of course in sng's and tourneys there are more things to factor in than EV, because of the bubble situation, so its obviously more complicated than this, but my feeling is when the blinds are that high, its push or fold. so in that situation with the a-4 i think a fold was best, u are likely to be dominated if someone calls, but imo a raise is even worse than a push for the reasons above.

the op said the the short stack had less than the sb in 200 chips - why not wait until he's gone and you're guarenteed in the money? as a general rule, imo anyway, u should be agressive on the bubble but treat the chipleader with caution unless u have a hand, and recognise who's in the blinds, how much they like to gamble, and their relative chip stacks

Originally Posted by pokerroomace

Anyway, when there are 4/5 players left and everyone is playing very tight and going for 4th, should I take control and go for the win or should I play the same game as everyone else and go for 3rd. Then when I'm in the Top 3, go allout for the win? I think the answer is a mixture of both.

But how would you play when there are only 4/5 players left and everyone is very tight?

In an SNG you need to play tight and fold your way into 3rd. It's all about making some kind of profit. Of course if you are extremely short stacked compared to the blinds you have to make a move. However, if you have a medium to big stack, sit back and let the others knock themselves out. Play premium hands and wait. Play for 3rd and then make your moves for 1st.

Originally Posted by Sprayed

In an SNG you need to play tight and fold your way into 3rd. It's all about making some kind of profit. Of course if you are extremely short stacked compared to the blinds you have to make a move. However, if you have a medium to big stack, sit back and let the others knock themselves out. Play premium hands and wait. Play for 3rd and then make your moves for 1st.

I disagree with this. Yes, sometimes you do have to fold your way into the money, particularly if one player is very short stacked and will be all in due to the blinds in a few hands, and if you are 2nd stack you want to avoid confrontations with the big stack unless you have a monster, but IMO in general you can't sit back and hope to cruise into the money. When blinds are big and it's shorthanded you the blinds will eat away at your stack, and if the shortstacks double up it may be YOU who has to make a marginal move.

If you have a big stack I think you have to take the opportunity to consolidate and build on your lead by pounding on the other stacks. If you have a medium stack, I try to steal the other medium stacks' blinds.

Originally Posted by taipan168

Originally Posted by Sprayed

In an SNG you need to play tight and fold your way into 3rd. It's all about making some kind of profit. Of course if you are extremely short stacked compared to the blinds you have to make a move. However, if you have a medium to big stack, sit back and let the others knock themselves out. Play premium hands and wait. Play for 3rd and then make your moves for 1st.

I disagree with this. Yes, sometimes you do have to fold your way into the money, particularly if one player is very short stacked and will be all in due to the blinds in a few hands, and if you are 2nd stack you want to avoid confrontations with the big stack unless you have a monster, but IMO in general you can't sit back and hope to cruise into the money. When blinds are big and it's shorthanded you the blinds will eat away at your stack, and if the shortstacks double up it may be YOU who has to make a marginal move.

If you have a big stack I think you have to take the opportunity to consolidate and build on your lead by pounding on the other stacks. If you have a medium stack, I try to steal the other medium stacks' blinds.

That's pretty much what I said or was refering to. Of course you have to make a move if the blinds are going to eat ya.

absolutely, i definitely disagree with the saying of play for 3rd. ALWAYS play to win. also, i feel that if a short stack is about to bust and you have a medium stack that you should not be afraid to bust out, and that you should still be aggressive. i agree with your push of A4s, and here's why. you are going to need to make a move eventually, and you are going to need to take a coinflip eventually. you just got a little unlucky. you did not say however what your stack would have been had you won that pot, and what your situation would have been in the sng then.

second, these other guys are correct, stay aggressive and maintain your stack by stealing once or twice (if you can get away with it) an orbit until you pick up that hand that will let you double up. just my thoughts.

Another thing to add, depending on the game, 10 man STT maybe? 50% of the prize pool goes to first, 30% to 2nd and 20% to 3rd. Playing to win pays you 2.5x more than 3rd. Win 1st once or win 3rd 2.5 times and you'll be winning just as much. ALWAYS play to win, but there are times to slow down, as in don't get in a confrontation with a massive stack with a mediocre holding.

As for me, I'll still be taking a race with a decent sized stack (even one that has me covered) as winning this race can ALMOST guarantee winning the tournament. If I lose the race, oh well, gg, load up another and keep my style.

You will find what I stated in many Hold'em books. Here's a quote from Howard Lederer.

"But there is another not-so-obvious reason to play tighter earlier and looser later: The payout structure rewards tight play. Most SNG's pay 50% to first, 30% to second, and 20% to third. This payout structure dictates that you play for third. Why? Looking at the payout structure another way might help. Basically, the payout means that 60% gets awarded once you are down to three players, 20% gets awarded when you get down to two players, and the final 20% gets awarded to the winner. If you can just get to third, you get at least one-third of 60% of the prize pool, or 20%. You've locked up a profit, and you have a chance to win up to 30% more. It's only now that you're in the top three that your strategy should take an abrupt turn. Now it pays to gamble for the win. Let's look at the numbers again: 60% of the prize pool is off the table, and moving up one spot is worth only another 10%. But move up just one more spot and it's worth a whopping 30% extra -- that's three times more for first than it is for second. And with the blinds going up, gambling for the win is even more clearly the correct play."

Originally Posted by Sprayed

You will find what I stated in many Hold'em books. Here's a quote from Howard Lederer.

"But there is another not-so-obvious reason to play tighter earlier and looser later: The payout structure rewards tight play. Most SNG's pay 50% to first, 30% to second, and 20% to third. This payout structure dictates that you play for third. Why? Looking at the payout structure another way might help. Basically, the payout means that 60% gets awarded once you are down to three players, 20% gets awarded when you get down to two players, and the final 20% gets awarded to the winner. If you can just get to third, you get at least one-third of 60% of the prize pool, or 20%. You've locked up a profit, and you have a chance to win up to 30% more. It's only now that you're in the top three that your strategy should take an abrupt turn. Now it pays to gamble for the win. Let's look at the numbers again: 60% of the prize pool is off the table, and moving up one spot is worth only another 10%. But move up just one more spot and it's worth a whopping 30% extra -- that's three times more for first than it is for second. And with the blinds going up, gambling for the win is even more clearly the correct play."

Ye.. I remember reading this and I was just about to quote this. My play was very bad in the 2 SnG's mentioned above and the only reason it happened is because I'm not experienced enough and I don't have 100% self control and I lost my patience.

Thanks for all the replys.

Also, when I played my allin with A4s, I made the play because the blinds were huge and if I took the hand I'd be in first place with no looking back. Also, the big stack only had about 200 or so more chips than me, so if he would have lost the hand, then he would have knocked himself out. I was quite surprised he made the call with 22, since you never have better than a coinflip on that hand (except when the other guy is also holding a 2, but that's very unlikely). I was hoping he'd fold, because if he lost he would have gone 4th. In that situation I should probably have folded, because small stack was so, so close to going out. Hopefully, i'll remember for next time and I won't make the same mistake again.

Originally Posted by Sprayed

You will find what I stated in many Hold'em books. Here's a quote from Howard Lederer.

"Most SNG's pay 50% to first, 30% to second, and 20% to third. This payout structure dictates that you play for third. Why? Looking at the payout structure another way might help. Basically, the payout means that 60% gets awarded once you are down to three players, 20% gets awarded when you get down to two players, and the final 20% gets awarded to the winner. If you can just get to third, you get at least one-third of 60% of the prize pool, or 20%. You've locked up a profit, and you have a chance to win up to 30% more. It's only now that you're in the top three that your strategy should take an abrupt turn. Now it pays to gamble for the win. "

Thanks for quoting this. It's nice to see. Of course, another way of viewing this is to make the decisions that give you the most expected value.

For most, I do like Lederer's plain explanation better though.

I'll add to this, I often times am happy to see message board posters "play for first." I'm happy to see people make -EV plays.

Originally Posted by Scuba Chuck

Originally Posted by Sprayed

You will find what I stated in many Hold'em books. Here's a quote from Howard Lederer.

"Most SNG's pay 50% to first, 30% to second, and 20% to third. This payout structure dictates that you play for third. Why? Looking at the payout structure another way might help. Basically, the payout means that 60% gets awarded once you are down to three players, 20% gets awarded when you get down to two players, and the final 20% gets awarded to the winner. If you can just get to third, you get at least one-third of 60% of the prize pool, or 20%. You've locked up a profit, and you have a chance to win up to 30% more. It's only now that you're in the top three that your strategy should take an abrupt turn. Now it pays to gamble for the win. "

Thanks for quoting this. It's nice to see. Of course, another way of viewing this is to make the decisions that give you the most expected value.

For most, I do like Lederer's plain explanation better though.

I'll add to this, I often times am happy to see message board posters "play for first." I'm happy to see people make -EV plays.

O wow. Scuba you king. I just read the "who is scuba chuck" post. I don't really understand all this EV stuff. I read your post but didn't fully understand it.

Before you embarass yourself start posting and reading this part of FTR.

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...-holdem-4.html

I wish when I first started posting someone would have just gave me that link. Anything and everything about EV (expected value) is within that forum and the books we have suggested you read. Instead of wasting your time pissing in someones kool aid, do some research on widely used terms used in poker, basic strategy, and post some hands and let someone comment on them. Iam trying to help you out... You have to be willing to listen.

God I must have been frustrating . lol

Originally Posted by fasin8ing

Before you embarass yourself start posting and reading this part of FTR.

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...-holdem-4.html

I wish when I first started posting someone would have just gave me that link. Anything and everything about EV (expected value) is within that forum and the books we have suggested you read. Instead of wasting your time pissing in someones kool aid, do some research on widely used terms used in poker, basic strategy, and post some hands and let someone comment on them. Iam trying to help you out... You have to be willing to listen.

God I must have been frustrating . lol

No. you're not frustrating. Thanks for the help. I'll read up about it

One last comment and I'm done. Playing for first is the right mindset for MTTs and satellites since the real payouts are at the FT or for satellites only 1st or 2nd gets a payout. SNGs are different due to the 3 decent payouts (for single tables) for 3rd-1st. Play for 3rd in an SNG and FT in MTTs and 1st for satellites.

Originally Posted by Sprayed

One last comment and I'm done. Playing for first is the right mindset for MTTs and satellites since the real payouts are at the FT or for satellites only 1st or 2nd gets a payout. SNGs are different due to the 3 decent payouts (for single tables) for 3rd-1st. Play for 3rd in an SNG and FT in MTTs and 1st for satellites.

more bad advice, please ignore this. if u play for 3rd in a sng, u will got into the final 3 with a small stack and have a slim chance of winning/coming 2nd.

Originally Posted by CaptainMac

Originally Posted by Sprayed

One last comment and I'm done. Playing for first is the right mindset for MTTs and satellites since the real payouts are at the FT or for satellites only 1st or 2nd gets a payout. SNGs are different due to the 3 decent payouts (for single tables) for 3rd-1st. Play for 3rd in an SNG and FT in MTTs and 1st for satellites.

more bad advice, please ignore this. if u play for 3rd in a sng, u will got into the final 3 with a small stack and have a slim chance of winning/coming 2nd.

Nice to know someone with your skill and expertise will just pop in and give us your wisdom.

Originally Posted by Scuba Chuck

Originally Posted by CaptainMac

Originally Posted by Sprayed

One last comment and I'm done. Playing for first is the right mindset for MTTs and satellites since the real payouts are at the FT or for satellites only 1st or 2nd gets a payout. SNGs are different due to the 3 decent payouts (for single tables) for 3rd-1st. Play for 3rd in an SNG and FT in MTTs and 1st for satellites.

more bad advice, please ignore this. if u play for 3rd in a sng, u will got into the final 3 with a small stack and have a slim chance of winning/coming 2nd.

Nice to know someone with your skill and expertise will just pop in and give us your wisdom.

not sure what that's meant to mean. that link tells people that i make a living playing poker and have just bought poker tracker. i really don't get it.

come on, u can't 'play for 3rd' in a sng, u should play to do as well as you possibly can, meaning be aggressive on the bubble, not limp in to the money on a short stack. obviously if there's a shortstack on 200 chips you might wanna tighten up until he's out the way and don't get deep with the chipleader if u can help it, but the general advice for sitngo's/tourneys is to play the opposite of the table - meaning play more agressive on the bubble when everyones playing tight. just my opinion anyway.

i'm by no means expert on sng's or anything, but the above strategy is widely respected and used by alot of winning players.

Originally Posted by CaptainMac

Originally Posted by Scuba Chuck

Originally Posted by CaptainMac

Originally Posted by Sprayed

One last comment and I'm done. Playing for first is the right mindset for MTTs and satellites since the real payouts are at the FT or for satellites only 1st or 2nd gets a payout. SNGs are different due to the 3 decent payouts (for single tables) for 3rd-1st. Play for 3rd in an SNG and FT in MTTs and 1st for satellites.

more bad advice, please ignore this. if u play for 3rd in a sng, u will got into the final 3 with a small stack and have a slim chance of winning/coming 2nd.

Nice to know someone with your skill and expertise will just pop in and give us your wisdom.

not sure what that's meant to mean. that link tells people that i make a living playing poker and have just bought poker tracker. i really don't get it.

come on, u can't 'play for 3rd' in a sng, u should play to do as well as you possibly can, meaning be aggressive on the bubble, not limp in to the money on a short stack. obviously if there's a shortstack on 200 chips you might wanna tighten up until he's out the way and don't get deep with the chipleader if u can help it, but the general advice for sitngo's/tourneys is to play the opposite of the table - meaning play more agressive on the bubble when everyones playing tight. just my opinion anyway.

i'm by no means expert on sng's or anything, but the above strategy is widely respected and used by alot of winning players.

did you read/understand the Lederer quote ??

yeah i did, and it's an interesting point. i'm not sure what 'playing for 3rd' actually means come to think of it! are we talking like - tightening up on the bubble, taking very few risks, and not playing back at people, that sorta thing?

That shit is laughable. You come across more and more professional.

Originally Posted by CaptainMac

not sure what that's meant to mean. that link tells people that i make a living playing poker and have just bought poker tracker. i really don't get it.

It's that kind of talk that legitimizes your professionalism.

Originally Posted by CaptainMac

i'm by no means expert on sng's or anything, but the above strategy is widely respected and used by alot of winning players.

My god man, you're right. "play for first." I can't believe all this time I've been wasting away in SNG-land, studying how to play SNGs, and then a non-sng expert can come in and give us his armchair perspective and back his ass up with legitimate widely respected winning players. Thanks, please come again.

Originally Posted by Scuba Chuck

That shit is laughable. You come across more and more professional.

Originally Posted by CaptainMac

not sure what that's meant to mean. that link tells people that i make a living playing poker and have just bought poker tracker. i really don't get it.

It's that kind of talk that legitimizes your professionalism.

Originally Posted by CaptainMac

i'm by no means expert on sng's or anything, but the above strategy is widely respected and used by alot of winning players.

My god man, you're right. "play for first." I can't believe all this time I've been wasting away in SNG-land, studying how to play SNGs, and then a non-sng expert can come in and give us his armchair perspective and back his ass up with legitimate widely respected winning players. Thanks, please come again.

i'm no expert and i'm not arrogant but that doesn't mean i'm not a winning player at sng's, cos i am.

oh and regarding the 'back your ass up' thing (you tough gangster)...i came first in the allstar sitngo challenge on another poker forum, abit like the gauntlet league here.

thanks for the warm welcome to ftr, very kind of you.

Originally Posted by CaptainMac

i'm no expert and i'm not arrogant but that doesn't mean i'm not a winning player at sng's, cos i am.

Come on, what kind of welcome were you hoping to get with your comments? And these comments aren't arrogant?

more bad advice, please ignore this.

that link tells people that i make a living playing poker and have just bought Poker Tracker.

i came first in the allstar sitngo challenge on another poker forum, abit like the gauntlet league here.

that doesn't mean i'm not a winning player at sng's, cos i am.

no, they're not arrogant at all imo. it's like i've come up with some controversial strategy on sng's with the way i've been flamed! alot of books /poker thinkers have recommended playing aggressive ly on the bubble, it's not that 'out there'.

you're making out like i've come on here saying 'im the man, i'm a pro, listen to what im saying it's right'. but not at all. all i've been saying is 'this is what i think, but don't blast me down, cos it works, and i'm no donk or anything, i play for a living'. i'm not a great player or anything, but i'm a winning player and i'm not talking shit here. and if u don't believe that, then that's your perogative. i just wanted to give my 2c that's all.

look, i don't wanna get into a flame war here. there's probably been a bit of a misunderstanding over that 'play for 3rd/1st' thing. my thinking was 'playing for 3rd' meant tightening up considerably on the bubble, with the hope of ensuring atleast 3rd place.

do u think playing tight on the bubble is optimal sng strategy?

As far as being agressive on the bubble goes, it's a generally accepted practice, but you can't just be a loose cannon. You have to pick your spots. I'll take a dominated coinflip on the bubble any day. If I pick up 88+ and I think the short stack is pushing A2+ I'll make the AI call. If I lose, meh, time to look for spots to double up. It's more about picking your spots carefully than just getting crazy and thinking you're going to outplay everyone with 72o in LP.

I think on the bubble you have to decide your strategy depending on your stack more than anything.

If I'm sitting big stack, I'm looking to lay in wait for decent hands, and playing them as I normally would (standards raises, c-bet, semibluffs, etc). Now if a short stack pushes over the top of me and it's not going to kill my stack ill probably call with AQ+/88+. It's pretty conservative, but why risk your lead? Also, depending on my reads on the player I may loosen up my hand selection.

Middle stack imo is the hardest to play. I'm playing the same as the big stack when it comes to calling shortstacks moving AI, but it's harder to play normally in these situations as your M is probably in the Yellow to Orange zone in these situations. I'm definately trying to steal blinds here, but it's harder to steal because you have to watch out for both the shortstack and the bigstack. Bigstack can take all of your chips, and cant put it past the shorts stack to move AI and force you to commit a big portion of your stack if you want to play the pot. There are guidelines out there for what hands to steal with and what not too, but I think position and knowing when to get out of a hand are the most important factors/skills to doing well stealing blinds. Also, I totally agree with everyone saying if you want to go up against the big stack, you better have a monster.

Small stack makes for easy play. It's just push/fold poker and praying you hit your hand/your hand holds. Lots of guidelines about what to push out there, not gonna go into that.

All of this is very situational though. There are times where you have the one megastack at the table and 3 players all sitting with 1k or less chips. And then there are the times where its a dead-lock and everyone is just about the same. There are adjustments to be made for these situations, but it would take forever to cover all of them.

I agree with the play for third mindset, but don't pass up an opportunity when it presents itself. You have to be pretty sure to commit, but if you feel confident in your ability to win the hand, go for it.

You cannot take first without first taking third.

LOL @ this thread

Originally Posted by zenbitz

You cannot take first without first taking third.

Wrong. Four left, three-way AI. In yo face!

Just trying to keep up the hostility/comedy in this thread.

this thread is deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep

Originally Posted by CaptainMac

no, they're not arrogant at all imo. it's like i've come up with some controversial strategy on sng's with the way i've been flamed! alot of books /poker thinkers have recommended playing aggressive ly on the bubble, it's not that 'out there'.

you're making out like i've come on here saying 'im the man, i'm a pro, listen to what im saying it's right'. but not at all. all i've been saying is 'this is what i think, but don't blast me down, cos it works, and i'm no donk or anything, i play for a living'. i'm not a great player or anything, but i'm a winning player and i'm not talking shit here. and if u don't believe that, then that's your perogative. i just wanted to give my 2c that's all.

Well, if you are going to say that, then don't say shit like:

Originally Posted by CaptainMac

more bad advice, please ignore this

If you disagree with someone then state the reasons why in a manner that makes sense. In the meantime, pick-up HOH 1 & 2, Getting Started in Hold'em, etc and reread the quote that I posted from Lederer. Oh, and check these out:
http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...oker-36043.htm
Take care now, ok, bye bye.

I think you should stop being so aggresive towards CaptainMac. I think it's just a misunderstanding of what is meant by "playing for third".

When Howard Lederer says play for 3rd. He means get into the top 3 so that you secure the money, but its how you get there that matters.

CaptainMac is saying that you shouldn't fold every hand, hoping that one of the other players should bust themselves out. You see that happening the whole time. Personally, I would never ever do that and I'm sure no one here would either.

But, you should be careful when you get into the last 4 and not go for some crazy moves that would be justifiable when you're in the last 3. For example, the blinds are huge and you move allin with a hand like A7o. In the last 3 I would definitely push with a hand like A7, if the blinds are big (which they always are). But pushing allin with A7, when there are 4 players left is risky even though a lot of the time you'll be ahead.

I think you should play to get into the top 3 and then go for the win, but already up the pace as more and more people get knocked out and the blinds start going up.

Also, just to say. At ParadisePoker, I've played 28 $11 SnG's. I have finished in the Top3 13 times. But I have never actually come third. I have come first 9 times and 2nd 4 times. A lot of those times I was playing to get into the Top3, but I was always in a position to take 3rd when I got into that top3.

I think the meaning of "playing for 3rd" isn't clear and that's what the argument is about.