Saturday, February 19, 2005
After posting my humble SnG strategy the other day, several people commented on the huge juice rates vs playing a $10+1 game. I thought about it some, and came to the conclusion - yeah. Why bother with the $5+1? I can afford the 10+1's.
So I played one yesterday, and one today. I placed 7th and 6th, respectively - getting no cards. A few months ago, I'd have taken two losing games as a sign that I shouldn't be in those games, but really the play seems fine to me. I just haven't gotten playable cards. I've won the few pots I've gotten involved with, but have folded more J-2 offsuit hands than I can count. It's tough not to fall into the "hey I have a face card, it's the best hand I've seen in three orbits - it's playable!" mentality, but I've been strong in fending off that monster. I'm sure things will pick up one of these times.
I was noticing today as I watched people's stats rack up in Poker Tracker the true benefit of the aggressive playstyle. You don't even need winning cards to win pots, because at a tight/passive table, you'll be folded to more often than not. I'm thinking there may be some good to a strategy whereby you play very aggressively early on, then tighten up with the chip stack you've amassed and ride it out. Of course, you're risking busting out early, but 9th and 4th place all pay the same amount in these ten-seat SnG's: nothing. Getting blinded to death isn't the most confidence-boosting way to go.
The problem with that, for me, of course, would be forcing myself to raise with a non-premium hand. I feel like my brain is hard-wired to play only my top hands aggressively.
Things to think about... I'm off to my friend's baby's first birthday party. Babies everywhere, these days.
