40 replies to this topic

[Orcasgt22]

I play tight i cash games and get steam rolled by maniacs but in tourneys I do quite well. I see maniacs get ousted fast in tourney play quickly.
Basiclly is their a major difference between the two while playing?
Or(the more likly one) am I playing wrong?

[hblask]

I see the opposite effect. If I play tight in cash games, I crush the maniacs, but if I play tight in tournies, I get blinded away and lose to those people who double up by sucking out on marginal hands early.

The main difference, of course, is the blinds go up in tournaments, so you have to adjust your play accordingly -- you can't wait for the premium hands. The adjustments for that are too difficult to explain in a brief post. Harrington on Holdem v1 and v2 explain it best.

[copernicus]

I play tight i cash games and get steam rolled by maniacs but in tourneys I do quite well. I see maniacs get ousted fast in tourney play quickly.
Basiclly is their a major difference between the two while playing?
Or(the more likly one) am I playing wrong?

What kind of tournies are you playing? tight is right in SnGs, but hblask is right in MTTs.

[ghostlove]

i think you have to play tight in a cash game, but make plays mor eoften in tourys in order to stay alive.

[hblask]

What kind of tournies are you playing? tight is right in SnGs, but hblask is right in MTTs.

I'm assuming you mean tight is right for the first part of a SnG. Eventually the blinds catch up, just like in an MTT. Figuring out when that transition occurs and how to handle it is why SnGs are beatable.

And actually, when I think about it, I play pretty tight at the start of MTTs, too. In both cases, at the first hand, you have to say "what does it look like to go from here to winning this thing?" Draw a mental map. If the cards keep falling in your lap, you may get away with playing only premium hands and doubling up on bad players. More likely, you have to devise a strategy for what to do when the cards don't come. That strategy will be different depending on your map of getting from hand 1 to winning the final hand. If you start falling too far behind on your mental map, make a move, because it's easier to catch up when you are only a little behind than having to triple or quadruple later on. And if your move fails, then you just need to triple up now instead of wasting an hour to find out that this just wasn't going to be your day.

As I reread this I have so many "then again" statements that I want to add, but that is why there are books written on the subject. So to the OP, the answer is "play the correct tightness for the hand you are currently playing and the goal you have for the tournament." How's that?

[copernicus]

I'm assuming you mean tight is right for the first part of a SnG. Eventually the blinds catch up, just like in an MTT. Figuring out when that transition occurs and how to handle it is why SnGs are beatable.

SnGs are beatable with tight play throughout, but it may depend on your personal definition of tight.

Eg, I don't consider moving all in with first in vigorish and any two cards with a red zone M to be "loose play", its mathematically correct play. While it never hurts to take advantage of poor players when you find their weaknesses, as a generally strategy you dont need to make more than 1 or 2 "moves" (including blind steals when the blinds get worthwhile) to have a very good ROI in SnGs up to $50 buy ins.

Maximizing that ROI needs a firm footing in the math of SnGs, best learned using SnG Power Tools.

Increasing blinds are your friend once you get close to the bubble (which is usually when they get expensive anyway), because very few players understand that the flat payout structure of SnGs requires very different (and mathematically quite precise) strategies than MTTs.

[SlackerInc]

Increasing blinds are your friend once you get close to the bubble (which is usually when they get expensive anyway), because very few players understand that the flat payout structure of SnGs requires very different (and mathematically quite precise) strategies than MTTs.

Can you expand upon that? And what about the idea that in MTTs, tight play is right when the blinds are still low? That has worked well for me.

I think too that we have to differentiate between "tight-aggressive" and "weak-tight". I sympathise with the OP in that I actually like to see the maniacs get weeded out in tourneys (even though logically, I understand that in theory it should be more lucrative to keep them in the game, rebuy after rebuy) as I feel uncomfortable playing them with low blinds where I have to figure out where I stand after the flop. And I don't play ring games for this reason. If I had a huge bankroll, though, I'd probably play them and figure that over the long run I'd make money off them when they play weak aces and I've got A-K and an ace comes on the flop. (I just hate it when the flop is an ace and two rags, and though I made a good-sized preflop raise, the donk in the hand with me has A-x that just turned into two pair.)

[shpaget]

If you play ABC poker...Hell, even "Hellmuth beginner" poker you should crush a cash game of donks and maniacs.

In tournaments, you are required more to change gears....generally, tight is right in the first few levels of a MTT...then you need to play faster...then tighten up again a few levels later, and so on....

Or, you can take the opposite approach and play counter to the majority of the field...whatever works for your play and your image....

or a hybrid of both...play tight at the beginning when every one else is tight...and tighten up even more when everyone else loosens up...and then loosen up at the bubble when they tighten up.

Tournament play forces you to recognize how the field changes its play as the blinds increase, and alter your play accordingly.

A cash game can have the same swings...and in a game of good players who are observant, you will need to change gears too...but in a typical low limit game, tight is right...and you don't have to change 'cause no one's paying attention anyway.

[copernicus]

Can you expand upon that? And what about the idea that in MTTs, tight play is right when the blinds are still low? That has worked well for me.

Rather than go into a huge post to expand on it, the basic answer is "the Gap grows" the closer you get to the bubble. Stealing blinds becomes the key to maximizing your ROI, and most people don't know how to adjust their calling ranges for that. Down load "sitngo power tools" just for the free tutorials and you will get a more complete description.

As far as "tight is right when blinds are low" in MTTs, there is a lot of debate about that. I can never get the search function to work here, but if you can, look for "accumulators and survivors". The tight is right crowd observe that the further you are from the money and the deeper the stacks, the closer a tourney is to a cash game, where tight is clearly right.

Others will argue that even early on tourneys are different enough (particularly in terms of a widening gap) that somewhat looser open-raising requirements are +EV, and also that you need to take advantage of small edges early to accumulate chips in the event you go card dead when the blinds get high.

[shpaget]

As far as "tight is right when blinds are low" in MTTs, there is a lot of debate about that. I can never get the search function to work here, but if you can, look for "accumulators and survivors". The tight is right crowd observe that the further you are from the money and the deeper the stacks, the closer a tourney is to a cash game, where tight is clearly right.

Others will argue that even early on tourneys are different enough (particularly in terms of a widening gap) that somewhat looser open-raising requirements are +EV, and also that you need to take advantage of small edges early to accumulate chips in the event you go card dead when the blinds get high.

In addition to to that, the proponents of loose play early in tournaments will argue that there is a lot of dead money, and if you don't get their chips, someone else will....you need to play more pots to give you more chances at those chips that almost certainly will not be there in an hour or so.


Me - I start with tight is right, and then evaluate...depending on the texture, I can modify my play quite quickly - for example...if I see a lot of passive play, where the blinds are 25/25 or 25/50, and each pot is seeing 6 limpers, I may play with any two...or if I see a particular guy entering pots, I may play him with any two...lots of options.

[Yahkin]

I vary depending on the table, but I generally start these a bit loose. I will pay to see some flops and use up my first 500 chips trying to catch some of that dead money. Works about half the time. Once I hit 1k, I go into super tight mode and only play top 5% PF ranking.

This does a couple things. First, you give yourself a chance to grab some of that loose money in the beginning, and Second it sets an early loose image. If you manage to hit one of the top 5%'ers in the first couple circuits after you tighten up, you are guaranteed multiple callers.

Either way you play early, you still need to play very solid post flop. Don't be calling down an ace flop when you played A3 suited for the flush factor, etc.

[SlackerInc]

or a hybrid of both...play tight at the beginning when every one else is tight...and tighten up even more when everyone else loosens up...and then loosen up at the bubble when they tighten up.

This is closest to how I play. I like to build a tight image (and "survive") until the bubble approaches and the blinds get worth stealing, then open things up. In fact, part of building that tight image for me is that when I raise and no one calls, I like to show my hand if it's AK, AQ, or a premium pair.

The tight is right crowd observe that the further you are from the money and the deeper the stacks, the closer a tourney is to a cash game, where tight is clearly right.

This is what Harrington says (that tight play when blinds are low is "theoretically optimal"), though he also echoes what someone else said in this thread, which is that if people are giving away chips early in the tournament, you need to get into more pots to have a chance to scoop up those chips. My problem, as I've said before, is that probably the weakest part of my game is understanding how to take money from weak players! Unless I've got the nuts or close to it, it's very hard for me to judge if they have a monster hand (built perhaps from some weird starting cards), have nothing at all, or are overrating a weak hand.

And I'll look for those power tools--thanks.

[copernicus]

This is closest to how I play. I like to build a tight image (and "survive") until the bubble approaches and the blinds get worth stealing, then open things up. In fact, part of building that tight image for me is that when I raise and no one calls, I like to show my hand if it's AK, AQ, or a premium pair.
This is what Harrington says (that tight play when blinds are low is "theoretically optimal"), though he also echoes what someone else said in this thread, which is that if people are giving away chips early in the tournament, you need to get into more pots to have a chance to scoop up those chips. My problem, as I've said before, is that probably the weakest part of my game is understanding how to take money from weak players! Unless I've got the nuts or close to it, it's very hard for me to judge if they have a monster hand (built perhaps from some weird starting cards), have nothing at all, or are overrating a weak hand.

And I'll look for those power tools--thanks.

Weak players come in two major forms. They have to see a flop, so they overpay preflop; or calling stations. Identify which is which. Make the first group pay if youve got a solid hand preflop, and always bet at them on the flop. They will disappear most of the time. With the latter group, let them into hands and milk them post flop. When they get aggressive post flop be cautious, because raising is so out of character for them that you should generally believe them.

[SlackerInc]

Weak players come in two major forms. They have to see a flop, so they overpay preflop; or calling stations. Identify which is which. Make the first group pay if youve got a solid hand preflop, and always bet at them on the flop. They will disappear most of the time. With the latter group, let them into hands and milk them post flop. When they get aggressive post flop be cautious, because raising is so out of character for them that you should generally believe them.

Very solid and cogent advice--thanks! If those are the main types of weak players I'd encounter at a cash NL game, I can handle that. The ones that scare me (and I've encountered this more online, one reason I don't play online any more) are the maniacs who raise, raise, raise. Obviously they are raising with trash most of the time, but they aren't metaphysically prohibited from having a monster hand (and it could be better concealed since they will raise preflop with ATC). I hate hate hate seeing a flop with AK, getting A-x-x on the flop, and then having to decide what to do when a maniac tries to steamroll me. I've been burned so many times this way. Was I just unlucky?

[copernicus]

Very solid and cogent advice--thanks! If those are the main types of weak players I'd encounter at a cash NL game, I can handle that. The ones that scare me (and I've encountered this more online, one reason I don't play online any more) are the maniacs who raise, raise, raise. Obviously they are raising with trash most of the time, but they aren't metaphysically prohibited from having a monster hand (and it could be better concealed since they will raise preflop with ATC). I hate hate hate seeing a flop with AK, getting A-x-x on the flop, and then having to decide what to do when a maniac tries to steamroll me. I've been burned so many times this way. Was I just unlucky?

Maniacs are tough to play against. Harrington has a couple of strategies against them...the Hammer, and something else. I dont run into them often in tourneys.

[SlackerInc]

Maniacs are tough to play against. Harrington has a couple of strategies against them...the Hammer, and something else. I dont run into them often in tourneys.

Right--another reason I like tourneys. But--and this actually goes back to the OP's question--what do you do if you encounter one in a cash game? I suppose one advantage there, especially if you are somewhere like Vegas where there is virtually unlimited choice of where to play, is that unlike a tournament you can simply pick up your chips and find another table, one hopefully without a maniac at it.

[copernicus]

Right--another reason I like tourneys. But--and this actually goes back to the OP's question--what do you do if you encounter one in a cash game? I suppose one advantage there, especially if you are somewhere like Vegas where there is virtually unlimited choice of where to play, is that unlike a tournament you can simply pick up your chips and find another table, one hopefully without a maniac at it.

Easy..i dont play cash games

[SlackerInc]

Easy..i dont play cash games

Oh, ok--cool! I've been feeling almost embarrassed about my reticence to play them. But since a great player like you also eschews them, I feel much better about it.

In addition to the reason I already stated, I also just feel like they are kind of boring. People wander in and wander out...it's over not when you either get knocked out or win the tourney, but whenever you feel like doing something else (or go broke in the worst case). There's no story arc, no closure. You can walk away with big winnings, but you may not have even won the last pot you got involved in, and you certainly don't have the excitement of being a champion, of having vanquished everyone else.

I guess that's why we're here on the tourney section, eh?

[TB17]

About MTTs

Playing tight at the start will get you surviving more...but winning becomes a lot harder. If you are a GOOD post flop player,playing tight is -ev, as you are not playing to your strengths. There are so many poor post flop players especially online, that you MUST take advantage of it if you truly want to go really deep in a tournament.

The problem with playing tight at the start is that when the blinds get up, it becomes a shove fest, and that you truly need to get lucky and win races if you want to make it deep.

I really enjoy playing against tight people at the start. Since their main goal is survival, not accumulation of chips, it becomes super easy to run them over. They are also a lot easier to read. That comes with being a good flop player though, and it takes a ton of experience to be one. But if you take the time to work at it, it'll definately be more profitable long term.

Either way, the most important part about early tournament strategy is your play on the flop. If you just wait for top 5%, many times you will be in shove and pray mode when you get to the 4th or 5th level, which is not really fun. To me early on, it doesn't matter if I have 5c8c or AA, I'm not looking to get into big pots without at least seeing a flop. Because I feel confident enough to lay a lot of good hands when needed, and get value when I do hit, since everone has trouble laying down their top 5% hands

[psujohn]

I tend to do well in STTs and poorly in MTTs. I think I'm far too tight early in MTTs. The adjustment I'm trying to make is to watch the average chip count early and not just be concerned with M (which totally determines your play in STTs).

I think there's also a big difference between late in the tourney low-M "loose" and early in the tourney high-M "loose". Being less tight early means calling a raise with Axs, small pairs, suited connectors. You're looking to flop a big hand and win a big pot. Being loose late means open raising from the CO with Q6o to steal the blinds.

The typical creature I see in SNGs has no ability to adjust. I'll often find myself in the final 4 or 5 having seen something like 15% of the flops and below average in chips. But if my opponents are the tight variety that typically survives to this point they're all too willing to fold to PF raises and flop continuation bets. I'll even see a lot of people HU fold more than half their hands on the button and fold half their big blinds to my opening raise.

I generally suck at cash games when I play too much like a tourney. Cash games are much more about post flop play. Stealing blinds is utterly meaningless and TPTK isn't worth calling a big raise. I have a hard time in NL cash online where PF play tends to be pretty tight though I do ok in live cash where PF play is very loose.