maximize your chances to knock players out

[eleutheromaniac 0]

Maybe this is all old news to the people on this forum, maybe it isn't, but it's something I've got to get off my chest all the same because it's really getting ridiculous. One of the most frustrating things about playing sit 'n' gos is being stuck with a bunch of idiots who don't have even the most basic understanding of late game strategy with regards to knocking out the small stack(s). One of the most frequent examples of this is in the middle or late stages, when two or more players are in a hand against the short stack's all-in, and one of the players tries to bluff or semi-bluff the others in an apparent attempt to win the insignificant (or worse, non-existent) side pot. In the last game I was in a player did this twice! In Omaha 8! If it didn't happen so often, I'd almost suspect collusion.Here are a few other 'don't do' examples:Situation 1--Betting out other players pre-flop when the small stack is all-in, EX: NLHE. The blinds are 150-300, there are 5 players left (1 big stack, 1 very short stack, and 3 more-or-less even stacks). I'm in the BB with 10-4 o. The small stack goes all-in (which is barely more than the BB, if at all) and it gets folded around to the SB, who goes all-in. Now, if he had a pp or AK, maybe, MAYBE, it would be understandable, or if he had a dominant hand like AA or KK, and didn't feel like risking trouble with a third player. But what does he turn over? KJ suited. (Apparently this is a monster hand, because he went all-in with it early in the tourney, but I digress). The small stack turns over pocket 3s, and, unbelievably, they hold up against the monster KJ. Of course, a 4 hit the flop, which would've been enough to knock out the small stack had the SB not bet me out. Now, the small stack has tripled up, and both Mr. All-in and myself have taken a bit of a hit (we were both among the 3 even stacks). Meaning that if the small stack doubles up again, we're both in danger of missing the money, instead of being one player away from the money. The point: whenever you have a short stack all-in, you usually want as many other players in the hand as possible so that you have the best opportunity to knock the short stack out. Situation 2--Not calling a short stack all-in from the BB, EX: Omaha 8. 5 players left, blinds are 150-300. The short stack goes all-in, with maybe a little more than 400 chips. It gets folded around to the big blind, who thinks for a second, and folds. The raise wasn't even half the BB, and he folds, doubling up the short stack without a fight and giving him new life. If you include the SB, the BB is getting more than even money on his call, add to that the fact that whenever a very short stacked player moves all-in, it's usually a desperation move before they get blinded (usually they're just betting that this hand is slightly better than the hand they'll be blinded with, often in HE for example any pp or Ax or even suited connectors will do.) It's entirely possible that the BB is only a slight underdog, if at all (especially in Omaha 8 or Stud). So, to sum: Call the mother@#$%^!.Situation 3--Big stack in SB, small stack in BB: Unless you have a very weak hand, I don't understand why you wouldn't put the short stack all-in when he's already commited half or more of his stack with the blind, especially when you are the big stack at the table and raising the small stack all-in is only a fraction of your stack. If you get really lucky, the BB may make a huge mistake and fold, and you'll win his BB without a fight (you'd be surprised how often that happens). However, if you fold (or worse, if you call the BB and then fold as I've seen done a couple of times), now the short stack is free to fold the SB on the next hand and live for another round. Maybe it’s not as egregious an error as the previous two examples, but it's still pretty bad in my opinion. The point of this whole diatribe is this: While accumulating and protecting chips and surviving are important factors to making the money in SNGs, equally important is doing everything you can to maximize your opportunities to knock other players out as quickly as possible, before the blinds become unmanageable and everyone is fair game to be eliminated. Like I said, this is all probably old news that should be pretty obvious to everyone, but apparently it isn't.

[Vade 0]

Interesting points1) Raising preflop isn't that bad, as the short stack could easily have nothing, a weaker king, or even a weaker jackFar worse when people bluff postflop at a dry sidepot with an all in2) My rationale is always...if I have absolutely nothing, why give the shortstack even more chips?Specifically, in your example the 150 or so chips it takes me to call are probably a loss...maybe one I can't afford to makeNever rely on the BB to call a shortstack, as BB can always have diddle3) Raising is okay, if everyone else folds.If others have called the BB, then trying to bluff the SB out is actually a bad thingIn all your examples, protecting my chips is more important then knocking out a shortstack. I'm not wasting chips on a "lost cause" unless their is some dead money in the pot to increase the pot oddsNow, if there's antes, that might be enough to get me to call.

[Rocketwadster 0]

I agree with some of the general concepts you have mentioned, especially section 1 (unless I am the all-in guy :wink: )I guarantee you though that it is not (usually) the right play where you have absolute crap (7 2 offsuit, Q 4 offuist, etc.) to give the all-in even more chips, even when you have a mountain in front of you. Better yet, especially when you have a mountain in front of you, as there will be much better opportunities to knock the short stacks out than with crap hands. Why give the short stacks even more chips when it gets folded to them (which will happen more often than not when you play crap hands) :bubblequestion: Again, if I am the all-in guy, please feel free to call me down with those crap hands (as more often than not if I have anything reasonable I will win in the long run) 8)

[eleutheromaniac 0]

I guess different players have different rationales, but for example the BB situation, when you only have to 150 more and you're already in for 300, I'd call with almost anything there. The small stack is basically doubling up any way. Like I said, at this point the short stack is desperate to double-up, so chances are you're not a huge underdog if at all. The other points might be debatable depending on the specifics of the situation, but I think the overall advantage of eliminating another player far outway the advantages of protecting a few chips, especially if you're the big stack.And you never have nothing (especially in Omaha 8 or stud). Say it's HE and you have the worst hand, 27. Now, say the short stack got really lucky and has AQ or AJ (ussually it will be more like A3, K8, or very low pp. Against the AQ, you're only a about a 2-to-1 underdog. Not a great situation but it's hardly a lost cause, either. 150 chips isn't going to make a difference, but doubling up the short stack without a fight will. Look at it this way, you can give him a 100% chance to double up for only 300, or maybe 60-70% chance to double up for 450 (and give yourself a 30-40% chance to win 600 instead of a 100% chance to lose 300--a 900 chips swing, which will make a difference, even at the higher levels). Now, of course, it's possible you're dominated here and that changes the math a bit, but you can never really tell what the short stack is pushing in with.Even if you are the big stack, if the blinds are raising to the higher levels even you are not immune to getting knocked out, and even the shortest stack can get lucky and quickly build up and threaten you. You have to take your chances while the blinds are manageable, or else the luck factor starts to really outweigh the skill factor.