lolll I remember how bad I was after 6 months... just keep playing/studying/posting, and play microstakes. If you're a losing player at first the best is to start with grinding non turbos 9 man sit n goes and play a very nitty style. Just try to show a profit at first !

GL !

the break is there to show that i was done quoting you. So I suggest you relax lol

Like this

I simply don't accept what has been supposedly "proven" about playing loosely, whether early, middle, or late. While I fully understand that the structure of a tourney can discourage too much risk taking, and I understand that a player may be risking more than he's potentially gaining when the value of chips is rather fluid... the discussion above makes NO MENTION of how my opponents are playing. For example, it states that bluffs and aggressive moves must be more successful in a STT than in a MTT. OK. What if I accept this... and I also discover that bluffs and aggressive moves ARE more successful! I constantly find myself against players whom I can run over, again and again. Maybe they've all read the same literature that told them not to take risks... and forgot that giving up all your chips a few at a time is ALSO a risk.

Besides, anytime anyone tries to discuss Sit'n'Goes (or ANY poker form) as some kind of "solved" game, or suggests an ultraorthodox, tight, and unimaginitave approach to the game which stresses risk avoidance, I cringe. I think this is just wrong. Empirically I find it to be wrong.

Note also, a few decades ago everyone thought that that in Multi-table tournaments, tight was absolutely right. Despite the fact that players like Stu Ungar could come in and crush the conservative players, everyone thought that kind of style was explicitly wrong. And today, there are sill plenty of players who see a guy like Gus Hansen and think he's playing a ridiculous game of poker... yet many of the best players have absorbed many lessons from these guys, and the game has been transformed.

I'm not saying STT is the same as MTT. I'm saying that the dogma regarding how to play STT is far too restrictive, and that the studious but mechanical players are doomed to be dominated by the players who know how to play *exploitative* poker rather than "unexploitable" poker... which somehow gets exploited despite the name.

Also, as a tangent, let me turn to a highly regarded book on MTT play, which discusses topics such as ICM. Kill Everyone. I've read the book, and I'll say as I've said before, Elky's commentary is the true gem in the book. He can see beyond the appealing but sometimes absurd charts and graphs concocted by academics, and he can see the human element which really drives the game. He'll always be more LAG than the players who read the first edition of the book and tried to follow it to the letter, and he'll always be better for it.

P.S. We may be talking shades of difference in style, though, rather than all out maniac style. I don't *often* raise 57s utg, but I virtually never fold AJo in any position until someone has given me a reason to do so.

Games like STT can be solved and are possible to play optimally. The problem is that playing optimally(no - it can't somehow be exploited) is less profitable than playing exploitative poker vs exploitable opponents(most are).

So yeah, if your table is so weak and bad that you can run over them - I don't think anyone is arguing that you shouldn't and should instead play the optimal strategy.

OK, understood, or partially so, though I argue with the language which equates "unexploitable" with "optimal."

For instance, in rock paper scissors, if you randomize your throws you are playing truly "unexploitable." But if you're playing against a statue with it's hand permanently frozen in the "scissors" position, and you continue to throw at random for the rest of eternity, you are NOT playing optimally.

I don't accept the idea of "solved" STT, especially since the "solution" is premised upon everyone conforming to the same "optimal" play.

And, while I admit I may have stretched the point *a little* when I said that "unexploitable" can be exploited, I think I can defend that statement in two ways:

First: Most players who profess to play unexploitably are actually more exploitable than they imagine. Maybe they've somehow failed to follow their own formula, or maybe not, but I haven't met a single living example of an unexploitable player.

Second: While there may be a truly unexploitable strategy for *heads up* play, in some theoretical universe, I'm not sure anyone can prove an unexploitable strategy for a game involving multiple players. If nothing else, the formulaic player can be forced into very difficult situations when caught between players of different styles and skill levels. If there are four players in a game, ME, MRUNEXPLOITABLE, BIGDUMMY1, and BIGDUMMY2, if there's any way I can mess with MRUNEXPLOITABLE's game, such as putting him in a situation where he "must" fold (because he's incorrectly assuming "optimal" play on the part of the two big dummies... and me), then I'm in a position to control the table, get the full value out of the dummies, and let him get less than his fair share of it. And, if I'm in the fortunate position to finally get heads up with MRUNEXPLOITABLE at the end of the tourney, I'm likely to have the bigger stack, hence more probable to win.

If I'm all wrong about this... well, oops, but it seems to be going well so far.

Playing optimally means at worst(when your opponent knows your exact strategy) you are expected to breakeven and you will win if everyone else is playing sub-optimally. (It's always going to be a profitable strategy but it's never going to be the MOST profitable strategy except vs optimal players.)

So vs that statue, we're playing optimally because at worst - we break even. However, since he is exploitable(ldo), we are losing value by playing optimally.

Other than that clarification, you're not wrong in [of what I read] this post.

But this sounds like a very special poker players' definition, rather diferent from the standard English definition of optimal. From Cambridge Online Dictionary:

Optimum
[before noun](also Optimal)

"best; most likely to bring success or advantage."

practice, study. learn from ur playing experience.

Thanks for the replys.

My style is lagish. not lag. i play tight in early stages or until i have a feel. I can def. use adjustments in my style though. it is not perfect.

The sit and go's i was speaking of are the 5$ or 8$ 45/100some players.
The 1 dollar mtt's (in the sng section) are what i do best in.
not single table.

but i see top prize of 17 dollars and thats when i buy into the other higher money games. there top prizes attract me more.

4MATIC- I would be lying if i told you how many hands ive played. not even sure how one finds out. what i meant when i said playing serious was my heart and mind is in the game. Where i try to learn and correct mistakes rather then playing every hand for fun. hope that makes sense. I def. didnt mean making a living from it. just taking it serious.



I really do appreciate the helpful suggestions.

Bankroll Management - if you feel as though your game has many leaks (espically a LAG player) i would probably set aside 40BI's for your stake. So you should probably be playing 10NL, and move to 5NL if you feel that you need to.

LAG - stop playing LAG! especially in the micros. learn a solid TAG game and you can almost guarantee that you will become a much better player with a proper balance of interactive learning and volume.

just a few things, didn't read any of the other replies

haha, I cant believe I am reading this, I am in the same exact spot as you are, I just lost my whole bankroll yesterday by being stupid and careless. I play $5 SNG's usually 1 table at a time, sometimes two. Once I got my bankroll up I went to play a cash game thinking I can beat that easily, obviously I was wrong, lost it all in the third hand. So back to the SNG's, i just wish I can apply BRM to my game this time.

Using good BRM is tough, but once you do it, you start noticing other things about your game that you never would have just taking shots with your whole roll.

mlodykutas...glad u can relate.

Thanks for the advise. ill try to tag it out for awhile