This hand example has some serious flaws IMO. Why would you risk your big stack with KQs against and aggressive players raise. I dont believe you have enough fold equity against a LAG. My guess he will feel semi pot commited and call here. More then likely this will be a race and you also never know if the blinds might have picked up a better hand or if they didnt they may feel desperate and call with any reasonable hand and you may have a 4 way pot which is bad news and not worth the risk. Being the chip leader on the table i think this all in raise is -ev. My Play would be to call the raise to see if the blinds fold then out play the LAG player post flop. Maybe use a stop n go if the situation is right.

He gives an explanation for this. What I find hard to believe is to be at 200/400 & still have SEVEN players left. Something wrong there I think.
Having said that if you have 10BB's then it is PUSH or fold time. I guess if you have a read on the guy, & as he said he was a LAG, then you could potentially PUSH over him. Stange hand though with 7 players that are shortstacked.

Why the risk when your goal is to make at least 3rd place for the money. SNG is more about survival then a multi table tournaments. I would like to here Sklanskys take on this hand.

Well, the whole mentality is really to get the first place money. He emphasizes that throughout the book, and others will tell you, you don't really want to just survive into third place. IIRC one 1st place finish is almost as good as three 3rd places. He's playing to win.

Is this a good book? I'm thinking about picking it up sometime.

i'm just re-reading the book now as my recent sng experience hasn't been good (playing too much like cash table).... i looked up that example. i think it is somewhat strange.

a few thoughts though,

i thought the whole idea for sng's is to make the money then go for 1st place

opponent's poor play and some player's better play puts you in some really strange spots that i'm not sure the book really expected.

seven players with blinds at 200/400 i think is become somewhat common. very common if you say 5-6 players at 300/600. i think alot of players have figured out the "don't do much"......

anyway, moshman's book is fantastic. i personally wish it was fewer hand examples and more explanation of principles, but i'm probably in the minority on that. most prefer hand examples.

i'm just re-reading the book now as my recent sng experience hasn't been good (playing too much like cash table).... i looked up that example. i think it is somewhat strange.

a few thoughts though,

i thought the whole idea for sng's is to make the money then go for 1st place

opponent's poor play and some player's better play puts you in some really strange spots that i'm not sure the book really expected.

seven players with blinds at 200/400 i think is become somewhat common. very common if you say 5-6 players at 300/600. i think alot of players have figured out the "don't do much"......

anyway, moshman's book is fantastic.... although i personally wish it was fewer hand examples and more explanation of principles, but i'm probably in the minority on that. most prefer hand examples.

EDIT: his resteal section i think took alot of heat over at the SNG forum. but i didn't go into the discussion.... and his folding QQ with 11 BB's (i think) is just brilliant. cuts to the real core of the ICM model.

In a MTT you might make it a goal to go for first place by being agressive but playing timid sometimes In a SNG has better value then in a MTT. Especially if there are a few agressive players who will bust out to eachother or to TAG type players. I have had alot of sucess by switching from agressive to timid back and forth thru out a SNG at the right times. If you can make 3rd place most the time and occasionally make 2nd and 1st you can be a bigger money winner then just always going for first all the time. So for me i like to survive to 3rd playing mostly timid and letttimg others bust themselves out while playing agressive at key times to get atleast 3rd. Once i have 3rd my play changes to mostley agressive but sometimes timid if the other two are very aggressive, so that i can secure second and try to outplay for first even though i maybe be shorter stacked.

Remember that in a SNG for a 9 man table 33% of players get paid, compared to a MTT which 10% to 15% get paid. This is why playing to survive is greater EV in a NLH SNG then in a NLH MTT.

another way to look at it is that once you get down to 3 players, 60% of prize pool is released. then down to 2 is another 20% and then the winner gets the final 20%............ but 60% is basically guaranteed to everyone as soon as 4th place guy goes.

the basic math is
3 x 20%
2 x additional 10%
1 x additional 20%

i'm sure others have thought of it, but i've always seen this analysis attributed to howard lederer.

Currently in a game & the 7th player just busted at 100/200. Oh well I was wrong. First time I see this though.

I should have been more explicit that the read you want is a LAG who is capable of folding instead of a maniac whose call range coincides with his open range. Folding is fine if you're unsure, but this type of play does set you up to have the opportunity to accumulate massive chips heading into the bubble.

Saying that you should "play for first" is certainly the right idea, although a more accurate phrasing might be: "play to maximize equity, which often involves very aggressive late-game plays that weight your finish distribution toward firsts."

Thanks for replying Collin i appreciate that.

Isnt surviving in SNG more critical then MTT? Even if that includes playing more passive if other players are loose and will bust themselves out. I do find times to be aggressive before the bubble but less so if there are other aggressive players and more so if there are passive players.

I can see that point there. In the video's I've seen be it DC, SNGicons, or Grinderschool the instructors are pretty aggressive on the bubble. Many times when I have the lead I'll simply hold back till someone busts on their own. With the escalating blinds & others shorter stacked than me they tend to get pretty desperate & simply do me the favor of busting out. However like I stated when I see training vids I see the instructors PUSHing with hands I'd never dream of PUSHing in order to steal the blinds. Currently I see that as my largest leak. Having said that I do finish in the $$ enough to placate me & not make me do something irrational.