Johnathon Little’s books seems to start at 12BB.
I can find a push/fold chart for 20BBs.
20BB feels a bit brainless with no finesse?

When are people starting to think push/fold?

(I know 9Max is kind of irrelevant- you could be 4 handed later in the Tourney)

Just saw Johnathon Little’s website with a 15bb shove range- including 15bb shove on the button with 96s+ (and others of course of hands, 37%).

Try this one from Jonathan little I found on youtube....15BB Strategy: Push/Fold or Push/ Min-Raise/Fold

"shove under 12bbs" is terrible advice. If he said 10, it'd be a bit less terrible, but still terrible... (imo of course)

....

When it comes to poker questions, you can pretty much bet your arse every time that the answer will just be "it depends"...

That applies here big time. I'm not 100% sure that this the best approach, but the answer i'm about to give you is the best answer i can come up with. (I'm not the best player by any means, but SNG is by far my best game, and i do win there at micro, low & midstakes for a decent ROI - so my answer shouldn't be complete crap)

I'll approach your question as if you're a total noob to SNGs, just in-case you are.

MY ANSWER:

You have to adjust A BUNCH

To adjust properly, efficient labels are a MUST if you're not extremely quick at reading hud stats... like rainman level.

more minraise/folding vs nits. (still jamming a fair bit though)

more jamming + inducing with strong hands vs people with high 3bet

more jamming + NO inducing vs people who call way too much


(coming up next, is the hard part imo - but learning it will give you a solid base for ALLLLL the rest of your play - Worth learning this FIRST)

GTO approach vs GOOD/BETTER PLAYERS - but always looking out for vulnerabilities in their approach too and exploit accordingly. Personally as a default i mark all winning players as good regs, and then downgrade them accordingly if they mess stuff up a bunch of time, giving them plenty of room for potential misclicks or temporary brain-farts. If you're new to the format, play less tables and spend a long time labelling the regs appropriately. Also noting those who clearly never make any improvements in their game. As well as those that do seem to get better over time. Some will just never adjust, so there's no point focusing on whether or not they're adjusting, just exploit away after a certain point.

Obviously you'd have to do your own homework on what specific ranges you'd want to use... ALSO ALWAYS LOOK OUT FOR PLAYERS THAT ADJUST, can't stress that enough. Some passive fish take a stand and start trying harder to be aggressive, while others NEVER do... it's all important stuff.

Once you have lots and lots of notes and labels, THEN put in some 9-24 table sessions (whatever a big session is for you), it'll be far easier because you'll have built up the ability to adjust to certain tables based on the simple colour of the labels... if green = nit, lots of green = lots more minraise/folding... Lots of dark blue (my whale tag) - lots of jamming.... it's the mixes that get tricky, but you'll work something out i'm sure - if i can anyone can.

GOOD LUCK!

Is inducing = min betting and hoping for an all-in (which you then call)?

ya

well, it's anything that induces, you can limp induce too.

can you talk a bit about how you think about the theory? From a game theory perspective, one could argue that you have to call all-ins at least [#chips-in-minraise/#chips-in-your-stack] of the time that you do min-raise. (Because if you don't, then all-ining against you becomes profitable with every hand.) If you have 12 BB, this means you have to call all-ins a sixth of the time. I feel like this is unrealistic, which is why I'm surprised that you advocate doing it.

I can think reasons why this logic may not apply, but what's your take?

Currently, I only min-raise to induce. Which is exploitable since anyone studying my play could immediately deduce that I have at least QQ, but I'm assuming very few people do. On the other hand, I was considering stopping that altogether. I'm not sure anymore if people are really more likely to all-in a min-raise than call an all-in.

ICM means you can raise fold shorter stacks than ChipEV because you need extra equity to call off in ICM land thus a hand like A2o that might be "unfoldable" in a chipev scenario can be used as a raise/fold bluff in an ICM scenario. You should be raise folding down to at least 9-10bb and using a very polarized range of premium suited aces and pairs + hands that are ~0EV shoves such as K9o or Q5s if we're talking about a button open.

Technically because of KK+ you would actually want to raise fold even stacks as short as 7bb or 8bb but at that point the extra ev gained is really marginal and not really worth the hassle.

This applies to not only RFI but also 3betting where you should be 3bet folding even off very short stacks. Reason being that KK+ will basically always have more EV in raising small than open shoving. Then it's just a matter of using the appropriate number of bluffs.

I don't think I understand the bolded part. Are you saying that, because of ICM, your opponents should fold a lot to min-raise and that's why it becomes profitable?

IsuckatPoker is spot on.

thanks dude, + thanks for the answer on my 6max+9max post, was flip-flopping around quite a bit, feeling pretty fishy for doing so, not anymore legend, cheers!