Early MTT strategy

[Zybomb]

For those of you MTT players out there ---

In general, during the early stages of a MTT where the blinds are fairly low compare to stack sizes, it seems decent players and up employ one of two strategies

1- Playing extremely tight-aggressive and solid. The reasoning behind this is since the blinds are so low, it gives you even more time to fold fold fold and wait for the big hands to come around without worrying about blinds effecting your chip stack. When you do play, you have a big hand, you play it aggressively and generally take down a very large majority of the pots that you play, be them small or large.

2- Maintain an intelligent preflop strategy in terms of range of hands, but try to see a large amount of flops cheapily. This includes medium and up suited connectors and one gappers, high unsuited connectors, suited aces, any pair, and suited or unsuited broadway cards. Hope to hit big hands and get paid off, if not not worry about folding, as you got in the pot fairly cheap anyway

Which strategy do you employ, which do you feel is more effective and why?

If you employ another type of strategy (or a combination of sorts), feel free to include it

[Talking Poker]

I've used both of these strategies, and I've had varying success with both of them. Overall, I think I prefer the first strategy. My biggest problem with that strategy is after hitting NOTHING for a long time and watching the blinds increase and my stack decrease, when do I give up and open up my game? The difficulty of that decision alone has pushed me into using the other strategy (for the get go) many times...

For me, it realy depends on the tourney. For the WSOP this summer, I'll be going with strategy #1 FOR SURE. Why? Because it's stupid not to. With 10k chips sitting in front of me an $75 worth of blinds in each pot, it's simply not worth getting involved in many hands. This is why a lot of players show up late, cause it's just not worth being there for the first few levels. Sleep in. (Yes, I will be there for Hand #1)

For a 180 SNG on Stars, on the other hand, I HIGHLY prefer Strategy #2. In these types of tourneys, I think getting a big stack early is a huge advantage, so I'm willing to take some more risks (still cheaply, if I can) early. And if I get involved in a big hand and get broke, no big deal - it was just a SNG, so I'll fire up another one.

I think the best advice I have heard, at least for BIG MTTs is to use strategy #1 until there are antes. Then switch to Strategy #2. This doesn't work perfectly for all online tourneys (some dont have antes until very late), but I think it's still pretty good advice.

Oh, and I also HIGHLY recomment Strategy #1 for less experience players. You need to be a much better player to be able to handle Strategy 2 properly. Anyone can EMPLOY it, but you need to be a strong post flop player to have SUCCESS with it.

[JDMcNugent7]

I think the very best advice is to try to adapt to the way the table is playing and play a strategy that will work best against that table. If they are tight get in there and pick up small pots with dead money, if they are loose tighten up and make them pay when u hit a big hand.

I use both all the time. Generally, if the tournament has ALOT of entrants(which decreases your chance of winning it), I'll loosen up some and take calculated chances early, limping in multiway pots looking to flop monsters and playing drawing hands. If you want to play this way you have to be sure you are a good postflop player tho and remember not too get too caught up in any one hand. If this doesnt work and I can't hit anything I stop playing this way and tighten up once I lose about 1/5h of my stack.
In smaller tournies I generally start out pretty tight, not looking to force any pots and increase in aggressiveness as the higher blinds and antes come into play.

[Boobie Lover]

I also think it's important to play according to the structure of the tournament. As TP has said, he will employ strategy #1 with the slow methodical blind structure of the WSOP, and I would do that likewise.

If it were just another online tournament, I usually go with strategy #2 because I really don't want to get to a point of push or fold mode. And when it becomes that time of mostly short stacks and I have a reasonable stack, the people that are in push and fold mode I can bully around.

[Van_Broke]

On a somewhat related note, how willing are you to take what you think is a coinflop early in an internet tourney (relatively fast blind structure)? Do you feel the advantages of having a big stack outweigh the obvious chance of busting out early?

BTW, I usually use Strategy1, with very limited success. I find this strategy gets you to the bubble or just in the money a lot of the time.

[Zybomb]

Note than for Strategy 1, this strategy is aborted once the 'early' stages end.

[Nikita]

I started out with Strategy 1. It always worked well for me and has always led to me getting very deep in tournaments. I've recently started dabbling with the second strategy. It works, but not as well as I like. I think part of it, it doesn't fit with my playing style so it's hard to for me to use that style well. Basically, I was looking to improve my game, so I figured trying out a different way of playing could help me improve my play when I switch back to what I'm more comfortable with.

[melioris]

Because my schedule is messed up, I can’t commit large blocks of time to anything and so I don’t play many tournaments and when I do they are usually 3 or 5 table SNGs. In these environments strategy #1 works great until the ft. At the ft there is generally one or two people who have large stacks because they are lucky donkeys and they can’t wait to double me up the first time I get a hand (assuming the poker gods didn’t decide I need to suffer). Usually after that hand is shown the rest of the table puts me as a tight rock and that image is good for at least a couple steals.

Then I bubble out and get pissed I wasted that time in a tournament and not a ring game. Or I am clip leader and some disaster strikes (one of the kids wakes up, dog pukes on the floor, etc) and by the time things settle down I have blinded out and I am pissed I wasted that time in a tournament and not a ring game.

[fluxer]

Players like Phil Hellmuth use strategy #1.

Players like Daniel Negreanu invariable end up using strategy #2.

I'm not a tournament player, but if I try I can do very well in tournaments (I get impatient sometimes, which is my downfall in those things). I've used both strategies and have experienced limited success with both, albiet a small sample size.

Like JD says, you have to adapt to your table and the tournament that you're playing, but I usually find that if I'm at a table full of weak players, it's best to see a lot of cheap flops and crack someone who wont fold top pair; play it more like a cash game, minus the aggression unless you have a big hand.

I think the first strategy fails to exploit the weakness of some of the horrible players, but both are viable obviously.

[Talking Poker]

Remembr though - we're talking EARLY in a tourney. Exploiting weaknesses usually isn't even worth it for 75 chips (as in my example above). I think you might be surprised how tight even the loose guys are EARLY on in big tourneys. There are guys who will play EVERY flop with ANY two, but Negreanu is not one of them.

[Talking Poker]

Again this depends on the tourney for me. At the WSOP with extremely deep stacks, there is NO WAY I would take a coin flip in hopes of doubling up early. Ohhh... I got my 10k to 20k. Only 79,990,000 chips to go! It's just not that big of an advantage to be worth the risk of being out.

However, certainly in a 180 SNG and even in a lot of the bigger online tourneys with much faster blind increases, I am willing to take this risk. I'm definitely willing to PUSH in these situations, but I'm not as willing to call.

Example: If I'm holding JcTc and the flop comes AcQc9h, I am holding Jack high, but I have an absolute monster. If I led at this pot and my opponent makes a healthy raise, I'm pushing. Even if he turns over AA, I'm in good shape. If I lead at the pot and he pushes though, it a much more difficult decision (I'd rather just take the pot down uncontested), but I'm probably still calling.

[X-Longshot-X]

Someone wrote an article (I think iit was Mike Sexton) about how newer players are doing well in all sorts of tournies use a higher risk to reward strategy....i think that # 2 would work well in the WSOP because there are prolly 7900 people using strat #1 and its gonna be easy to bully.....and build a stack quick

[Talking Poker]

75 chips at a time?

I completely disagree. If what you are saying is true (about the 7900 using Strategy #1), you're not going to be bullying anyone. You'll pick up a bunch of small pots (adding less than 1% to your stack) and then you'll lose a big one and it will all be for nothing. You're only going to get action when you're in trouble. Seems like a bad idea to me...

Again, I think the most important part of this discussion is the word EARLY. I'm taking that to mean the first few levels, not the end of Day 1.

[Zybomb]

Yes EARLY is the key word here.

I think too many beginning players, who grasp some strategy, use strategy one FOR THE ENTIRE TOURNAMENT.... this is a huge mistake. As it likely will leave you out of the money, on the bubble or just in the money, depending on the cards you get.

Like TP said the main issue is determining exactly when the 'early stages' end and knowing when to switch it up -- or if you are just completely card dead, knowing at what point a change needs to be made.

Im gunna give what I think is the pluses and minuses of each strategy in another post -- although I don't know which one is more effective. JD made a good point of knowing your table -- but in a MTT it's early, you don't really have a lot of information about the table

[BlibbityBlabbity]

Against a player (s) who you have seen are playing strategy #1, strategy #2 can work better if you can get in multi-way for BB (or a small raise that appears to be getting called by 2-3 players). If you hit the flop (better than a pair or good draw) continue, if not get away from it.

"When you do play, you have a big hand, you play it aggressively".... this is the part of your description for #1 that makes #2 worthwhile in this situation. You will likely be up against players who are looking to make a pair and a good kicker, while you are going to have them drawing almost dead if you are playing after the flop. You just have to get away from the bad draws and low pairs you will flop

[Aequitas58]

Assuming there are no rebuys...

Off the top of my head, here are some pointers...

1. See cheap flops in position w/ cards that work well in multiway pots, but generally, play tight. What I don't like (when you suggested #2 was the "high unsuited connectors," which I guess we can label as unsuited broadway cards. These are nothing but trouble and should be mucked.

2. Don't do anything stupid (yet) including fancy plays and elaborate bluffs. The point is: most "moves" in the beginning are -EV b/c (1) random n00bs wouldn't understand the move, and you're likely to get called, and (2) there is generally no need to start risking more chips than you're going to make.

3. In the beginning, establish a weak-tight table image so that in the second hour, so you can steal blinds. (Don't even start stealing before 100/200. Others have suggested to wait until the ante kicks in.)

I have a headache.

[Gordogg]

Without reading responses here's my two cents.

I used to employ the loose see flops cheaply plan. I thought this was the best way to gain a big stack early when blinds are miniscule. It's not a bad strategy either. But the thing is, if you use this strategy and your hands keep missing the flop, it starts to add up. Or you have 67 sooted, flop top pair and end up losing to a nimrod that can't fold AK. You have tougher decisions to make using this style. I don't think it's worth it to risk that when you could easily wait for a hand and get paid off.

It also depends on the level of talent in the tourney field. I'd play looser against a better field and tighter against a weenie field, because weenies never fold. Of course you don't know the playing ability of all the players in a tourney field, but obviously a $50 MTT will have a higher ratio of sharks than a $10 MTT. At the beginning of a tourney the fish aren't weeded out yet so wait for a hand and get paid. But, if you get a bad run of cards to start, you have to start loosening up to stay comfortably ahead of the blinds.

Edit: After reading the responses, I failed to mention how important tourney structure is. If you are in the WSOP, like some lucky bastard by the name of TP is going to be, with 2hr blind levels and 200xBB you can afford to play liberally for a longer period of time unlike if you are in an online mtt with 15 min. levels gotta make moves earlier etc...

[Aequitas58]

IMO,

If you lose 1/3 your original stack, you need to stop and reevaluate the gameplan. Take, for instance, a Stars MTT, which starts you off at T$1500. If I run into a few bad hands, or whatever the case may be, and I find myself below T$1000, I usually stop limping with my multiway hands and wait for hands that I can just play aggressively. At this point, you really can't afford to keep limping because now (esp. as the blinds increase) it's hurting you more and more.