when playing (1advance) win your table w/players that are comped in and skill level is questionable, they often bet big from the get go & some get lucky. do you play any different w/these?
Depends on some other things Yes and no. The number of hands per round would be a factor as well as the minimum and maximum bet sizes allowed. Billy C
William has plainly stated the very reason why I won't do a BJT that is one-advance wire to wire. Far too often, they degenerate into a luckbox lottery. The BJT situation you outlined has enough hands each round so that I'd sit back and see if the bombers can do themselves in, the thought being that I can try to catch up if necessary. As the action nears the end of the round, I'd rather have some chips left than none at all. If you have some chips, you have a chance, but if you have none, you're done. It's quite hard to win a gunfight if you're out of bullets!
I stay conservative until------------ I would still bet minimum or close to it until I noticed one (or more) opponents starting to "run away" with it. MORE is a key word here. If three or four players are leading me, I'll get aggressive sooner. How aggressive depends on the size of their leads and how many hands are left. Like always, last hand bet position needs to be a consideration at all times. Billy C
agree i agree w/lefty & billyc as genaral strategy,but when there is 2 or more players that are betting big early,making almost every hand, you get buried quick. everybody has 20/20 hindsite and you never know how round will unfold untill it is over,(woulda, shoulda, goulda,) after getting hammered, i'm thinking maybe playing like it was an accumulation tourny may be better strategy.
Yes William, it kind of depends on how many "plungers" there are. If there's only one, many times he/she will keep betting big and start losing which puts you back in the game. I'm sure you've seen that happen more than once. Billy C
One Advance Like Lefty, I dislike one-advance because it mitigates the advantage of skilled players. My own experience is that it pays to be fairly aggressive in this format. Early in my career I used the minimum bet until late in the round strategy in one-advance games and took beating after frustrating beating, and couldn't escape the feeling I was doing something wrong. In recent years I've gotten more aggressive and enjoyed much more success in one-advance games. I like to bet minimum early in the round long enough to size up my players and see how the game will go. But then I ramp it up so that in the early to mid rounds I'm betting somewhat less than average to about average. As the round progresses I get more and more aggressive until by the last 5-10 hands I'm betting about double the average. I throttle it back if I'm ahead, and get more aggressive if I'm behind. I throttle it back as players drop out of contention. My calculation of the average gives more weight to the chip leaders' averages. I throttle it back if I think the players are jeopardizing their longevity in the game with overly heavy betting. I get more aggressive if I'm in a table full of tightwads.
When I was actively playing tourneys (2008-2009), even with 2-advance I would do similar to Monkey and LeftNut: min or just over for a couple of hands to feel out where the chaotic or aggressive players are, figure out how that sets in the hand-rotation so that I can over/under them and manipulate a strategic loss on their part (take or not take a card so that they bust or dealer makes a hand)...and when possible throw a random out of character move with splitting 10s on a small wager up to 4 hands (when allowed). That last move would rattle some players while causing weaker players with short stacks to try and copy when it's their turn. Occassionally that weaker player would make all four hands...but more often than not, they'd lose ground. As long as you are confident in your skill and ability to track chips...single advance isn't too bad, 2-advance is much better, and I love 3 advance. As long as chips aren't carried forward (new stack each round), I am very happy with being 3rd to advance.
How do you figure out what your avg should be? I usually divide my stack by 3 or 4 and then use that as a bet.
Bet sizing has absolutely nothing to do with chip stack size unless it's getting near the end of a round and you're significantly behind.
Too Heavy If you routinely bet 1/3 or 1/4 of your bankroll with more than say 10 hands left, you will not survive to the final hand very often. Best to either bet somewhat above average or minimum in early and middle hands in one-advance situations. How did you get your invite?
