Turbo SnG calling range Question

[Canuck]

What is the range of hands you would call an all in on the first hand of a turbo 6.50 SnG? (I say 6.50 not to say you would play worse hands as the money doesn't matter, but to reflect the level of players at the table)

[Mbuna]

AA  thats it on first hand

[thetank]

6.50, probably KK and QQ aswell

[boldie]

6.50, probably KK and QQ aswell

yep....

A lot of players see A rag and then move all-in on those levels. and ussually find callers with KQ. I tend to sit tight and let the mugs double eachother up..so it would have to be Q's or higher.

[jezza777]

AA,KK,QQ,JJ,AK

[Longy]

Im with tank, given with have no previous with our opponent. AA-QQ.

[LeKnave]

Just AA KK and QQ for me, i would certainly pass AK and probably JJ

[Canuck]

I was curious as I played last night and first hand I moved in with KK fairly confident I would be called. Sure enough 99 called. And on a totally unelated story, the flop came 9 high.

Just curious what you would call with as I think AA KK QQ and AK would be all, even AK I would think long and hard for

[thetank]

If you're in a game where people are willing to go all-in pre-flop first level with weak Aces (AQ and down) then there are better ways to beat em than calling with AK and JJ. (imho)

[jezza777]

If you're in a game where people are willing to go all-in pre-flop first level with weak Aces (AQ and down) then there are better ways to beat em than calling with AK and JJ. (imho)

Ummmmmm I want to get my chips in with AK and JJ V weak aces tbh tank.

[thetank]

If they had weak Aces every time yeah.

But when they're just as likely to have a big un, I'd prefer to let the other players bosch each other to buggery, and get my less risky double up later.

[jezza777]

If they had weak Aces every time yeah.

But when they're just as likely to have a big un, I'd prefer to let the other players bosch each other to buggery, and get my less risky double up later.

I am surprised , given the amount you play I would have thought you would call in these spots because hourly rate is important to you.

[thetank]

Interesting this.

A 2x starting stack doesn't nearly give me a 2x tournamet equity, so I need a lot of edge to take a gamble early on.

Having said that, I understand the concept, reducing the win per tournament going for the early double up in questionable spots, but increasing the number of tournaments played compensating for that.

One concern is that I already do enough of that multi-tabling (reducing the win per tournament, number of tournaments played compensating.)
I've thought about it, but decided that variance is enough of a wrestle as it is, and I'm not majorly convinced it would increase my earn by that much.

If I played 1 or 2 at a time, this might be the way to go. The extra info I'd have on all the players would massively increse the value of having the 2xstack. Perhaps as far as making some lvl 1 AK, JJ calls against unknowns not even reducing win per tournament at all.

I really don't think it would compliment the 7-tabling though, the 2x stack won't be worth as much to me in each game. This and to get the edge out of 2x stack and extra info, you'd naturally be playing more hands seeing flops, playing poker basically. There's no way I could manage this on so many tables.

It's a perfectly legitmate style, but not mine.