P.S. I realize I answered my own question to a certain extent…obviously if I'm playing a higher variance strategy I'm going to have much more earlier busts but also deeper runs.  I'm still curious to see what the TPE pros have to say about the early levels of super deep stack poker though.

No I'm glad you responded!  Basically, I'm looking to see as many different opinions as possible to see what works.  I just didn't know where to post the thread.

As far as the loose-passive tables, you're right in one regard.  If you're playing a lot of speculative hands and just calling down with them you're basically playing like a loose-passive fish yourself so math says on average you should just break even or worse. 

The problem I have with what you're saying is that there aren't a lot of people who will commit a lot of chips with 2nd pair this deep stacked.  Even if they are loose-passive, they may call one street of value, but are folding on the turn to further aggression.  At most you will get 2 streets of value.  One of the worst things in super deep stack poker is to play a tight range and commit a lot of chips with TPTK, it turns your hands face up, and being deep stacked gives everyone the implied odds to chase.  Even a poor player will realize what your range is and at that point you are losing big pots and winning small ones.

The issue I've been having is that these loose-passive fish have basically 0% chance of winning the tournament.  However, they can significantly screw me up in the early levels.  They are what some call a “land mine” of bad players.  All of these fish have a sort of herding effect to where now I can't bluff because there are too many to bluff out, if there was any value in bluffing to steal such tiny blinds to begin with.  So now I'm not bluffing, and TPTK isn't likely to hold up, so I'm basically nutpeddling with the tremendous implied odds.  But as you said, now I'm right back to being a fish myself.

I suppose one major adjustment is one that I had down pact when I was playing cash but moved away from when I played more tournaments, which is bet-folding my TPTK hands.  In other words, overbetting my moderate strength made hands on draw heavy boards and folding to big bets if any draws come in.  This takes away their implied odds because I'm simply not paying off draws that came it.  It's also very exploitable to any opponent who is awake, but maybe these sorts of chasing fish aren't capable of adjusting. 

I do much better when the antes come into play and everyone has more reasonable size stacks. 

I do like what you said about not having a plan and playing each hand individually.  That's good advice.

bennymacca said:

I think people overestimate their implied odds a lot these days, as people rarely lose their mind with one pair and get stacks in, even fish, which was awesomely explained on one of the latest thinking poker episodes if you are interested. but i agree with them. 

 

so i think the value in playing these types of hands in the early stages has decreased significantly in recent years. 

 

as you correctly identify, there are a lot of loose passive players though, so i think trying to play in position against these players is a good idea (when is it not?) but i think thin value betting is where you get your value, not from flopping monsters and getting paid, or running huge bluffs. 

 

so in short i think tight solid is the best way to go in general, but you can loosen up somewhat when you think it might be a heads up pot

You may be right about this to certain extent.  Maybe part of my problem is that I think I have implied odds when in reality I don't.  However, I think it varies depending on the player.  For example, in the last tournament I played we started with 20K in chips with blinds at 25/50, which is typical of the HPT/WPT/WSOP circuit events.  In less than an hour I saw one player call an all in bet against the nut flush on a four flush board holding just a set.  Not long after, I saw someone lose half of their stack holding two pair against a set.  I doubled up holding 86 on a J668 board with the other person holding a naked 6.  So maybe one pair hands won't stack off, as well they shouldn't.  However, I think some people will still stack off holding two pair or sets.  This means there is probably still a lot of implied odds when chasing a disguised straight, flushes less so because people are much more likely to lay down when there is an obvious possibility for a flush.  One option I'm considering is playing tight/passive while adding connectors (suited or unsuited)
to my range.  This would have the dual benefit of playing tight, and retaining a semi-tight range, but also give me the possibility of hitting disguised straights on boards where my opponents probably didn't think the board was in my range.  I'’d still also play with any suited ace and any pair, looking to crush a flush with a bigger flush, or hit sets.  I'’d drop suited Kings and one-gappers from my range.  I’'ve also dropped hands like AJo/A10o/KJo from my range this deep stacked as I think that these hands are attrocious in the early game and most people would agree.    

The other thing is that I feel strongly that I may be suffering from “velocitization”.  If I win a tournament or make a deep run, it may be better to simply sitout the preante levels of the next one.

So today I took the most common advice and just played tightly.  Naturally, I did a little better in the early levels.  As much as I hate to play tight, it's probably best to do so at least until you figure out the table dynamics and/or the antes are introduced.