Common misconceptions. #1: Playing for first

[lorinda]

1. Winning a tourney at all costs is incredibly important.

Winning SNGs is great, it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside and returns 5 buyins (Nearly /images/graemlins/blush.gif ). There is a lot to be said for winning a SNG, it's fantastic.

On this forum, especially at the lower limits, people seem inclined to make ridiculous plays and justify them with "Play to win, settle for third".

Let's do some hand-waving arguments.

If you're in a bubble type position where everyone has 2000 chips and want to gamble it up to try to win, what exactly must you do

People seem to think that this justifies aiming your chips in at random, on the assumption that they either lose the next pot or win the tourney.

So, let's have one of these tourneys where we have two players "Playing for first" and two players "Limping for third". We'll assume all four players are equally skilled.

So, the two "Play for first" players throw their chips into the middle. One probably raised UTG with 78s and one probably called with A9o, something like that. One of them won the pot. Both justified their play by saying there is no point in settling for third.
So, how are our two types of player going?

Well, team "Playing for first" have a guaranteed $0 plus a very good shot at $50 (Assuming a $11 tourney).
Team "Settling for third" have $20 and $30 guaranteed, and a shot at more.

Notice that team "settling for third" already have the $50 that team "Play for first" have as their theoretical maximum.

This post is not to say you shouldn't try to win tourneys, but it is to point out that many of you, MANY OF YOU have flawed logic when making ludicrous plays and are justifying them with "I was playing for first"

Lori

(I'm aware there are more mathematical ways to make this argument, but I believe those who use "I was playing for first" the most are the less mathematical ones.)

[skipperbob]

I refuse to be swayed by logical, well-spoken argument. I prefer to react, in a non-thinking reflex, with some random comment that bears no relation to the subject at hand. Therefore, I push /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[poker-penguin]

The sneaky flaw in your argument is that team playing for first always knock each other out under your scenario. What about the times where they steal three or four times from team fold into the money and are left battling for first and second?

I'm not saying that you're wrong (although I'm a card carrying member of team play for first - although in limit it is easier to change your mind), just that you're being sneaky.

[curtains]

Yea, gotta go for first....2nd place is just the first loser.

[lorinda]

just that you're being sneaky.

You are right of course, and it's certainly a little unfair of me, however anyone who spotted that I'm being sneaky, is probably sneaky enough to be able to accurately play for first /images/graemlins/wink.gif (Dodge the other play for first guy for instance.)

At this point people are starting to use more strategy and less blind ambition, which is fine by me.

The point is to ram home that there are occasions (Read, against two lunatics) that playing for first is not neccessarily correct. The "Play for first" squad tend to forget that you can still come first, even if you are not chip leader in the last three.

Lori

[skipperbob]

"can still come first"....in context, is that the same as "still come in first"?

[Theduke211]

Ha, I just leave the table once im in third place, most of the time I end up in second place. Try that for judging ball size.

[chopstick]

This is a good point. Eventually Team PFF will steal enough from Team wussie that Team W has to push with really marginal stuff.

[beeyjay]

Its interesting I open this forum and see this as I was thinking about making a similarly minded post myself. In addition to your math argument is one more based in reasoning:

Say your playing for first strategy works well and you have a large stack when the 4th person is eliminated. You're now 3 handed with blinds probably at a level where a 1000 stack is almost pushing any A and a lot of Ks and quite possibly even more. Say you have 3000-4000 chips. The player on the button (who just tried to fold into the money) has 1000 chips and blinds are 300/600. He pushes with Ax and you call with KQ. No help comes and all of a sudden hes at 2900 and you're at 2000. Yet he didn't take nearly the risk you did of not making any money at all.

All I'm saying is that on the bubble gambling for 1st doesn't make much sense to me as when you are in the money the blinds are so high, really anything can and will happen. Having a (relatively) large stack when you're there really only gives you so much of an edge. So much of it really comes down to luck at that point. I feel like you have much more control over whether you make it in the money or not.

[Scuba Chuck]

So, Lorinda, will you expose your ITM results on the $33s?

[lorinda]

So, Lorinda, will you expose your ITM results on the $33s?

At some point when I'm more confident yes.

I've mentioned numbers before and ended up backtracking, so I'll wait a while this time.

Lori

[Irieguy]

You must play the bubble in a manner that maximizes your chances of winning the SNG. This is a true statement. Understanding what this statement means is the hard part.

What's interesting is that Lorinda, by arguing that the statement is false, actually understands it better than everybody else.

Irieguy

[Daliman]

I don't play for first in SNG's. I play for maximum profit over the long term, and they are often mutually exclusive.

[Vee Quiva]

It is a very rare occasion that the blinds are this high with 3 left. Plus if you have 3-4000 chips left and the short stack has 1000 left, that means the third player has....presto!!....3-4000 chips. (Assuming Party structure of 800 starting chips and 10 players)

That means your strategy of taking unnecessary risks to accumulate chips and become the chip leader did not work because you are currently in 2nd place.

[curtains]

Yea, but it's not about the money...its all about the title baby.

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
So, let's have one of these tourneys where we have two players "Playing for first" and two players "Limping for third". We'll assume all four players are equally skilled.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't the play-for-first-settle-for-third strategy come into play only after the bubble has burst and you're guaranteed at least 3rd??

[skipperbob]

You better hope that Lori is in a good mood when she reads this /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]

Yea, but it's not about the money...its all about the title baby.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why you got 3rd.

Whats the last title YOU won?

[curtains]

I won the title of $100 sit and go champion once!!!!

[stupidsucker]

Shh Lori, dont let out ll the secrets!

I still play for first so to speak, but I base how I will play given the situation. I made a post on this a while back, but it was quickly lost.

Once ITM I check out stack sizes and try to have a feel for how agressive my opponents are. You cant get 1st without getting HU(there are some cases). This means being aggressive on the steal, but not on the call. Some people think that K9s is an awesome hand to call all in with ITM because they want that 1st place.

I like those people... My ITM game has improved leaps and bounds, I think my bubble play got too weak tight.

[stripsqueez]

this seems a bit wishy washy to me lorinda - at any point in a SNG its about finding a balance - i see players who play too aggro on the bubble but the big majority play too soft

it would be a 1 in maybe 30-40 SNG experience for me to play for third - i'm sick of waiting for the short stacks to bust - i dont wait anymore unless its absolutely clear that the short stack has to go all in before i have to take a risk and even then if i have a better than completely crappy stack i'm happy to take my chances in pursuit of 1st

i say push

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[valenzuela]

A)I play for third, once Im third I play for first unless stack dictate to play for second( like a dude with 8000 chips and u have 1000).
B)I play to win by stealing blinds of ppl that play for third.

To be B u have to have a lot of chips so Im usually A

[Cry Me A River]

I think that a key concept that's missing in this discussion is multi-tabling.

Namely, bubble and ITM play very differently when you have reads and when you don't. In particular, when you can put your opponents on a range of pushing and calling hands and when you have an overall feel for the table texture, your best plays will often be very different from the mathematically assumed best plays. To take an extreme example, if you're in the SB and the BB has turtled and gone into "fold into the money" mode so he'll only call a steal with JJ-AA then you're stealing with everything and anything, all day. On the other hand, if you're SB and BB is a bigstack bully who'll call with any 2, you're only attacking with really solid holdings (unless you're in blind trouble and have no choice).

If you're multi-tabling you're a lot less likely to have reads so you're far more likely to go with "theoretically correct in the long run" plays. So you're likely to play both situations the same, which means you need a compromise strategy that works against most big stacks most of the time and doesn't automatically self-destruct against either extreme.

In addition, multi-tabling is by it's nature quantity over quality so squeezing maximum profit out of every individual tornament is not the primary objective, it's squeezing maximum profit out of every minute.

Personally, I rarely multi-table and my goal in each game is to hit the money every time. Obviously it doesn't always work out that way, but once you ARE in the money so much can happen so quickly... I don't know how many times I've hit ITM in third and wound up winning the thing AND how many times I've hit ITM in first and wound up third. Hell, I dunno how many times I've hit head's-up with a big lead/defict only to have the whole thing turn right around. You just wind up forced to take coin-flips or slight edges so often that anything can happen. Hopefully in the long run you're able to get the best of it, but in any individual tournament there's an awful lot that can go right or wrong.

ITM is a whole new ballgame. Anyone who's there has a chance at the big prize but 4th gets you $0 every time.

[HoldingFolding]

I don't like generalise, but down to 4 the object is to identify the players who want to get in the money THEN gamble - they make up 62.5% of the players at the 10s (all numbers approximate), so probably 2 of the players out of the 4. Steal from them and avoid psycho (that's player #3); don't worry he'll self-implode shortly. By the time you're down to 3 players you'll be the big stack. Now watch as Mr. "I just wanted to get in the money but now I'm going to gambooool" goes up against psycho. The hand, as you correctly point out, will be A9 vs 78 - the latter will, of course, be sooooooted. Thank you for your time.

[eastbay]

Reasonably skilled players, 50/30/20 payout.

1) 4-handed, 2500 chips apiece, 300/600. A8o on the BB, SB moves in, and you read him for any pair, any A, any K, Q9+. Call or fold?

2) 3-handed, 2500 chips apiece (yes, 7500 total), otherwise identical hand with the same read. Call or fold?

The usual analysis says 1) fold, 2) call, and I agree. I also see this concept as the idea behind the saying "settle for 3rd, go for 1st."

Is it misused? Yes. Is it exaggerated? Yes. Is it invoked to justify terrible plays? Yes. Is it correct? (in this sense of prize structure implications for $EV)? Yes.

Don't throw out valid concepts because people misunderstand or abuse them.

eastbay

[AA suited]

[ QUOTE ]
Reasonably skilled players, 50/30/20 payout.

1) 4-handed, 2500 chips apiece, 300/600. A8o on the BB, SB moves in, and you read him for any pair, any A, any K, Q9+. Call or fold?

2) 3-handed, 2500 chips apiece (yes, 7500 total), otherwise identical hand with the same read. Call or fold?

The usual analysis says 1) fold, 2) call, and I agree. I also see this concept as the idea behind the saying "settle for 3rd, go for 1st."

Is it misused? Yes. Is it exaggerated? Yes. Is it invoked to justify terrible plays? Yes. Is it correct? (in this sense of prize structure implications for $EV)? Yes.

Don't throw out valid concepts because people misunderstand or abuse them.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

For #1, what hand should you call with? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[eastbay]

The canonical answer is something like 77+, AT+. There is sensitivity to a number of variables, here, though, so I wouldn't go coining any hard and fast rules based on this example alone.

eastbay

[rachelwxm]

Interesting this concept being brought out time and time again. My take on this is I don't have fixed rules as to shot for 1st if that mean I have to sacrifise too much ITM. To me most of the negative EV move is bad except a few like building stack so that you gain advantage later, etc. Overly aggressive is as bad as overly passive.