View Full Version : Only idiots play for first
So stop saying "I play for first" when what you mean is "I'm a macho gorilla idiot."
Bigwig
07-04-2005, 03:45 AM
[ QUOTE ]
So stop saying "I play for first" when what you mean is "I'm a macho gorilla idiot."
[/ QUOTE ]
There's a line in this situation to which your blanket statement does not apply.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So stop saying "I play for first" when what you mean is "I'm a macho gorilla idiot."
[/ QUOTE ]
There's a line in this situation to which your blanket statement does not apply.
[/ QUOTE ]
Good point, when you are HU you should play for first.
Bigwig
07-04-2005, 03:54 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So stop saying "I play for first" when what you mean is "I'm a macho gorilla idiot."
[/ QUOTE ]
There's a line in this situation to which your blanket statement does not apply.
[/ QUOTE ]
Good point, when you are HU you should play for first.
[/ QUOTE ]
No. Before then even.
The macho type of comment to which you refer is certainly dumb. However, there are certainly times in which passing up very solid $EV plays comes into question. There is merit to 'playing for first.' In fact, much of the pushing first bubble strategy revolves around such a play.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So stop saying "I play for first" when what you mean is "I'm a macho gorilla idiot."
[/ QUOTE ]
There's a line in this situation to which your blanket statement does not apply.
[/ QUOTE ]
Good point, when you are HU you should play for first.
[/ QUOTE ]
No. Before then even.
The macho type of comment to which you refer is certainly dumb. However, there are certainly times in which passing up very solid $EV plays comes into question. There is merit to 'playing for first.' In fact, much of the pushing first bubble strategy revolves around such a play.
[/ QUOTE ]
I see where you're coming from but I think that saying you're "playing for 1st" in those kinds of situations is very misleading. You're not playing for 1st, it just looks like you are. You're playing for maximum ROI, or perhaps maximum $$/hr. Playing in a way that maximizes your $EV is good whether or not it happens to maximize your chances of finishing 1st. Playing in a way that maximizes your chances of finishing 1st is good IFF it also maximizes your $EV.
Bigwig
07-04-2005, 04:00 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Playing in a way that maximizes your chances of finishing 1st is good IFF it also maximizes your $EV.
[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/confused.gif
It often does.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Playing in a way that maximizes your chances of finishing 1st is good IFF it also maximizes your $EV.
[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/confused.gif
It often does.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, but it's beside the point. Whether it does or does not has no bearing on whether the play is correct.
Bigwig
07-04-2005, 04:05 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Playing in a way that maximizes your chances of finishing 1st is good IFF it also maximizes your $EV.
[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/confused.gif
It often does.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, but it's beside the point. Whether it does or does not has no bearing on whether the play is correct.
[/ QUOTE ]
You been drinking?
I have.
You're not making sense.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Playing in a way that maximizes your chances of finishing 1st is good IFF it also maximizes your $EV.
[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/confused.gif
It often does.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, but it's beside the point. Whether it does or does not has no bearing on whether the play is correct.
[/ QUOTE ]
You been drinking?
I have.
You're not making sense.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hehe.
I'm making perfect sense.
Look at this thread again when you're sober.
Bigwig
07-04-2005, 04:10 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Playing in a way that maximizes your chances of finishing 1st is good IFF it also maximizes your $EV.
[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/confused.gif
It often does.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, but it's beside the point. Whether it does or does not has no bearing on whether the play is correct.
[/ QUOTE ]
You been drinking?
I have.
You're not making sense.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hehe.
I'm making perfect sense.
Look at this thread again when you're sober.
[/ QUOTE ]
The maximum $EV play has 'no bearing' on whether or not the play is correct?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Playing in a way that maximizes your chances of finishing 1st is good IFF it also maximizes your $EV.
[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/confused.gif
It often does.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, but it's beside the point. Whether it does or does not has no bearing on whether the play is correct.
[/ QUOTE ]
You been drinking?
I have.
You're not making sense.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hehe.
I'm making perfect sense.
Look at this thread again when you're sober.
[/ QUOTE ]
The maximum $EV play has 'no bearing' on whether or not the play is correct?
[/ QUOTE ]
No, whether or not the play maximizes your chance of finishing 1st has no bearing on whether it is correct.
Bigwig
07-04-2005, 04:24 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Playing in a way that maximizes your chances of finishing 1st is good IFF it also maximizes your $EV.
[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/confused.gif
It often does.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, but it's beside the point. Whether it does or does not has no bearing on whether the play is correct.
[/ QUOTE ]
You been drinking?
I have.
You're not making sense.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hehe.
I'm making perfect sense.
Look at this thread again when you're sober.
[/ QUOTE ]
The maximum $EV play has 'no bearing' on whether or not the play is correct?
[/ QUOTE ]
No, whether or not the play maximizes your chance of finishing 1st has no bearing on whether it is correct.
[/ QUOTE ]
What?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Playing in a way that maximizes your chances of finishing 1st is good IFF it also maximizes your $EV.
[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/confused.gif
It often does.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, but it's beside the point. Whether it does or does not has no bearing on whether the play is correct.
[/ QUOTE ]
You been drinking?
I have.
You're not making sense.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hehe.
I'm making perfect sense.
Look at this thread again when you're sober.
[/ QUOTE ]
The maximum $EV play has 'no bearing' on whether or not the play is correct?
[/ QUOTE ]
No, whether or not the play maximizes your chance of finishing 1st has no bearing on whether it is correct.
[/ QUOTE ]
What?
[/ QUOTE ]
The play that maximizes your chance of finishing 1st is often, but not always, the play that maximizes your $EV.
Bigwig
07-04-2005, 04:43 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Playing in a way that maximizes your chances of finishing 1st is good IFF it also maximizes your $EV.
[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/confused.gif
It often does.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, but it's beside the point. Whether it does or does not has no bearing on whether the play is correct.
[/ QUOTE ]
You been drinking?
I have.
You're not making sense.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hehe.
I'm making perfect sense.
Look at this thread again when you're sober.
[/ QUOTE ]
The maximum $EV play has 'no bearing' on whether or not the play is correct?
[/ QUOTE ]
No, whether or not the play maximizes your chance of finishing 1st has no bearing on whether it is correct.
[/ QUOTE ]
What?
[/ QUOTE ]
The play that maximizes your chance of finishing 1st is often, but not always, the play that maximizes your $EV.
[/ QUOTE ]
Uh....
Duh?
NYCNative
07-04-2005, 04:54 AM
There are sometimes bubble situations where I will get out of the way when I might have a better than average chance at winning. Say this scenario happens:
Blinds are 100/200 at a UB tournament.
UTG - t800
Button - t4500
Hero - t4900
BB - t4800
UTG bets t800 all-in, button calls, hero...
I would need a damn good hand to get involevd here with someone acting behind me and someone else who is already taking on shorty. There are probably many hands that would be +EV to call or even reraise with here because shorty is probably pushing a wide range and let's say the caller is a LAG. Maybe even the BB is super-tight and unlikely to get involved as well but still I would fold a LOT of decent hands.
Is folding a +EV hand not playing for first because winning the hand will get ITM and possibly vault me into a huge stack? I think it's simply smart poker to fold a decent but non-premium hand here, even if you think it's the best.
The Yugoslavian
07-04-2005, 02:41 PM
The true goal of a .5/.3/.2 STT isn't 1st place, it's to PROFIT BITCH. Thus, there is no real 'playing for first.' It just so happens that a heft distribution of them helps one profit the most.
Yugoslav
Benholio
07-04-2005, 02:45 PM
Exactly. There has been to much wielding of catch-phrase one-liners in lieu of actual advice around here lately. You shouldn't 'always' or 'never' do anything.
Sometimes you should "play for second". Sometimes you should push with more than 10xBB. Sometimes you shouldn't push with < 10xBB. Sometimes you should call on the bubble with an easily dominated hand.
hobbes9324
07-04-2005, 02:45 PM
Well....you can't finish first, if you don't finish second, if you don't finish third.....if you get my drift.
My attitude is get in the money, then look around like its a new game and go from there.....
But I'm just a donk
bkbluedevil
07-04-2005, 02:48 PM
[ QUOTE ]
So stop saying "I play for first" when what you mean is "I'm a macho gorilla idiot."
[/ QUOTE ]
It's this kind of attitude that makes playing for first so profitable.
johnnybeef
07-04-2005, 02:48 PM
[ QUOTE ]
So stop saying "I play for first" when what you mean is "I'm a macho gorilla idiot."
[/ QUOTE ]
I am a macho idiot gorilla, and I resent your statement. In all seriousness, there are many times in which playing for first is the corret way to play. However, there are also, many times (such as the thread that I pwn3d Karak in yesterday) where playing for first is not an option. A true expert is someone who keeps an open mind to explore all situations and can correctly decide when playing for first is simply not an option.
Bigwig
07-04-2005, 02:49 PM
To clarify on what I was saying last night: Of course you don't play for 1st with no regard to finishing ITM. However, there are situations where you makes plays with fold equity that if you are called and win, your chances of finishing first dramatically increase. If you are called and lose, you finish OTM. The much larger payout for first is what makes these plays +$EV, so 'playing for 1st' isn't necessarily always bad. It's the context of the situation. But there are situations where you should go for the gold, so to speak.
That's not very clear.
Paul2432
07-04-2005, 03:04 PM
Completely agree. Play to maximize $EV.
Of course, the correct play if the format was winner take all will often be the same as the correct play in a 5/3/2 payout structure. It is a logical fallacy though to conclude that because of this "play for first" is sometimes a proper strategy.
Similarly, you could argue that "fold every hand preflop" is a proper strategy because fairly often folding preflop is the right play.
Paul
johnnybeef
07-04-2005, 03:07 PM
[ QUOTE ]
'playing for 1st' isn't necessarily always bad.
[/ QUOTE ]
in fact it is usually the correct play.
eastbay
07-04-2005, 04:05 PM
[ QUOTE ]
However, there are certainly times in which passing up very solid $EV plays comes into question.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, there aren't. When are you guys going to stop being confused about this?
eastbay
runner4life7
07-04-2005, 04:07 PM
Its looks like this thread is just arguing about the wording when no one is really disagreeing if I am seeing this correctly. But I will say the attitude to get ITM and then worry about going for 1st or 2nd is absolutely terrible.
runner4life7
07-04-2005, 04:09 PM
I couldnt agree more, the simply defintion of $EV would imply that there is only one choice that you gain the most money from and passing up $EV is not it.
Bigwig
07-04-2005, 06:02 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, there are certainly times in which passing up very solid $EV plays comes into question.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, there aren't. When are you guys going to stop being confused about this?
eastbay
[/ QUOTE ]
I know that, duh.
You completely misunderstood the context.
EDIT--I was referring to the fact that passing up some plays that can be misconstrued for 'play for 1st' are actually +$EV and should not be passed on. So save the preaching for someone else.
Blarg
07-04-2005, 06:11 PM
I have to agree. This attitude, which I occasionally succumb to(especially after a dispiriting run of being outdrawn) and which is the mark of an absolutely beginning and ignorant player, has held me back more than any other and is a constant threat to me
The gap between 1st and 3rd is too enormous to take trivially, and getting ITM is over-rated. You can get ITM 50% and still be losing money at a rapid clip, if it's all third places. Getting a substantial percentage of first places is absolutely vital to profitability, and can net you a much higher ROI even with a much lower ITM. Finding a way to get into the money and then just taking it from there is a philosophy that will cripple you as a player. It will breed deep into the bone terribly destructive habits of mind and prevent notable improvement, perhaps indefinitely. Certainly it gets you into mental traps that are hard to get out of.
You simply need to take the reasoned chances necessary to get into the money with some power, not just barely shuffling in through the backdoor while watching all the action from the sidelines, because SNG's are not sustainably profitable with a high percentage of third places, and profitability isn't even all that much better with a high percentage of second places. The difference between 1st and 3rd in, say, a $11 game is $30. The difference between 4th and 3rd is only $20. You'll make more money changing a 3rd into a 1st than you'll make changing a 10th into a 3rd!
It's not about placing frequently; it's about how much you win overall. In that regard, 3rds are probably terrifically overrated by many players. You have to do what it takes to boost your number of 1sts, and you can sacrifice quite a few 3rds to do it before coming out the worst for it.
Allinlife
07-04-2005, 06:14 PM
this threads heading no where.
Blarg
07-04-2005, 06:58 PM
You were expecting it to go to the grocery store and pick you up some bread and milk?
ThaHero
07-04-2005, 07:09 PM
The first page of this post made my head spin. I need to stop drinking.
1Winston
07-04-2005, 07:15 PM
I think it has been quite an interesting read.
eastbay
07-04-2005, 07:52 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, there are certainly times in which passing up very solid $EV plays comes into question.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, there aren't. When are you guys going to stop being confused about this?
eastbay
[/ QUOTE ]
I know that, duh.
You completely misunderstood the context.
EDIT--I was referring to the fact that passing up some plays that can be misconstrued for 'play for 1st' are actually +$EV and should not be passed on. So save the preaching for someone else.
[/ QUOTE ]
You might want to express yourself a little more clearly then. It didn't really have anything to do with context.
eastbay
EverettKings
07-04-2005, 08:18 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The true goal of a .5/.3/.2 STT isn't 1st place, it's to PROFIT BITCH. Thus, there is no real 'playing for first.' It just so happens that a heft distribution of them helps one profit the most.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yugo nailed this one.
Sometimes people do like to justify crazy gorilla moves by saying that they´re playing for first. It´s a way to not get criticized by making it look like anyone who opposes you is a big pussy.
"I´d just go all in. I´m playing for first, not third" as if it´s an argument.
Bigwig
07-04-2005, 09:44 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, there are certainly times in which passing up very solid $EV plays comes into question.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, there aren't. When are you guys going to stop being confused about this?
eastbay
[/ QUOTE ]
I know that, duh.
You completely misunderstood the context.
EDIT--I was referring to the fact that passing up some plays that can be misconstrued for 'play for 1st' are actually +$EV and should not be passed on. So save the preaching for someone else.
[/ QUOTE ]
You might want to express yourself a little more clearly then. It didn't really have anything to do with context.
eastbay
[/ QUOTE ]
No, it had to do with you not paying attention to the entire conversation.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.