PDA

View Full Version : Playing for 3rd?

Landon_McFly
10-20-2005, 09:34 PM
I love reading poker blogs. ZeeJustin, Curtains, and Poker Nerd are my favs, but I recently stumbled upon Gidders. Some guy who multi's the low buy-ins at Stars. I've downloaded some of his videos and I really like his insight, but it seems to me that he never pays attention to getting into the money BEFORE HE TRIES TO WIN IT. My strategy is always to try to get into the money, then go for the win. He has a different take on this.

I'm wondering what everyone else thinks about this.

Should you play for 1st?

Or should you get into the $$$ before you try to win?
bluefeet
10-20-2005, 10:11 PM
Choosing one doesn't necessarily negate the other. While either thought on/near the bubble often works against acting in the most +EV way.
10-20-2005, 10:16 PM
Your almost always playing for 1st. There are a few times when playing to money is appropriate, usually when there's almost no chance to get 1st.

Bluefeet's answer is g00t too.
golfcchs
10-20-2005, 10:21 PM
Could you give a link to the blog?
Landon_McFly
10-20-2005, 10:29 PM
My strategy is just to survive with a decent stack into the money.

Then, I will try to win. If I'm correct Howard Lederer also advocates this strat.

Although, after watching some of Gidders's videos I can also see how his mindset works also.

I was just wondering which mindset is more +EV
Landon_McFly
10-20-2005, 10:35 PM
www.gidders.com (http://www.gidders.com)
lacky
10-20-2005, 11:01 PM
im confused, are you talking about mtt's of sng's?

Steve
Landon_McFly
10-20-2005, 11:12 PM
SNG's only
lacky
10-20-2005, 11:15 PM
ok, cause the howard reference had me confused.
sahala
10-21-2005, 04:21 AM
[ QUOTE ]
www.gidders.com (http://www.gidders.com)

[/ QUOTE ]

ahem...

from here (http://www.gidders.com/about-gidders/) :
[ QUOTE ]

I have come up with a SNG strategy that has seen me book a Return On Investment over 50% over 500 SNG's - a feat thought impossible by many experts on SNG statistics.


[/ QUOTE ]
Insty
10-21-2005, 04:45 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
www.gidders.com (http://www.gidders.com)

[/ QUOTE ]

ahem...

from here (http://www.gidders.com/about-gidders/) :
[ QUOTE ]

I have had a SNG heater that has seen me book a Return On Investment over 50% over 500 SNG's - a feat thought impossible by many experts on SNG statistics.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

FHP
Scuba Chuck
10-21-2005, 04:57 AM
[ QUOTE ]

I have come up with a SNG strategy that has seen me book a Return On Investment over 50% over 500 SNG's - a feat thought impossible by many experts on SNG statistics.


[/ QUOTE ]

This guy is such a tool. Some of my favorite quotes:

[ QUOTE ]
I am a professional poker player who primarily multitables low limit SNG's to make my living.

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="blue"> His sample size is 500 SNGs. He must live in a room in his parents basement. </font>

[ QUOTE ]
One of the things I am most proud of, however – is the fact that I have over 1000 posts on pocketfives.com without a single bad beat post.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I currently four-table the $20+2's and $30+3's on PokerStars, but am ready to venture off to other sites.

[/ QUOTE ]


<font color="blue"> Pokerstars does not have these buyins. Can you believe this guy? </font>

[ QUOTE ]
I like to chat at the tables with anyone who is friendly enough to say hello and wish me luck. I also like to railbird –

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="blue"> a-hem. Need I say more? </font>
tigerite
10-21-2005, 05:32 AM
Funny as hell though. +EV just reading his delusions.
Melchiades
10-21-2005, 05:36 AM
Since when did stars not have 22 and 33?

Not that it makes him any less of a tool.
Scuba Chuck
10-21-2005, 05:37 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Since when did stars not have 22 and 33?

Not that it makes him any less of a tool.

[/ QUOTE ]

My bad. You're right. I guess I've never even looked at any of their games not highlighted in blue.
SammyKid11
10-21-2005, 05:42 AM
More magic from Gidders.com:

[ QUOTE ]

40% ROI (My ROI is actually 50.65% - but I believe I will lowball myself to 40% for this example).

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that anyone will hear about it because it would do his ego far too much damage...but I can't WAIT for this guy to get his "DOOM SWITCH" turned on for the first time.
SammyKid11
10-21-2005, 05:43 AM
Oh yeah...does anyone else think the OP is actually Gidders promoting his own site?
flyingmoose
10-21-2005, 05:48 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I can't WAIT for this guy to get his "DOOM SWITCH" turned on for the first time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone want to post an over/under on how many times Gidders uses the word "rigged" during his first major downswing.
Slim Pickens
10-21-2005, 05:54 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah...does anyone else think the OP is actually Gidders promoting his own site?

[/ QUOTE ]

I over/under 82.5%-to-one it's Bill Filmaff.
SammyKid11
10-21-2005, 05:59 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't WAIT for this guy to get his "DOOM SWITCH" turned on for the first time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone want to post an over/under on how many times Gidders uses the word "rigged" during his first major downswing.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but only because I'm confident no one on the planet will hear about his first major downswing. In fact, I'm confident he's already HAD his first major downswing and that's why his website capped his stats at 500 SNG's.

But...if you're talking about how many times he'll say it to himself...I predict 3,427 times before he blows his entire bankroll, curses his mother, breaks up with his girlfriend, throws his computer monitor into a lake, buys a gun, murders his dog, makes a huge sign that says "PartyPoker is RIGGGGGED against WONDERFUL PLAYERS LIKE MEEEE," climbs to the top of the Sears Tower WITH HIS SIGN, shoots himself in the head while holding the sign standing near enough the edge of the building that he falls, sign in tow, headlong into poker infamy toward Chicago below.

But maybe I'm not givin the guy enough credit.
SammyKid11
10-21-2005, 06:04 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah...does anyone else think the OP is actually Gidders promoting his own site?

[/ QUOTE ]

I over/under 82.5%-to-one it's Bill Filmaff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Filmaff rocks.
Landon_McFly
10-21-2005, 03:09 PM
hmm.... ok...

I was just wondering what was more +EV, playing for 1st from the beginning, or playing to get into the money and then trying to win.

ANYONE?
10-21-2005, 03:12 PM
[ QUOTE ]
hmm.... ok...

I was just wondering what was more +EV, playing for 1st from the beginning, or playing to get into the money and then trying to win.

ANYONE?

[/ QUOTE ]

Both maximizing your chance for first and maximizing your chance for ITM are usually wrong. The correct strategy is a mixture.
The Don
10-21-2005, 03:27 PM
He is playing regular SNGs, not turbos... the amount which skill plays a factor is much greater. 50% is definitely possible over 500.

Regarding strategy... On party there are situations where you play for first and others when you play for ITM (which are a far smaller percentage of the time). It is all based on stack sizes and the agressiveness of your opponents. Review curtains' posts, he has the best grasp of this concept IMO.
bluefeet
10-21-2005, 03:40 PM
[ QUOTE ]

Choosing one doesn't necessarily negate the other. While either thought on/near the bubble often works against acting in the most +EV way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe the above statement was confusing.

I think the term "playing for 1st" is misleading. You (and others) phrase such a question as if to imply that by doing so, you are taking particular risks above and beyond what might be mathematically +EV.

"I call that...I'm playing for first!"
"Borderline push my azz...I'm playing for first!"

Such statements aren't necessarily erroring on the aggressive/"play for 1st" side. Many times the "..it's close" calls aren't as close as they appear. This attitude is often failing to recognize the moment, where perhaps based on the current dynamics of the game, ones pushing/calling ranges should be significantly adjusted.

Conversely "playing for 3rd" usually DOES mean what it implies - not risking ruin despite a particular situation being clearly +EV. With hopes that a) you finally get the monster, or b) you outlast other players "playing for 3rd".

GETTING 3rd or GETTING 1st do not have (and should not have) anything to do with a preset determination to strive for such.

The key is to change your understanding, and maybe your definition of "playing for 1st". It is simply playing your cards in the most +EV way at any given moment. Understand that that doesn't always mean "turbo aggressive". It doesn't always mean avoiding risk early. Every hand you choose, or choose not to participate in, presents to you the challenge of finding out what the optimal play is.

Bottom line is that it is not logical to set out to achieve either of your general "+EV" game goals. Rather it is simply the sum result of an accumulation of decisive moments.

"Play for 1st" is the advice we should ALL receive - having a better understanding of what that means

Meh...I never was great at expressing myself, hope this helps.
Scuba Chuck
10-21-2005, 03:44 PM
[ QUOTE ]
hmm.... ok...

I was just wondering what was more +EV, playing for 1st from the beginning, or playing to get into the money and then trying to win.

ANYONE?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very easy answer. I always play for first, but not at the expense of making a -EV play. If you understood the mathematics of EV, you wouldn't be posing this question, nor using the term EV to ask it. Do you comprehend expected value? It's very disturbing to me the way in which you're posing the question.
Landon_McFly
10-21-2005, 04:23 PM
bluefeet's answer really helped a great deal. TY for that.


Scuba, what I mean is... it EV to call an allin for all your stack at level 5 and up when you are second in chips, and on the bubble, when the small stack has &lt; 4 BB's?

These are the situations I've been running to a bunch lately, and I'm just trying to learn how to handle them. When I heard Gidders say "always playing for 1st" it had me wondering if that's what his SNG mindset is.

Sorry for the confusion scuba, I'm not really good at explaining things, I was just looking for some help.

Blue feet opened my eyes a little
KJ o
10-21-2005, 05:36 PM
I think this discussion would be helped if someone created an example where playing for first actually increses chances of finishing first but is still -EV.

I'm too lzay myself...
LostMyCaseMoney
10-21-2005, 06:16 PM
Gidders tickled me pink in a way that if a woman did it I'd say: "Oh yeah! That's the spot."

Also I'm also curious on the O/U on times rigged gets used during the first downswing.