Why is 3rd place % supposed to be higher than 2nd?

[Taraz]

I understand the idea that you're supposed to be gambling for first because of the 50-30-20 structure once you get into the money. But what's wrong with having a finish distribution 14-14-12 instead of 14-12-14 or something like that? Is the first distribution unsustainable? I just don't understand why whenever a finish distribution is posted that has more 2nd place finishes than 3rds the advice is to gamble more on the bubble and itm.

[lorinda]

It's because of the times you get into the money when you're the short stack with 600 chips vs three people with 3000+ chips.
It can then be correct to simply "not try" at all, especially at the lower limits.

Lori

[KJ o]

Actually, this "unbalanced 50-30-20 payout, so aim for first" isn't correct (1). If payouts were 50-33-17, show me five hands from your last 10K+ where you would play differently.

(1) To be precise: it isn't the correct readon to aim for first, but that doesn't make the advice incorrect per se.

It's not that seconds should be replaced with thirds but that seconds should be replaced with a combination of firsts and thirds.

[Taraz]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this Lori. Are you saying that you should get more 3rd place finishes because of the times you sneak into the money where you would have otherwise busted in 4th?

[lorinda]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this Lori. Are you saying that you should get more 3rd place finishes because of the times you sneak into the money where you would have otherwise busted in 4th?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

Also, when you get a tourney where you get chips, you should finish 1st more often than 2nd, so 2nd gets neglected a little.

Lori

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, this "unbalanced 50-30-20 payout, so aim for first" isn't correct (1). If payouts were 50-33-17, show me five hands from your last 10K+ where you would play differently.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure that once you're ITM you're supposed to "play for first, but settle for 3rd". Can someone back me up on this? 50-33-17 is too close to the original structure, but if the payouts were 45-35-20 or something I guarantee that I would be playing differently.

[ QUOTE ]
But what's wrong with having a finish distribution 14-14-12 instead of 14-12-14 or something like that?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you knew two such strategies, it is clear which you would take.

But your choices are more like 13-13-13 or 14-11-14. When you put your chips in the middle, it increases your chances for both getting first and for busting out next. It will often also decrease your chances for positions between those, or if it also increases your chances for those places then it will not do so nearly so much as for 1st and bust.

[Nick M]

yes once in the money you should play for first. But I believe you should be playing for first on the bubble too.

playing for first on the bubble means being aggressive. And being aggressive on the bubble is how you want to play.

this is of course just my opinion

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
yes once in the money you should play for first. But I believe you should be playing for first on the bubble too.

playing for first on the bubble means being aggressive. And being aggressive on the bubble is how you want to play.

this is of course just my opinion

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[Nicholasp27]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this Lori. Are you saying that you should get more 3rd place finishes because of the times you sneak into the money where you would have otherwise busted in 4th?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

Also, when you get a tourney where you get chips, you should finish 1st more often than 2nd, so 2nd gets neglected a little.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

2nd is the red-headed stepchild?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

If you knew two such strategies, it is clear which you would take.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's the answer I'm looking for. For some reason my feeble little brain couldn't think of this. My sample size is most definitely too small to come to any real conclusions based on my finish distribution, but I was just curious to see if there was anything I should be worried about.

I still think people are too quick to tell others that their finish distribution isn't what it should be when 1st and 3rds are higher than 2nds, but it makes sense now.

[Uppercut]

[ QUOTE ]
But what's wrong with having a finish distribution 14-14-12 instead of 14-12-14 or something like that? [ QUOTE ]


Either way, that's a pretty crappy distribution. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Deuce2High]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not that seconds should be replaced with thirds but that seconds should be replaced with a combination of firsts and thirds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thread was over here.

[curtains]

I always had about equal 2nds+3rds with a signifigantly larger number of 1sts. I used to have more 2nds, but that trend has been slowly changing towards 3rds.

[Deuce2High]

Same here. I wasn't really agreeing or disagreeing. The OP just misunderstood the idea.

My 1st/2nd/3rd this month is 75/46/50.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
Same here. I wasn't really agreeing or disagreeing. The OP just misunderstood the idea.

My 1st/2nd/3rd this month is 75/46/50.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I understand that the 2nd place finishes are supposed to replaced by an equal number of 1sts and 3rds. I just assumed that getting more than 15% 1st place is unreasonable so if you get that many firsts I didn't see why it's inherently the case that you should have more 3rds than 2nds. It makes sense that there is probably not a strategy that can produce such results.

Thanks for all the replies.

[Double Down]

The way i see it, having a lot of 3rd shows that you are good at getting in the money, having a lot of firsts shows that your shortgame is strong. But having a lot of seconds could actually be an indicator of a weakness in your game, because you are losing a lot of heads up battles. In other words, a 2nd place finish % equal to your 1sts and 2rds is not showing that you are good at being final two, but rather that your heads up play needs work.

When it's down to the final 3, you can think about it as it's own tourney, where 3rd gets nothing, 2nd gets 1 buyin and 1st gets 3 buyins. So one 1st place equals 3 2nds. That's why it's so valuable to win as many heads ups as possible.