Re: Playing for 3rd?
[ 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.
|