How the little fish ran over the whole table...(why do big MTTs????)

[for teh win]

[ QUOTE ]
This is every cash game, SNG and tournament table I have ever played, live or on the internet.

Adapt.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, not at all. We're probably not even speaking about the same thing.

I'm not even talking $5+1/$10+1 on PP or something like that. Those games are really tight by comparison, at least the hours I play. I'm talking looser and (often) more aggressive games, the stuff you see in low buy-in MTT's and in low-end games at the more obscure poker sites. Sure, you might run into a maniac or compulsive caller anywhere but it doesn't happen all the time except at certain types of tables.

As the game tightens up there are new challenges for sure, I don't deny that. But I insist these super loose games create a unique challenge of its own.

There is a sweet spot between the super loose and the tight games that can be extremely profitable, but I'd say anything at either side of that spot is less so.

Ed Miller doesn't want us to win. He wants us to CRUSH the enemy, drive them before us and hear the lamentation of their women. And we can do that at ring games because in the long run we won't be dead, at least not theoretically. But it's not quite that simple in MTT's. You could extend the long-run argument to SNG's too if you're BR'ed enough. But there is still a difference.

Or two actually. First, tournament chips don't translate directly into money, which somewhat undermines standard EV play reasoning. Second, stacks are finite. There is a bottom of the chip stack and if you reach it you're dead. Conversely, unlike in ring games where chips are infinite (or treated as such), there are only so many chips you can win in the tournament format and you don't even need them all to win, you just need enough. Can he possibly be serious? Yes, he can. You only need all chips to *have won*, a subtle but fundamental difference. Meditate on that tonight while I go get sucked out somewhere.

[jackdaniels]

Conan -"CRUSH the enemy, drive them before us and hear the lamentation of their women." I love that saying!

Anyway, on a more serious note - I do understand what you are saying - there is definetly a difference between live play and online play. However, there are successful online tourney players (I'm not one of them - haven't one an online MTT yet) - and they seem to understand the right balance one needs to achieve in order to do well in these tourneys. I would suggest that you keep playing good poker, adapt to the online play (whatever that means, I haven't figured out yet) and in time you too will learn what the right combination is for winning an MTT.

Asking the fish to "play better" goes against all poker wisdom - it's from these same fish (dead money) that you are supposed to get enough chips to survive the shark (pros and lucky players) infested waters later in the tourney.

Again, I do very well in online SNG's, have been in the top 3 almost every live tourney I played in (over 20 with entries ranging from $35-$100) and play a pretty good $10-$20 (live) game. But aside from a few sattelite MTT's where you didn't need to be first to win it (so different strategy applied - as 1st pays as much as 9th) - I have yet to even GET TO THE MONEY - in an MTT. I know it can be done, and with some regularity at that (many 2+2'ers are living proof) - so I keep "plugging away", learning something every time I play and every time I study this game (on 2+2 or elsewhere). I do wish someone wrote a book detailing the different skills needed to play online vs. live, but until such a book is written, I'll continue with what I've been doing so far. At least my online bankroll is kept steady now that I've figured out SNG's, the road to an MTT win can't be too far away!

[djhoneybear]

I have taken my fair share of beats during MTTs to fish players. I have learned how to adapt somewhat. I don't spend much time trying to double up in the first few levels. If I get AA I'll go all-in expecting one player (and as many as 4) to call me. Any other hand thats good I'm going to raise before the flop just to get some people to fold and then I consider all possible hands before putting more money in the pot. When I am convinced I have the best hand I will bet the pot (or more if the pot is small). I want to win the pot right away - not get tricky and try and get a player to make a -EV play. If I flop a monster hand I will slow play until the point when I put the pot at risk (4 to a flush etc.) Then I claim the pot with a huge bet. As strange as this may sound this helps me in two ways.

1) I rarely show down a good hand. If I sit at a table long enough I know players see me as an aggressive bluffer and are itching to call. This means I can go all-in with a monster and get action.

2) I rarely am putting the majority of my chips at risk. My table image allows me to win pots when opponents have marginal hands (lots of hands get checked around to me even if I limped in) without risking much. After an opponent watches you make a modest bet and then go all-in a couple of times, that same modest bet becomes something to fear. I get to see lots of cards for free or very cheap and will even have multiple cards checked to me hoping for the trap and I just keep taking free cards.

I don't try and get aggressive with top pair top kicker in a multiway pot until the turn or later. I realize this hand is easily beaten on the flop and want to see the action before commiting myself. I don't slow play trips or a straight when there is a flush draw. I basically take as few risks as possible.

Amazingly enough this style of play gets me 3/4s of the way to the money with an average to above average chip stack. From this point on I will start mixing up my play and usually start this after a pause in the game or a table change. Of course I place in the money frequently but haven't won a tournament yet so I certainly can't say this strategy is that great. Maybe it will help?

[for teh win]

I appreciate the advice from both of you and maybe the OP does to. I definitely have a way to go and I think particularly the tricky and sometimes scary postflop play is where I could win the most improving.

I do kind of follow the advice you give already, or at least I try to. As a parenthesis, I think particularly the idea of taking down some pots early if possible, while not "proper poker", is very sound here in this case. You never know who you might be value betting for anyway, not if they are going to call you down no matter what, not in a tournament, not with bets growing exponentially with the pot like they do in NL.

Like I said, tight games can obviously be very tough but that is a different challenge that I try to work on too. Still some really though problems show up in these games I referred to above, where there is plenty of calling stations AND some hyperaggression AND a lack of risk aversion AND then throw in the occasional decent player, who might surprise you by playing some pretty strong hands, so you get all ends of the flop covered by the opponents.

I don't like to risk much of my stack early either, ever. But what to do when a fair raise gets reraised in a huge overbet just as some kind of retaliation for your trying to bully them with a puny 3-5BB raise? My solution in those situations is simply to avoid raising (the other option, I guess, is to gamble early - either grow a stack early or get a quick exit). And so it all turns into a catching game, be it with 87s or AK, where everyone is invited. But then again, good postflop play helps here because often the hyperaggressive types are most aggressive preflop. Not always though, unfortunately, and when hyperaggression or "over-calling" continues into postflop play, then suckouts get awfully expensive and I kind of feel the need to really hit some good cards before I do anything that could be escalated further by some maniac. Sometimes that's enough but I might as well get eaten by the blinds waiting.

Apart from my low buy-ins I also play some freerolls for cheap experience or just for plain fun(?) The freeroll serves as the most extreme example of these games. Even though the low buy-ins are fishy as is, I find it easier to place in the MTT's I pay for, even though the players are on average better and more concerned about playing poker rather than bingo. I have won only one freeroll ever. 6k participants and until I was heads-up I was never even once the chip leader, not even at any of the dozen tables I got shoved around between. So what was the secret behind this one-time success? Apart from the bit of luck you always need, mainly this: For some reason people would actually fold to bets like they were "supposed to" from like lvl 6 and on.

I believe the ultra-fishy games are very hard to beat. It's a shame it can't really be exploited. The maniacs drop like flies too through their super -EV plays (although sometimes your forced passivity works like schooling for them) so emulating them doesn't quite seem like an option. There is just so many of them that wiping one of them won't help you.

Still, just one loony might be all it takes to push you out if you get unlucky, as in the OP's example. And it really sucks when it happens, especially if it happens late. In the superfishy games, at least you know what you're in for from the start.

But... I'd be very interested in hearing more from all who do well in this kind of environment, if there are any. (Not just intended as an "I dare you".)