Common misconceptions. #1: Playing for first

lorinda · #1 03-09-2005, 05:18 PM

1. Winning a tourney at all costs is incredibly important.

Winning SNGs is great, it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside and returns 5 buyins (Nearly [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] ). There is a lot to be said for winning a SNG, it's fantastic.

On this forum, especially at the lower limits, people seem inclined to make ridiculous plays and justify them with "Play to win, settle for third".

Let's do some hand-waving arguments.

If you're in a bubble type position where everyone has 2000 chips and want to gamble it up to try to win, what exactly must you do

People seem to think that this justifies aiming your chips in at random, on the assumption that they either lose the next pot or win the tourney.

So, let's have one of these tourneys where we have two players "Playing for first" and two players "Limping for third". We'll assume all four players are equally skilled.

So, the two "Play for first" players throw their chips into the middle. One probably raised UTG with 78s and one probably called with A9o, something like that. One of them won the pot. Both justified their play by saying there is no point in settling for third.
So, how are our two types of player going?

Well, team "Playing for first" have a guaranteed $0 plus a very good shot at $50 (Assuming a $11 tourney).
Team "Settling for third" have $20 and $30 guaranteed, and a shot at more.

Notice that team "settling for third" already have the $50 that team "Play for first" have as their theoretical maximum.

This post is not to say you shouldn't try to win tourneys, but it is to point out that many of you, MANY OF YOU have flawed logic when making ludicrous plays and are justifying them with "I was playing for first"

Lori

(I'm aware there are more mathematical ways to make this argument, but I believe those who use "I was playing for first" the most are the less mathematical ones.)

skipperbob · #2 03-09-2005, 05:32 PM

I refuse to be swayed by logical, well-spoken argument. I prefer to react, in a non-thinking reflex, with some random comment that bears no relation to the subject at hand. Therefore, I push [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

poker-penguin · #3 03-09-2005, 05:37 PM

The sneaky flaw in your argument is that team playing for first always knock each other out under your scenario. What about the times where they steal three or four times from team fold into the money and are left battling for first and second?

I'm not saying that you're wrong (although I'm a card carrying member of team play for first - although in limit it is easier to change your mind), just that you're being sneaky.

curtains · #4 03-09-2005, 05:37 PM

Yea, gotta go for first....2nd place is just the first loser.

lorinda · #5 03-09-2005, 05:42 PM

just that you're being sneaky.

You are right of course, and it's certainly a little unfair of me, however anyone who spotted that I'm being sneaky, is probably sneaky enough to be able to accurately play for first [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] (Dodge the other play for first guy for instance.)

At this point people are starting to use more strategy and less blind ambition, which is fine by me.

The point is to ram home that there are occasions (Read, against two lunatics) that playing for first is not neccessarily correct. The "Play for first" squad tend to forget that you can still come first, even if you are not chip leader in the last three.

Lori

skipperbob · #6 03-09-2005, 05:47 PM

"can still come first"....in context, is that the same as "still come in first"?

Theduke211 · #7 03-09-2005, 05:50 PM

Ha, I just leave the table once im in third place, most of the time I end up in second place. Try that for judging ball size.

chopstick · #8 03-09-2005, 06:01 PM

This is a good point. Eventually Team PFF will steal enough from Team wussie that Team W has to push with really marginal stuff.

beeyjay · #9 03-09-2005, 06:03 PM

Its interesting I open this forum and see this as I was thinking about making a similarly minded post myself. In addition to your math argument is one more based in reasoning:

Say your playing for first strategy works well and you have a large stack when the 4th person is eliminated. You're now 3 handed with blinds probably at a level where a 1000 stack is almost pushing any A and a lot of Ks and quite possibly even more. Say you have 3000-4000 chips. The player on the button (who just tried to fold into the money) has 1000 chips and blinds are 300/600. He pushes with Ax and you call with KQ. No help comes and all of a sudden hes at 2900 and you're at 2000. Yet he didn't take nearly the risk you did of not making any money at all.

All I'm saying is that on the bubble gambling for 1st doesn't make much sense to me as when you are in the money the blinds are so high, really anything can and will happen. Having a (relatively) large stack when you're there really only gives you so much of an edge. So much of it really comes down to luck at that point. I feel like you have much more control over whether you make it in the money or not.

Scuba Chuck · #10 03-09-2005, 06:16 PM

So, Lorinda, will you expose your ITM results on the $33s?