Common misconceptions. #1: Playing for first

[stripsqueez]

this seems a bit wishy washy to me lorinda - at any point in a SNG its about finding a balance - i see players who play too aggro on the bubble but the big majority play too soft

it would be a 1 in maybe 30-40 SNG experience for me to play for third - i'm sick of waiting for the short stacks to bust - i dont wait anymore unless its absolutely clear that the short stack has to go all in before i have to take a risk and even then if i have a better than completely crappy stack i'm happy to take my chances in pursuit of 1st

i say push

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[valenzuela]

A)I play for third, once Im third I play for first unless stack dictate to play for second( like a dude with 8000 chips and u have 1000).
B)I play to win by stealing blinds of ppl that play for third.

To be B u have to have a lot of chips so Im usually A

[Cry Me A River]

I think that a key concept that's missing in this discussion is multi-tabling.

Namely, bubble and ITM play very differently when you have reads and when you don't. In particular, when you can put your opponents on a range of pushing and calling hands and when you have an overall feel for the table texture, your best plays will often be very different from the mathematically assumed best plays. To take an extreme example, if you're in the SB and the BB has turtled and gone into "fold into the money" mode so he'll only call a steal with JJ-AA then you're stealing with everything and anything, all day. On the other hand, if you're SB and BB is a bigstack bully who'll call with any 2, you're only attacking with really solid holdings (unless you're in blind trouble and have no choice).

If you're multi-tabling you're a lot less likely to have reads so you're far more likely to go with "theoretically correct in the long run" plays. So you're likely to play both situations the same, which means you need a compromise strategy that works against most big stacks most of the time and doesn't automatically self-destruct against either extreme.

In addition, multi-tabling is by it's nature quantity over quality so squeezing maximum profit out of every individual tornament is not the primary objective, it's squeezing maximum profit out of every minute.

Personally, I rarely multi-table and my goal in each game is to hit the money every time. Obviously it doesn't always work out that way, but once you ARE in the money so much can happen so quickly... I don't know how many times I've hit ITM in third and wound up winning the thing AND how many times I've hit ITM in first and wound up third. Hell, I dunno how many times I've hit head's-up with a big lead/defict only to have the whole thing turn right around. You just wind up forced to take coin-flips or slight edges so often that anything can happen. Hopefully in the long run you're able to get the best of it, but in any individual tournament there's an awful lot that can go right or wrong.

ITM is a whole new ballgame. Anyone who's there has a chance at the big prize but 4th gets you $0 every time.

[HoldingFolding]

I don't like generalise, but down to 4 the object is to identify the players who want to get in the money THEN gamble - they make up 62.5% of the players at the 10s (all numbers approximate), so probably 2 of the players out of the 4. Steal from them and avoid psycho (that's player #3); don't worry he'll self-implode shortly. By the time you're down to 3 players you'll be the big stack. Now watch as Mr. "I just wanted to get in the money but now I'm going to gambooool" goes up against psycho. The hand, as you correctly point out, will be A9 vs 78 - the latter will, of course, be sooooooted. Thank you for your time.

[eastbay]

Reasonably skilled players, 50/30/20 payout.

1) 4-handed, 2500 chips apiece, 300/600. A8o on the BB, SB moves in, and you read him for any pair, any A, any K, Q9+. Call or fold?

2) 3-handed, 2500 chips apiece (yes, 7500 total), otherwise identical hand with the same read. Call or fold?

The usual analysis says 1) fold, 2) call, and I agree. I also see this concept as the idea behind the saying "settle for 3rd, go for 1st."

Is it misused? Yes. Is it exaggerated? Yes. Is it invoked to justify terrible plays? Yes. Is it correct? (in this sense of prize structure implications for $EV)? Yes.

Don't throw out valid concepts because people misunderstand or abuse them.

eastbay

[AA suited]

[ QUOTE ]
Reasonably skilled players, 50/30/20 payout.

1) 4-handed, 2500 chips apiece, 300/600. A8o on the BB, SB moves in, and you read him for any pair, any A, any K, Q9+. Call or fold?

2) 3-handed, 2500 chips apiece (yes, 7500 total), otherwise identical hand with the same read. Call or fold?

The usual analysis says 1) fold, 2) call, and I agree. I also see this concept as the idea behind the saying "settle for 3rd, go for 1st."

Is it misused? Yes. Is it exaggerated? Yes. Is it invoked to justify terrible plays? Yes. Is it correct? (in this sense of prize structure implications for $EV)? Yes.

Don't throw out valid concepts because people misunderstand or abuse them.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

For #1, what hand should you call with? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[eastbay]

The canonical answer is something like 77+, AT+. There is sensitivity to a number of variables, here, though, so I wouldn't go coining any hard and fast rules based on this example alone.

eastbay

[rachelwxm]

Interesting this concept being brought out time and time again. My take on this is I don't have fixed rules as to shot for 1st if that mean I have to sacrifise too much ITM. To me most of the negative EV move is bad except a few like building stack so that you gain advantage later, etc. Overly aggressive is as bad as overly passive.