Playing for 3rd?

[Landon_McFly]

I love reading poker blogs. ZeeJustin, Curtains, and Poker Nerd are my favs, but I recently stumbled upon Gidders. Some guy who multi's the low buy-ins at Stars. I've downloaded some of his videos and I really like his insight, but it seems to me that he never pays attention to getting into the money BEFORE HE TRIES TO WIN IT. My strategy is always to try to get into the money, then go for the win. He has a different take on this.

I'm wondering what everyone else thinks about this.

Should you play for 1st?

Or should you get into the $$$ before you try to win?

[bluefeet]

Choosing one doesn't necessarily negate the other. While either thought on/near the bubble often works against acting in the most +EV way.

Your almost always playing for 1st. There are a few times when playing to money is appropriate, usually when there's almost no chance to get 1st.

Bluefeet's answer is g00t too.

[Landon_McFly]

My strategy is just to survive with a decent stack into the money.

Then, I will try to win. If I'm correct Howard Lederer also advocates this strat.

Although, after watching some of Gidders's videos I can also see how his mindset works also.

I was just wondering which mindset is more +EV

[Landon_McFly]

www.gidders.com

[sahala]

[ QUOTE ]
www.gidders.com

[/ QUOTE ]

ahem...

from here :
[ QUOTE ]

I have come up with a SNG strategy that has seen me book a Return On Investment over 50% over 500 SNG's - a feat thought impossible by many experts on SNG statistics.


[/ QUOTE ]

[lacky]

im confused, are you talking about mtt's of sng's?

Steve

[Landon_McFly]

SNG's only

[bluefeet]

[ 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.

[golfcchs]

Could you give a link to the blog?