1st vs. 2nd vs. 3rd

[HonchoOverload]

tried reading the faq, and I couldn't find the answer...

should your 1st vs. 2nd vs. 3rd percentage be roughly equivalent in the long run, or do good players have an uneven distribution that is top-weighted by, say, more than 1%?

[durron597]

I think this has a lot to do with your playing style. Recently I've heard of a lot of people where first and third are close and second trails by a lot (like me, for example), and I've heard top heavy where first is significantly out in front... but those people usually have 4th place as second most often.

[HonchoOverload]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this has a lot to do with your playing style. Recently I've heard of a lot of people where first and third are close and second trails by a lot (like me, for example), and I've heard top heavy where first is significantly out in front... but those people usually have 4th place as second most often.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder what the optimal distribution is...very interesting

The recent argument is that with the payout structure heavily biased towards the first place winner, that one should be playing for 1st once in the money. With this in mind you would see results where you finish in 1st or 3rd much more heavily than 2nd.

I have a top-heavy distribution. With 1st 1%> 2nd 1%> 3rd

I can understand why people might have a lower 2nd % and higher 1st/3rds ... but I think that there are two secrets to a top-heavy distribution:
1) Getting ITM with a good amount of chips
2) Playing a good heads-up game.

You can improve your heads-up game by playing 2-player SNGs. Getting ITM with a lot of chips is trickier--- it means playing a little looser early, having good post-flop skills, and very good bubble-play.

I don't think that JUST playing good on the bubble will get you a true top-heavy distribution.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
tried reading the faq, and I couldn't find the answer...

should your 1st vs. 2nd vs. 3rd percentage be roughly equivalent in the long run, or do good players have an uneven distribution that is top-weighted by, say, more than 1%?

[/ QUOTE ]

i've highlighted the appropriate word for me.

should is too stupid. if you're making money you're making money.

others have gone in to the topic of playing style heavilly influencing this subject, and i'm not going to go in to it deeper. there are different styles that work, and some of them make different ITM distributions.

c

[HonchoOverload]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
tried reading the faq, and I couldn't find the answer...

should your 1st vs. 2nd vs. 3rd percentage be roughly equivalent in the long run, or do good players have an uneven distribution that is top-weighted by, say, more than 1%?

[/ QUOTE ]

i've highlighted the appropriate word for me.

should is too stupid. if you're making money you're making money.

others have gone in to the topic of playing style heavilly influencing this subject, and i'm not going to go in to it deeper. there are different styles that work, and some of them make different ITM distributions.

c

[/ QUOTE ]

As my second post indicates, I'm interested in what kind of distribution is attainable/optimal.

[microbet]

I'm sure optimal distribution would vary based on buyin.

[valenzuela]

Your optimal distribution with an x ITM should be 100% firsts.
Your optimal distribution with an x ROI should be all thirds.

[HonchoOverload]

there was a reason why I put attainable in my post