Why is 3rd place % supposed to be higher than 2nd?

Taraz · #1 10-21-2005, 05:05 PM

I understand the idea that you're supposed to be gambling for first because of the 50-30-20 structure once you get into the money. But what's wrong with having a finish distribution 14-14-12 instead of 14-12-14 or something like that? Is the first distribution unsustainable? I just don't understand why whenever a finish distribution is posted that has more 2nd place finishes than 3rds the advice is to gamble more on the bubble and itm.

lorinda · #2 10-21-2005, 05:07 PM

It's because of the times you get into the money when you're the short stack with 600 chips vs three people with 3000+ chips.
It can then be correct to simply "not try" at all, especially at the lower limits.

Lori

KJ o · #3 10-21-2005, 05:29 PM

Actually, this "unbalanced 50-30-20 payout, so aim for first" isn't correct (1). If payouts were 50-33-17, show me five hands from your last 10K+ where you would play differently.

(1) To be precise: it isn't the correct readon to aim for first, but that doesn't make the advice incorrect per se.

#4 10-21-2005, 05:44 PM

It's not that seconds should be replaced with thirds but that seconds should be replaced with a combination of firsts and thirds.

Taraz · #5 10-21-2005, 07:04 PM

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this Lori. Are you saying that you should get more 3rd place finishes because of the times you sneak into the money where you would have otherwise busted in 4th?

lorinda · #6 10-21-2005, 07:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this Lori. Are you saying that you should get more 3rd place finishes because of the times you sneak into the money where you would have otherwise busted in 4th?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

Also, when you get a tourney where you get chips, you should finish 1st more often than 2nd, so 2nd gets neglected a little.

Lori

Taraz · #7 10-21-2005, 07:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, this "unbalanced 50-30-20 payout, so aim for first" isn't correct (1). If payouts were 50-33-17, show me five hands from your last 10K+ where you would play differently.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure that once you're ITM you're supposed to "play for first, but settle for 3rd". Can someone back me up on this? 50-33-17 is too close to the original structure, but if the payouts were 45-35-20 or something I guarantee that I would be playing differently.

#8 10-21-2005, 07:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But what's wrong with having a finish distribution 14-14-12 instead of 14-12-14 or something like that?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you knew two such strategies, it is clear which you would take.

But your choices are more like 13-13-13 or 14-11-14. When you put your chips in the middle, it increases your chances for both getting first and for busting out next. It will often also decrease your chances for positions between those, or if it also increases your chances for those places then it will not do so nearly so much as for 1st and bust.

Nick M · #9 10-21-2005, 08:06 PM

yes once in the money you should play for first. But I believe you should be playing for first on the bubble too.

playing for first on the bubble means being aggressive. And being aggressive on the bubble is how you want to play.

this is of course just my opinion

Taraz · #10 10-21-2005, 09:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
yes once in the money you should play for first. But I believe you should be playing for first on the bubble too.

playing for first on the bubble means being aggressive. And being aggressive on the bubble is how you want to play.

this is of course just my opinion

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.