|
|
#1
11-26-2005, 04:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Standard MTT strategy correct for ALL?
Classic type of debate: On the bubble as one of the top chip leaders - #1 chip leader pushes you all in. Deep-stacked - do you call? Of course, I agree and understand that it would be correct to call as a 60% favorite or better - and possibly even calling a coin flip...
but sn't the whole nature of this decision related to the long term of poker? The quote, 'continually applying a 60/40 edge in a tourney would make you one of top tournament players' comes to mind. Meaning - if you play 1000s of MTT tourneys this risk will add up in great profits for you...in the long run... My question is - what if you don't play enough MTTs to SEE the 'long-run.' Do/should you play the same? To boil it down to a specific situation...Say I only play one online MTT every month. Given the fact that I may have to wait several more months (only a couple tourneys) to be in a similar chip stack going into the blinds - is it still correct to call? Does playing MTTs (or even cash games for that matter) somewhat infrequently change anyones views of correct decision making? 
|
|
#2
11-26-2005, 05:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Standard MTT strategy correct for ALL?
I don't think it makes much difference. If you play it safe because you don't play very often, you'll probably lose, especially if other people figure it out.
Don't just think about MTT or even just about poker. If you take the positive expected value opportunities that come your way in life, you'll probably do okay. You'll have a lot of them so the luck will even out. If you turn too many of them down in an effort to reduce your standard deviation, you might regret it. Only in the case of losses you cannot afford does it make sense, in my opinion, to reject positive expected value or accept negative expected value. If you can't afford losing a poker tournament, you shouldn't play.
|
|
#3
11-26-2005, 08:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Standard MTT strategy correct for ALL?
[ QUOTE ]
My question is - what if you don't play enough MTTs to SEE the 'long-run.' Do/should you play the same? [/ QUOTE ] The answer to your question is yes play the same. But the answer to another similar question which might be more appropriate might be to play differntly. The question: "If making the money represents a significant amount of money to you do you play the same?" The answer is it depends but in most situations the answer is no you do not play the same. If making the money is significant and it is a minor goal of yours then you should play to make the money. Things you would now consider are things like your Q (stack relative to other stacks) rather than your M (stack realtive to cost of a round) and things like the liklihood of someone being knocked out before you. Vince
|
|
#4
11-26-2005, 09:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Standard MTT strategy correct for ALL?
[ QUOTE ]
My question is - what if you don't play enough MTTs to SEE the 'long-run.' Do/should you play the same? [/ QUOTE ] A related question -- in my mind, they're equivalent or at least strongly related -- is, "How does it change tournament strategy if your utility function isn't directly related to your cash payoff?" In other words -- suppose winning the WSOP ME is the only thing I care about in life. Nothing else matters. Therefore, if finishing first is worth a trillion "utils", finishing second isn't worth 333 billion utils (or whatever the ratio of payoffs is). The reason this is related to the short-term is, if you can't generate enough trials then all the theory about winning a bet X times and losing Y times goes out the window. Risking the rent money on a good gamble is a bad idea, because if I lose the rent money I can't hang around long enough to wait for good fortune to catch up with me -- I'm broke! Of course we all understand not to bet the rent check, but even adequately-bankrolled bets with the best of it can be -EV in utility terms. If I play Foxwoods $4/8 for 12 hours, there's a decent chance I may end down $200. If I'm down that much, I will be miserable for the next couple of weeks. Therefore, even though there's not a doubt in my mind that I can beat the $4/8 over the long run, I don't play it unless I've already won some at $2/4. That's -EV in cash, but +EV in utility. (Hopefully as I win more at $2/4 I'll give myself more emotional leeway to play higher.)
|
|
#5
11-26-2005, 11:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Standard MTT strategy correct for ALL?
[ QUOTE ]
I don't play it unless I've already won some at $2/4. [/ QUOTE ] Yikes! Don't play the Foxwoods 2/4 unless you really enjoy paying rake.
|
|
#6
11-27-2005, 01:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Standard MTT strategy correct for ALL?
A couple people hit on some important parts for what I'm going through. (Really...I play less than one a month...)
I've been playing them w/best as I can figure 'correct decision making' but have had some normal suckouts. Best quick example: I raise AK as one of the top 10 chip leaders and one guy w/about 85% of my stack goes all-in. I call figuring him for a worse ace - he has A J. He suck outs and coasts into 4th for $500. Not a big suckout or beat - a classic 'race' and 'outdraw.' Not really a bigdeal...but someone mentioned that I'd regret not making a decision like that - truth is - I kinda regret making that (and similar) decisions. The suckouts affect me too much since I rarely play them. Just something I've been thinking about. Your utility arguement is good.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
