Lets end the Stupidity Please

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
Betgo what is your name on pokerstars/party. I would like to see you play on the bubble because I just can't believe that you can be a winning player following your own advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

My name is betgo. Please feel free to watch and learn.

I play very aggressively on the bubble if a lot of people are playing tightly. However, I don't try to steal blinds as often with a medium stack as a large stack. I think that is common sense.

I played in one tournament where I had a slightly below average stack on the bubble. The player to my left and the two players to my right were medium to shortstacks playing weak/tight, so I stole from them like crazy.

The player two places to my left was the tournament leader. I think his name was Gigabet. Four to my left was another big stack known strong player. Maybe I am weak/tight, but I wasn't putting in a lot of loose early or mid position raises.

You have to adapt to the situation, and I don't agree with playing blindly aggressive on the bubble. In a lot of situations, the play is not all that tight. Having a 12xBB stack makes it harder to exploit weak bubble play.

betgo, I like your idea and the discussion it posted. Its a pitty that only broomcorn actually understood what you were saying and almost no one else considered whatyou were saying. As broomcorn pointed out, it is probably the heading that made everyone think you actually thought it was better to have 6BB than 12BB despite u specifically saying thats not what you meant about 10 times. It seems everyone is in such a hurry to say something and do their "quote lol"s that they have to put words in your mouth to do it.

That said I can clear some of the actual discussion up. Some readers here still dont believe that its a handicap to be in the orange zone or why it should be. saying "there are less +EV opertunities" doesnt make sense to them unless you explain why. Most of us know why, but it isnt the easiest thing to explain.

When the tournament starts the play is much like a cash game with deep money(small starting pot). Position become so important that you can limp all sorts of junk in late position just incase u catch some crazy flop and can capitalize on the situation. This part is all about implied odds.

The opposite happens when the tournament is in its later stages of play. Suddenly the rare chance at grabbing a stack isnt nearly as important as grabbing whats in the pot. This part is all about pot odds (until payout structure becomes more relevent).

When you have a big stack:
You have the chance to make big scores against other big stacks which makes it worth it to keep on the lookout for big implied odds. Your raises also scare other big stacks because u threaten them.
You also get to pick off small stacks that are out of line or out of hope.
These things give big stacks extra limping and raising value

When you have a small stack:
You can put pressure on the blinds/limpers that a bigger stack couldnt do without offering the opponents implied odds while also risking a reraise.

This is intuitive to everyone, but it needed to be said.

PS
For any beginners who stumbled in here I want to clarify
When your a middle stack:
You dont get the ripe implied odds that exist in "deep money" situations that occur when you have big stacks in a hand. You also dont threaten bigger stacks with elimination (if you dont think this reduces the occurance of +EV situations then reread a few books)
You also dont get the benefit of putting pressure on blinds and limpers without offering implied odds while risking a reraise the way a small stack could.

For beginners skalansky's "the system" is a good estimation of the rate at which u should open your hand requirements as your stack shrinks. Its a guide of "optimum play" if your only options were to push or fold. In the orange zone, a good workable adaptation would probably be:
fold the worst loosest 10-20% of the allin hands
limp the middle 10-70% of the allins hands
raise the top 30-50% of the allins

[rockythecat99]

No offense to you or Betgo but some of the top tourny players here on 2+2(MLG,Adanther,CSC,LLoyd) have already dismissed this theory. They are winning players who know what they are talking about. You guys are making no sense whatsoever.

[McMelchior]

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to see you play on the bubble because I just can't believe that you can be a winning player following your own advice

[/ QUOTE ]
Rocky, your reply sucks.

It's one of the fundamental premises of poker that you cannot appreciate the application of a concept if you don't understand it.

If you don't aggree with Betgo's analyzis and strategy concept, how can you judge the quality of his play from wathing him play the bubble? He will be doing things that seem meaningless to you, yet they are in perfect concordance with his "Red Stack" concept. Are you going to judge from the outcome? Then you'd be really far off.

Betgo is a very versatile player with good placements in a wide range of games. I looked up his PStars stats for the last year, and he has absolutely no reason to be unhappy with his results: 9 final tables and 7 final two tables in games like NLHE, PLHE, 7CS8, PLO, PLO8 and O8 with buy-ins up to $100 (this information is publicly available on database).

The truth migh be that he achieved these fine results in spite of his belief in the "Red Zone", but dismissing somebody's thoughts on the game by "seeing them play" or by gauging their results makes little sense.

Best,

McMelchior (Johan)

[rockythecat99]

First off you are not getting whta I am saying. I want to see him play to see how he implements his red zone strategy. I have seen his results on thepokerdb.com. I am sure he is a good player but this idea is just plain wrong. Obviously if I see him play and he pushes wiht AA and loses to KJo I am not going to be like "look your red zone strategy doesn't work". But I want to see what he is talking about not mocking him. So please spare me your mightier than thou post.

[Cactus Jack]

Johan, my concern is not with whether or not his Red Zone theory is valid, per se, but that he's losing chips with middle stacks. That is clearly not right. While he may have superb results, think how much better they would be if he were focusing less on theories and more on getting a complete game. (Or, maybe not, as his results show he'd beat my ass if he did.)

CJ