#11
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Who\'s tournament Advice would you follow?
A by a large amount
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Who\'s tournament Advice would you follow?
The best players are neither A nor B. They bust out early more than type B does, but not "often." They make the money fairly often (maybe 1 out of 5 times) although perhaps slighlty less than type B, but deffinitely more than type A. When they do make the money, however, they tend to go much deeper into the tourney than type B. Its the combination of the two skills that makes a really good player.
Tournament play is not about forming an overall gameplan, it is about making correct decisions in a lot of individual situations. To classify good players as either A or B is wrong, as they are neither. Or rather, they are whichever one the individual situation calls for. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Who\'s tournament Advice would you follow?
To classify good players as either A or B is wrong, as they are neither.
Wow did you misread his post. He never said this was a classification for players that were GOOD. This was his classification for players who post on 2+2. BIIIIG difference. -Scott |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Who\'s tournament Advice would you follow?
fair enough. then the answer is even simpler. listen to the good players, not A or B.
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Who\'s tournament Advice would you follow?
i think my style depends on the situation i'm in. i try to be like A but sometimes the situation just doesn't dictate that. i'll take chances, try to amass chips but sometimes that doesn't happen. then i find myself on the bubble with a small chip stack. this is when i just try to hold off to make the money.
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Who\'s tournament Advice would you follow?
[ QUOTE ]
I think in the age of 500+ fields [/ QUOTE ] To finish in the top 3 you have to get to the final table. In a big field this is a substancial minefiled to navigate. The time investment of sliding into the money doesn't seem like a good strategy to me. I think you need to set your sights higher which means being aggressive on the various bubbles at payout levels since there will always be at least few just trying to squeeze into the next payoff. But my goal is to get into position to do well. If I can get to the final 2 tables in a 500+ event I have a chance at a good payout. But by that point binds and antes are large and every shortstack is making a desperation play and it's a crapshoot. So I think the best strategy is to try and get close with a decent stack and hope to catch some cards as the inevitable all in fest will determine the outcome. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Who\'s tournament Advice would you follow?
someone said the key thing here, that is to take what the tourney gives you. if for the first hour you're seeing a lot of J3o and 58s and trash like that, you'll gravitate toward a "B" player, but if you're looking at AA followed by QQ, well, then you'll be an "A" player, but neither classification is all that accurate (or useful). The important thing in a tourney is survival and finishing as high as possible. I think the best tourney players are the ones who know when you need to push your small advantages to build a stack and when you need to fold your small advantages so you can live to play another hand. Example: in consecutive tourneys the other day i was the chip leader for a good hour in the first one, flopped a flush only to get outdrawn by a runner-runner full house, and had to fight from that point on to finish 14th. Next tourney, awful cards, played maybe 15 hands until i was actually blinded out in what would have been 33rd place, got lucky and came back to finish 4th. Had I gotten desperate to force something I would have cost myself a decent payout. it's like baseball, you hit what they give you and you do whatever you have to do to stay alive because you can't win anything after you've been knocked out--we can all agree on that.
I vote for "C"--is constantly around the money and wins--not top 3, but wins--more than their share. what's the point in finishing 3rd? if you can finish third you can usually win the whole thing. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Who\'s tournament Advice would you follow?
[ QUOTE ]
i'd tend to go w/ "b", but i'm probably biased there since i'm closer to "b". i tend to think that late in a tourney one bad beat can kill you, since the blinds are so high. think of it this way, would you put more stock in the team that finished at least 9-7 every year, nearly always made the playoffs, and occasionally won the whole thing, or the team that's 5-11 one year, in the super bowl the next, and then 5-11 for 3 more years? [/ QUOTE ] You've just described my Oakland Raiders.., [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|