would you rather get 3rd or 10th

[USCSigma1097]

Dammit Citanul...

I post "who would win a heads up STT between Raptor and Mike Ditka?" and you take it off immediately...and yet you let this nonsense be discussed. You should be flamed.

Sigma

[citanul]

i didn't come close to taking it off immediately. i gave you several hours to ask pokerstars support your question and get back to us with an answer, and you didn't.

this guys question at least seems to have something to do with the subject matter of the forum. and hell, he may actually be confused or something.

citanul

[benza13]

No kidding, huh. I only opened the thread because I couldn't believe people would discuss this topic for 30 posts already so I had to see what was going on. Now, after reading it, I am continuing to waste my life by replying to it [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

[rvg72]

On Party with the current game durations and prize structure then it is pretty obvious that 3rd is better but theoretically his question could make sense under different conditions...

If it took 100 times longer to come in 3rd place than 10th place and / or if 3rd place only gave you 10 or 15% of the pot and/or you dominate the level to a point where you finish in 1st or 2nd 50% of the time etc...

If 3rd place only gave you back your entry price - rake and it took say 90 minutes to get to the final 3 would you now rather come in 3rd or bust out in the first hand with your KK set against an AA set? Obviously these aren't real conditions but the obvious answer to the OP's question does become a little blurred.

But back to reality - I'll take 3rd.

[SammyKid11]

I can't believe anyone has even attempted serious answers to this crap. I'm brand spanking new to all this and here's my answer:
Would you rather spend all night shagging the hell out of an above-average girl...or spend 30 seconds having Lara Croft kick you in the junk as hard as she can?

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
On Party with the current game durations and prize structure then it is pretty obvious that 3rd is better but theoretically his question could make sense under different conditions...

If it took 100 times longer to come in 3rd place than 10th place and / or if 3rd place only gave you 10 or 15% of the pot and/or you dominate the level to a point where you finish in 1st or 2nd 50% of the time etc...

If 3rd place only gave you back your entry price - rake and it took say 90 minutes to get to the final 3 would you now rather come in 3rd or bust out in the first hand with your KK set against an AA set? Obviously these aren't real conditions but the obvious answer to the OP's question does become a little blurred.

But back to reality - I'll take 3rd.

[/ QUOTE ]

If getting third was that bad, I probably wouldn't play SNGs.

[ClaytonN]

I don't understand, I would much rather get a 5th place

You guys are all racists

[adanthar]

I know when I woke up today the first thing I thought of was 'hmm, I'm taking too many thirds, I think from now on I'll just consult the third place pattern mapper and finish tenth every time.'

This is a great question that is sure to add to all of our poker knowledge for years to come.

[roma12]

Well. im glad that alot of you took this post as one of the very few times where you can actually feel like a good player compared to others, replying instead of posting questions yourselves. "um are you serious...are you dumb..."...wow, you are so smart to realize that you should not take 10th as opposed to 3rd. When i posted this, i knew it was a silly question but atleast interesting...hence why i didnt take the time to do any calculations. the strange thing is, that this post had a million replies very quickly, and some of which math was actually done. it was a curious post, not one where i was actually considering trying to avoid third places.

thanks for some decent, serious responses from some good players

[zipppy]

[ QUOTE ]
ok you really dont see what im asking

[/ QUOTE ]

i [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] this post. dysw?