Jump to content


Ak Getting Squeezed


  • Please log in to reply
92 replies to this topic

#81 copernicus

copernicus

    Poker Forum God

  • Members
  • 10,676 posts
  • Interests:Hockey; poker...duh

Posted 17 April 2007 - 03:13 PM

View PostSlackerInc, on Tuesday, April 17th, 2007, 6:40 PM, said:

That's nice, pithy advice! Thanks. (And feel free to elabourate if you like...)ETA: You still have to be patient and mathematical to apply HoHII. There are lots of people who can't resist raising or calling raises with hands (or positions) they shouldn't with a short stack; and there are also lots of people who can't divide a four or five digit number by a three or four digit number (and then perhaps multiply that times a fraction of ten).
lol...true, but not at the buyins im usually playing
___________


Wave upon wave of Demented Avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.



#82 RDog

RDog

    I'm Barry Sanders bitches!!!

  • Members
  • 10,919 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, CA

Posted 17 April 2007 - 04:36 PM

View PostNEtwowilldo, on Sunday, April 15th, 2007, 12:26 AM, said:

Look me up on the pokerdb and tell me what percentage of times I have been in the money compared to the best online players in the world. Like I said granted I play for smaller stakes, but I still like my approach.
Ummmm.....this is where the argument ends bud. This would explain why you are folding here. You are playing to make the money. You don't play tournies to make the money. All the money is in the top few spots.

#83 RDog

RDog

    I'm Barry Sanders bitches!!!

  • Members
  • 10,919 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, CA

Posted 17 April 2007 - 04:42 PM

View PostNEtwowilldo, on Sunday, April 15th, 2007, 1:50 PM, said:

You're obviously an all or nothing player. I don't think you're putting enough value on tournament life.My stars name is southrnctowl. I've played 74 real money tournaments, with buy-ins ranging from 25 cents to $15. Needless to say I prefer live play, but I just don't like people telling me I have huge flaws in my game when I obviously have very respectable statistics against recreational players.
Obviously a huge sample size.

#84 SlackerInc

SlackerInc

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,290 posts
  • Interests:tennis, music, politics (I'm a Democrat)
  • Favorite Poker Game:Tournament No-Limit Hold 'Em (2nd: Razz)

Posted 17 April 2007 - 08:21 PM

View PostRDog, on Tuesday, April 17th, 2007, 7:36 PM, said:

Ummmm.....this is where the argument ends bud. This would explain why you are folding here. You are playing to make the money. You don't play tournies to make the money. All the money is in the top few spots.
Yet (still being slightly devil's advocate here) there is a fair amount of money in those other spots collectively. Let's take for example the MTT that is stickied here in strat: the $20+2 180. The top three spots (1.67% of the field) are indeed juicy: $2228 of the $3600 prize pool, so they're averaging over $750 each in prize money. But still, there are five times as many, fifteen other people (8.33% of the field), who on average are pocketing nearly a hundred bucks each on a $20 investment. Surely the optimal strategy for such a structure cannot be identical to the optimal strategy if that same $3600 went only to the top three finishers and everyone else got zilch? Yet in that latter structure, you really would, in a pure sense, be playing for the top three spots. So if you would not want to play the identical way in the structure as it really is, you must be at least throwing in a little titch, a sprinkle, of "playing to make the money". No?

#85 tskillz187

tskillz187

    Great Tiger, you're next!

  • Members
  • 6,131 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brockport/Buffalo, NY

Posted 17 April 2007 - 10:09 PM

View PostSlackerInc, on Tuesday, April 17th, 2007, 9:21 PM, said:

Yet (still being slightly devil's advocate here) there is a fair amount of money in those other spots collectively. Let's take for example the MTT that is stickied here in strat: the $20+2 180. The top three spots (1.67% of the field) are indeed juicy: $2228 of the $3600 prize pool, so they're averaging over $750 each in prize money. But still, there are five times as many, fifteen other people (8.33% of the field), who on average are pocketing nearly a hundred bucks each on a $20 investment. Surely the optimal strategy for such a structure cannot be identical to the optimal strategy if that same $3600 went only to the top three finishers and everyone else got zilch? Yet in that latter structure, you really would, in a pure sense, be playing for the top three spots. So if you would not want to play the identical way in the structure as it really is, you must be at least throwing in a little titch, a sprinkle, of "playing to make the money". No?
No, you girl. ;)These thoughts are too deep for me. I kind of agree with you, I've argued before many times that playing to make the money isn't mutually exclusive from playing to win. When I have my most tourney success I'm much more a survivalist that plays a great short stack than I am an accumulator that pounds the shorts. Maybe that's because it's harder to successfully be the accumulator, or maybe it's because I eternally run poor. I'd like to think it's the latter, but I'm fairly sure it's the former.That being said, this thread is ridiculous and it's an easy shove (or call) I forget what the situation is now, just that it's standard.
Naismith (2:56:11 PM): fuckerflakeoutonmystakingnowmakingmillions

#86 SlackerInc

SlackerInc

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,290 posts
  • Interests:tennis, music, politics (I'm a Democrat)
  • Favorite Poker Game:Tournament No-Limit Hold 'Em (2nd: Razz)

Posted 18 April 2007 - 12:32 AM

View Posttskillz187, on Wednesday, April 18th, 2007, 1:09 AM, said:

That being said, this thread is ridiculous and it's an easy shove (or call) I forget what the situation is now, just that it's standard.
Oh, I don't disagree with you there. It's an interesting issue overall though.

#87 RDog

RDog

    I'm Barry Sanders bitches!!!

  • Members
  • 10,919 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, CA

Posted 18 April 2007 - 05:12 AM

View PostSlackerInc, on Tuesday, April 17th, 2007, 9:21 PM, said:

Yet (still being slightly devil's advocate here) there is a fair amount of money in those other spots collectively. Let's take for example the MTT that is stickied here in strat: the $20+2 180. The top three spots (1.67% of the field) are indeed juicy: $2228 of the $3600 prize pool, so they're averaging over $750 each in prize money. But still, there are five times as many, fifteen other people (8.33% of the field), who on average are pocketing nearly a hundred bucks each on a $20 investment. Surely the optimal strategy for such a structure cannot be identical to the optimal strategy if that same $3600 went only to the top three finishers and everyone else got zilch? Yet in that latter structure, you really would, in a pure sense, be playing for the top three spots. So if you would not want to play the identical way in the structure as it really is, you must be at least throwing in a little titch, a sprinkle, of "playing to make the money". No?
Long term with variance such a biatch in MTT's if you are playing to "cash" and are not getting top 3 finishes, you are a losing player. The strategy for MTT's is much different from SNG's in that respect. That is one of the reasons you will see good players abuse the money bubble continuously and at times, can appear reckless. You need to start accumulating chips and let everyone else worry about cashing.

#88 SlackerInc

SlackerInc

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,290 posts
  • Interests:tennis, music, politics (I'm a Democrat)
  • Favorite Poker Game:Tournament No-Limit Hold 'Em (2nd: Razz)

Posted 18 April 2007 - 12:49 PM

View PostRDog, on Wednesday, April 18th, 2007, 8:12 AM, said:

Long term with variance such a biatch in MTT's if you are playing to "cash" and are not getting top 3 finishes, you are a losing player. The strategy for MTT's is much different from SNG's in that respect. That is one of the reasons you will see good players abuse the money bubble continuously and at times, can appear reckless. You need to start accumulating chips and let everyone else worry about cashing.
So you are saying there would not be even the slightest strategy adjustment warranted if a 180 was changed from top 18 paid to top three paid? Absolutely the same strategy, down to the smallest detail, either way? That can't be right. Let me emphasise that I'm arguing for small differences in strategy between them, not large ones. That is, not "playing to cash" but "cashing as a backup plan".

#89 copernicus

copernicus

    Poker Forum God

  • Members
  • 10,676 posts
  • Interests:Hockey; poker...duh

Posted 18 April 2007 - 01:55 PM

View PostRDog, on Wednesday, April 18th, 2007, 9:12 AM, said:

Long term with variance such a biatch in MTT's if you are playing to "cash" and are not getting top 3 finishes, you are a losing player. The strategy for MTT's is much different from SNG's in that respect. That is one of the reasons you will see good players abuse the money bubble continuously and at times, can appear reckless. You need to start accumulating chips and let everyone else worry about cashing.
You realize, of course, that "playing to win" increases your variance, and taking reasonable but not reckless risks around the bubble decreases variance. It really comes down to knowing the other players and knowing their image of you. If youve been playing a ton of hands that dont get shown down then being overly aggressive near the bubble is likely to hurt and vice versa. Its also important to remember that seemingly marginal calls can be correct when they do significantly move you up the ladder, because the prizes leverage your implied odds for any play.
___________


Wave upon wave of Demented Avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.



#90 SlackerInc

SlackerInc

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,290 posts
  • Interests:tennis, music, politics (I'm a Democrat)
  • Favorite Poker Game:Tournament No-Limit Hold 'Em (2nd: Razz)

Posted 18 April 2007 - 02:23 PM

View Postcopernicus, on Wednesday, April 18th, 2007, 4:55 PM, said:

Its also important to remember that seemingly marginal calls can be correct when they do significantly move you up the ladder, because the prizes leverage your implied odds for any play.
Great point.

#91 RDog

RDog

    I'm Barry Sanders bitches!!!

  • Members
  • 10,919 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, CA

Posted 18 April 2007 - 03:59 PM

View Postcopernicus, on Wednesday, April 18th, 2007, 2:55 PM, said:

You realize, of course, that "playing to win" increases your variance, and taking reasonable but not reckless risks around the bubble decreases variance. It really comes down to knowing the other players and knowing their image of you. If youve been playing a ton of hands that dont get shown down then being overly aggressive near the bubble is likely to hurt and vice versa. Its also important to remember that seemingly marginal calls can be correct when they do significantly move you up the ladder, because the prizes leverage your implied odds for any play.
Thus why I said "appear reckless". I have seen very, very, very good players raise 8 out of 10 hands on the bubble. The few times you get played back at are far fewer than the amount of times you steal the blinds and antes without even seeing a flop. If I have a good player to my left, do I slow down a bit? Absolutely. If my stack size isn't big enough to take a hit after I have to lay down to a reraise, do I still raise often? Absolutely not. I think around the bubble, image is much less of an issue than non-bubble situations. I remember watching Loosh around the bubble during a Party Super literally raise 60 or 70% of the hands and not get played back at until the bubble burst. For sure, his image was not tight but it didn't matter.

#92 copernicus

copernicus

    Poker Forum God

  • Members
  • 10,676 posts
  • Interests:Hockey; poker...duh

Posted 18 April 2007 - 06:58 PM

View PostRDog, on Wednesday, April 18th, 2007, 7:59 PM, said:

Thus why I said "appear reckless". I have seen very, very, very good players raise 8 out of 10 hands on the bubble. The few times you get played back at are far fewer than the amount of times you steal the blinds and antes without even seeing a flop. If I have a good player to my left, do I slow down a bit? Absolutely. If my stack size isn't big enough to take a hit after I have to lay down to a reraise, do I still raise often? Absolutely not. I think around the bubble, image is much less of an issue than non-bubble situations. I remember watching Loosh around the bubble during a Party Super literally raise 60 or 70% of the hands and not get played back at until the bubble burst. For sure, his image was not tight but it didn't matter.
I dont think you'd find the same at Stars and certainly not in higher buy in live tourneys. Resteals are very common when someones been that active, plus running into a real hand.
___________


Wave upon wave of Demented Avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.



#93 RDog

RDog

    I'm Barry Sanders bitches!!!

  • Members
  • 10,919 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, CA

Posted 18 April 2007 - 07:57 PM

View Postcopernicus, on Wednesday, April 18th, 2007, 7:58 PM, said:

I dont think you'd find the same at Stars
Ummm....????




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users