Sorry if this question has been discussed too much, but I need some personal advice.

When I started playing tournaments (home games, some fish, some solid players) I was a very tight, solid player, and I usually made the money, but was always severly outstacked once I got 3 handed or head up.

Recently, I have changed my play to be much more aggressive, but it has caused me one main problem: I build my stack up nicely in the early rounds, but have a hard time keeping it.

The main problem is that I am aware that a larger stack has less value than a small stack in a tournament, therefore I take more chances on getting chips, and it has, for the most part, come back to haunt me.

What Im wondering is, do you guys recommend playing more loosly with a big stack, or do you tend to tighten up? Or something else?

There was a good post by Coperninus on survivalists vs accumulators a few days ago if you can find it (it wasn't the main topic but developed from the thread)- the basic idea was that in a small tourney, survival was more important but in a large field tourney, accumating a big stack was more important since it only takes one bad beat to knock you out if you're a small stack.

With a big stack, I look to bully the medium stacks and steal more blinds (if the blinds are worth it)- you have to be careful with the small stacks who are getting desperate as they are looking for a hand to double up with. I would attempt to steal more blinds, play back at some of the medium stacks but you have to be willing to lay down your hand if you feel that you're beat. Also, take notes on who's aggressive at defending and who's playing scared/folding.

I've lost some big stacks in the past by being too aggressive and not shutting down a hand when the odds were with my opponent (stubborness is a bad trait in a tourney).

Thanks for the reply, that really helps.

I also think one of my biggest problems lately, as well, has been that I've forced confrontations preflop instead of post flop play with big hands.

One recent example was when I had KK in early position, raised, got reraised, put the guy on AK (correctly) and pushed all in. He called.
Flop came all rags, but turn and river were aces.

I think that maybe, even though I knew I had him dominated, I should have simply called and saw the flop, then made my big bet there, or get away from it if an A fell.

I would make the same play as you did; you want him to get all his money into the pot pre-flop there. In a majority of the cases, you'll take all his chips. With AA or KK, I never mind getting all my chips into the pot pre-flop.

Especially as you get deeper into a tourney, you want to push your edges and KK pre-flop carries a huge edge. That's also why you want a big stack in large field tourneys - your stack can withstand these hits/bad beats which will happen.

Ok, I see what you're saying, especially about being deep in the tourney, because it was. Don't get me wrong, I was ecstatic to get the call with such good odds (hate to admit though I did tilt a little when the runner runner A's came) so at least now I know I played it right.

Maybe I need me a pair of those magic goggles next time :-)

Depends on how deep and what the relative stacks are.

Early in a large tourney is when you want to push small edges...accumulate or get out.

Middle of a tourney with a large stack I dont want to commit a large number of chips pre-flop, I would rather vacuum up the small stacks pre-flop and play poker against larger stacks.

Bubble and in the payouts there are too many variables to have a general rule.

The only point I think gobears missed from the other thread is that in a small tourney/sit n go, survival is also a more attractive option because once you make it into the money you are rarely so far behind the chip leaders that you arent alive for the big prizes.

You make an interesting point.

I've heard that most tourney pros rarely like to commit all their chips preflop. Do you agree with this in most situations? And what about the above KK vs AK situation?

I had about double his stack, and he was a very weak player (who by chance had been getting slammed by the deck that night)

If I am in position and have a solid stack then I do my best not to get it all in pre-flop against threatening stacks. Out of position I may or may not push depending on other stacks, whether Im happy just picking up the blinds etc.

In this particular situation you feel you have a solid read that he has AK. Pre-flop you have no folding equity, and you have a 30% chance of losing your entire stack. If you wait until the flop and there is no A you have nearly 100% folding equity for a decent pot so you just push then. The nearly 20% of the time an A flops you save your stack.

The accumulators will say go for it, the overlay is too good to pass up. The survivalists will say play for the re-raise. If I'm in solid shape chip wise in the middle to late stages, I'm a survivalist.

BTW I just focused on a statement in your original post that "I am aware that a larger stack has less value than a small stack in a tournament".

That is a misstatement of Sklansky's principle that "each additional chip has less value than the ones before it", which, even when stated that way, is misapplied.

What he shows in TPFAP that, since the prize structure is not winner take all, if you wind up with 2 million in TC, and the final prize is only say $800,000, then each chip was only worth 40 cents on the dollar in the end. But at the start of the tourney you had equal equity in all of the prizes (ie your $EV=buyin) so tc1=$1.

Another way to look at it is, what does ICM tell you about your prize equity?

If you have 5% of the chips you have 5% equity in the FIRST PRZE (say 40% of the total prize structure) and some lesser equity, say 3% equity, in the rest of the prizes. That nets out to 3.8% equity in the total prize structure.

If you double up to 10% of the chips you have 10% equity in the FIRST PRIZE...but you are coming in first twice as often, so you are picking up the rest of the prizes half as often, or 1.5% of the time. That nets out to 4.9% of the total prize structure.

Is the larger stack more valuable? absolutely..4.9% vs 3.8%. But it isnt TWICE as valuable.

The steeper the prize strucutre the closer doubling your tc's has to doubling your prize equity.

In addition, there is an "inverse utility curve" for tournament chips. In standard utility theory each incremental $ you have above what meets your minimum needs has diminishing utility...you can only buy so much, and the more you buy the less meaning each thing you acquire has in relation to all your other posessions.


But, everyone knows that a good big stack player can "bully" the rest of the table..ie pick up a lot of small pots with minimal risk. Why?

Because while the surplus chips he has dont have as much prize value as the chips up to his next nearest competitor...they can be used to see a lot of flops and make speculative raises, because losing them doesnt really hurt that badly. They have marginal value in terms of current prize equity, but they have great utility because they have the potential to pick up a lot of pots that do meaningfully increase your prize equity.

There is a great thread on this in 2+2, but be warned: it is very tough reading.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat...o=&fpart=1&vc=1

Thanks for the input, that is some really helpful info.

I don't hang out in the strat section too much, so I'm still a little slow in comprehending all of this, but I see in a lot of what you posted some strong comparisons to things I've learned through my study of economics. I think from now on, I'm gonna come here more often, and at the same time try to remember back and apply as much as I can to my game.

Again, much appreciated.

Looks like good reading, thanks for posting a link to that. Gigabet is not too good with words though :? , I'm going to have to read the OP at least a couple of times more to figure out what he is saying, hopefully the rest of the thread will clear it up a bit.

He is awful at explaining his concept and I think somewhat rude in not clarifying it after all of the discussion.

What I got out of it was that he sees the kind of "inverse utility" function that I mentioned above, but not just as the big stack, but also for chips in excess of each "block" of chips.

His FT play at 5 Diamonds certainly shows this kind of "high level" thinking, but I think it wound up costing him a lot more than it could ever have gained.