screw results

been trying to teach a friend about how to play small-ball poker, if you want a definition on this go to this thread here Pitfalls of playing Solid/Agressive Poker and go to the last post you can see videos I put up for it. The thing is I have been playing this style for awhile now, not as good as Daniel obviously but its how I like to bet. People ask me why I bet so small when I put a hand up and this is why, its how I play.

well today my friend busted out of a tourney and was all upset and I could not figure out why. I asked him to tell me where he played incorrectly and he told me he should of raised more with his AK so the 4-4 did not shove in on him. Again I could not figure this out, the 44 shove was about 1/3 of our stack so I thought that was a silly comment for him to make. He said if we raise more then he would of folded which now means we would become predictable. It would be like ok he has raised 2.5-3x the blind over and over again and now he raises 5x, of course he will fold now and you pick up the blinds.

he also said a memeber of this forum that I respect a lot told him to worry about cashing 1st and winning 2nd......wtf is that all about. That is horrible advice, If we just want to cash why are we joining this tourney? we should be looking for 1st every single time we join a tourney. I mean if we just try to cash we are going to blind ourselves down and we need to maintain a stack and look like a maniac that plays too many hands. We are not that maniac but it is the image we project. The truth is no one will be able to put us on hands and we will be risking very little but the payouts will be huge.

Not necessarily. I didn`t see the advice that you are referring to and don`t know exactly its flavour, but MTTs often play out in distinct stages and one must adjust accordingly. For example: the opposition may well be loose in the early levels, tight as the bubble approaches, scared at the FT.

One`s goal at each stage is to survive that stage with a sufficient stack to still have options. It`s not a blind rush to the finishing post.

"screw results" ?? huh?

From what I have seen of your play (admittedly, not a lot) I don't think you really understand the 'small ball' style at all-- you are 'loose', but also very passive, and give almost no weight to position at all. Aggression and position are the key elements-- it's not just about pretending you are good enough to play more hands.

Also, in certain chip positions, you are no longer in a spot to expect to win the tournament. In those cases, it IS more appropriate to look to cash rather than to play for first. So perhaps the advice that you don't seem to agree with is out of context?

if your playing the same style throught tourney none of that matters. sorry I dont play just to survive, I play to accumulate.



you totally as usual missundertood point of whole post, screw results in a individual tourney yes. Who cares if you bust out of a certain tourney before the money. If you played correctly who really cares?

unless you are under 10 big blinds and sometimes even then you can still expect to win the tourney. Why just fold away until you are blinded in? I give no weight to position at all? LOL....thats it just LOL. I understand the concept very well, but I admit I have played too passive at times.

playing to cash 1st then win is just stupid.

This is very true. I would add that also need to be able to exploit the opportunities to build a biggish stack when they arise, but you certainly don't need to be way out ahead or one of the bigger stacks. It's like a horserace or 10,000m track race where the winner often comes from the pack having maintained a decent position throughout and timing their run at the end.

AG, what's your read on my game? We've not played together much but I'd be interested. For the record I've got you pegged as "tight early to build an image then loose and will resteal, very aggressive in mid-latter stages. Very tricky and has me pegged as loose." Your ITM speaks for itself.

Essentially your (successful) game appears to incorporate as Egon says, a range of styles to suit the situation (and I would guess though I've not seen enough to judge) that this also is affected by your chip-stack.

Poker's all about changing context and it changes all the time in MTTs.

if you play every hand the exact same way you dont need to change up anything that is the point of small ball poker to have that image and get paid off while risking very little of your stack.

LOL is right. Here are your position stats from the rebuy I watched you play:

rb stats.JPG (http://www.cardschat.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6011&d=1190075612)

LOL. Total aggression factor (173 hands) = .55

^^this. Making categorical statements like "I always play for the win" is of course silly. Obvioulsy you shouldn't start the tournament just hoping to sneak into the money, but situations do arise where your best option is to just try to cash. Of course most of the money is in the top spots, (as ChuckTs nicely points out in this thread) so making a play for them is appropriate if you are not in an imperiled situation. You don't want your average/big stack to dwindle down because of the blinds-- you want to be in there fighting for the win.

Yep.

Thanks!

Yes, chip stack factors heavily into your strategy for the tournament. This is part of the point I was trying to make-- if you are not in a good position in the bubble stage of a tournament, then it might sometimes make sense only to try to get itm.

I have been meaning to do a post on chip stacks at various stages of a tournament, so look for one in the near future, as this has motivated me.

I have you a dangerous opponent, with somewhat of a loose/risk taking style in the latter stages. Also, I have specific notes that you attempt to open limp utg with marginal hands like Axs, KJo.

I think it's completely up to the individual - and if an individual wants to aim for consistent cashes in MTTs as opposed to occasional (but larger payout) wins then I don't see what the problem is. You just adjust your strategy accordingly.

alien did I not say I played horrible in that tourney? yes I did so posting those really doesnt prove anything since like I just stated I said I played bad in that tourney. Maybe I should say it again so you get it, I played that tourney bad.....one more time so you dont paste this a month from now to try to make me look bad.



I PLAYED THAT TOURNEY BAD.

should I type it out word for word also?


here I went and found it for you since guess you failed to read it,



in my words, I know I played bad in that.

Well your humility didn't stop you from lecturing the whole table about strategy, verbally picking on a weak tight player, and generally making an ass out of yourself with your buddy bob_tiger, all the while touting that you represent cardschat.com, did it?

nope I acted like a ass during that tourney, never denied that.


so to summerize, played bad....acted like ass....deserved to go out....went out.

not involved in the right or wrong part but from the standpoint of a fish , I always try to just get itm first, I need my buy in back + a couple dollars so I can play another one. then I can gamble. I once folded AKs in the small blind when it was hand for hand with one person to go till the money.the problem with my donk style is you can very rarely go much farther unless you get very lucky .

the times I have got very lucky and made it to FT , I'm still very short stacked and need to get very lucky again. I wish I had the balls to go for all or nothing from the start.



edit - love the smal-ball poker thing and am watching the videos now ,thanks.

If you want to play for the win, then maybe you need to make a few adjustments to your game. But I don't think it should be considered wrong per se to play just to make the money.

The situation you described folding AK is not uncommon, BTW - you hear about people folding AA on the bubble at the Main Event, just because there's so much money on the line. They know they're probably not going to make the final table, but the desperately want to cash so they fold everything in the hope that someone else goes out first. If that's your goal, then the lowest possible risk strategy (ie: folding everything until the bubble bursts) might just be the best one.

Cheers Calculated risks hopefully, but yep there's a lot of "marginal" limping that goes on, particularly early in an MTT (and that's putting it politely).

Problem is most people don't care about getting any further, they just want to end up with more money than they came in with, which is usually a good goal. However...

I do agree with stormswa in the fact that winning is always better than hitting the cash (I'm sure everyone would). Though I don't agree with his statement that you should always play to win, and not just to hit the cash; perfect example is the folding of AK--let someone else put themselves at risk of going out that close before the money. However, playing the entire tournament that way is just noobish. Everyone knows poker is a game of skill, with a bit of luck factored in. If you get unlucky one time, you'll get lucky the next. Going out in the early or middle stages of a tourney is not the worst possible thing: playing like going out in the early or middle stages of a tourney is the worst possible thing, is the worst possible thing. But to each his own, I guess. You guys can argue 'til Bobby Fisher reappears and I doubt either side would have changed their minds.

I think that youve just made a huge over-generalisation of the whole concept of MTT play Storm. Of course every time someone sits down to play a tournament they are not saying, "oh 19th would be nice here", we are playing to win. However, there are lots and lots of situations where we find ourselves with a medium stack in the mid-stages where looking to take a race will be more favourable in 5 hands time when the bubble bursts rather than now when we face elimination with nothing.

There is also lots of ways, to accumutate chips in the latter states of MTT's whilst holding a solid image as well, stop and go's, check-raise bluffs, positional steals, re-steals from the blinds etc etc.

There are table considerations to take into account, where the big stack is sitting in relation to you, will the BB call you button steal because his stack size dictates it ? Are the medium stacks allowing you to pick on them or are they regulary fighting back ? What is the buy in ? Is it a satelleite ? Did you sat into a big event or is it a $2MTT ? What is the size of the field ? How deep are the average stack ? What is your M and Q in relation to the average ? I could go on.

We get into lots of situations in MTTs where playing to place in the money can be very correct, and lots of times (most) where its incorrect, but playing for a "win" is an over-simplification of an advanced concept, and something that cannot simply be discussed in one post, there is full books on this stuff.

I think the conceopt of "always play to win" should certainly apply up to a point, but you will find yourself it many situations where it's just not the correct play. And, a lot of factors help determine this I don't for a minute believe that open shoving with ATC is justified just because you fall below 10bb, or evew 5bb. Not if applying the brakes is to your advantage. Partly, as Jay touched on, and TB above, there are BR issues for many to consider., and if sitting on a marginal hand instead of going for broke, and going broke is an important comsideration, I see no disgrace in doing just that.

Of course, we all play to win. And every time you sit down, if you don't consider yourself a serious threat to win, you're sitting in the wrong place. But at some point, reality is gonna bite, And how you react to that impacts your stats, your BR, your imahe, both table image and SELF image. Of course, it's a purely personal decision how you handle these situations.

As for the small ball concept, I see good and bad points to consistently playing this style. I've adapted elements of it to my game, with nixed success, and I'm of the opinion (strictly my own) that it doesn't necessarily adapt well to online play.- There are times it's effective, but it relys too much on factors that are beyond me in a MTT settne. It's impossible to read unknown opponents well enough to really be effective, particularly at stages in a tourney when you might be moving every few hands.

It's not a simple black/white issue, and we're obv. not going to convert one another no matter how much or long we discuss it; it's a basic tenent of each person's poker philosophy.