"Playing for 1st place" vs. "Playing to survive"

Lheticus

Lheticus

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Total posts
1,198
Chips
0
I can honestly say that for the first time, a CardsChat Facebook post quiz has truly intrigued me. CardsChat asked "In proportional-payoff tournaments, your best chance at the most profit is usually achieved by:
(A) Playing more hands;
(B) Betting more often;
(C) Playing to capture first place;
(D) Playing to survive."

The vast majority went with C, NOBODY went with A or B (as well they shouldn't, those are nonsense answers) and maybe two people went with D. I myself was so mind blown by the fact that CardsChat even distinguished the term "proportional payoff tournaments" that I was so fixated on saying "but isn't that just what poker tournaments ARE?!" that I neglected to put forth an answer altogether, but that issue is another thread.

The pro, Mike Caro, went with D. I have a feeling there is more to be gleaned about the nature of poker and those who play it than at first glance. I believe it very likely that "playing to capture first place" and "playing to survive" is different things to different people. I want as many people who post in this thread as possible to answer these two questions:

1) In your opinion, what does it mean to "play for 1st" and what does it mean to "play to survive"?

2) What method, based on your own personal view on the subject, is better to use as a strategy and why?

I'll kick things off with my own answers:

1) To me, someone saying they "play for 1st" is effectively giving themselves license to take risks that are proportionate to their stack rather than the blind levels, particularly early on. If the margin is high enough, this philosophy states that it's perfectly acceptable to move all in with a stack of 50+ blind levels regardless of the potential for devastation to your stack, or even loss of tournament life should variance kick in or you misread weakness and thus lose. Those who "play for 1st" believe that winning only 2-4 times the buy in you put forth is virtually indistinguishable from losing outright, so they play for the purpose of creating monster stacks that could practically fold their way to a high echelon of the pay ladder. And if they lose 70% of a monster stack in 1 go, they consider that meaningless too.

Those who "play to survive" are the exact inverse of this, particularly in attitude. They have no desire to min cash and go no higher, but they do not believe said min cashing to be losing--they believe NOT cashing is losing. Early on, they tend not to commit an outrageous amount of blinds into a pot in single bets or calls unless they have the nuts or close to them. As the blinds get higher, they keep a sharp eye out for profitable opportunities in better than marginal situations. If their stack does not increase in proportion and the amount of blinds in it starts faltering, they do not simply try to fold to a min cash and only play absolute premiums. Rather, they hold out for as long as they deem feasible, looking for a good enough hand to try and bounce back. For some, it makes a difference how close to the money bubble they are for their range, for others it does not and they will willingly commit all their chips if they see a chance to double up to or towards a non endangered stack size. In other words, to me "playing to survive" does NOT mean folding QQ or even JJ just because we're five players from the bubble bursting.

2) If it wasn't clear, I favor the survival approach, because it's all too easy to carry the play for first approach to asinine recklessness.
 
I

Icebear847

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 4, 2014
Total posts
31
Chips
0
I believe there is some truth to " playing to survive " over " playing for first ", but that all depends on what your overall poker goal is. If your goal is to learn and build your bank, then playing to survive has a slight edge or say you satalite into a bigger event. But if your okay with busting out early not cashing, then play for first. I can honestly say though, I have gone deeper and cashed higher when playing for first overall, so I think it is the strategy that is the best.
 
T

The Nuder

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 26, 2013
Total posts
89
Chips
0
For me "playing to survive vs playing for 1st" is about 'direction' of motivation - away from threats vs towards goals - and will have a profound influence on attitude and behaviour.

Coincidentally I once witnessed an online argument between two players at my table. It was clear that one was playing a strategy of "not losing" whilst the other was playing "winning". And a 'not losing' strategy will typically yield very different results (and attitudes) from a 'winning' strategy. As it happens in that tournament the guy I pegged to be playing a 'winning' strategy actually did go on to win the tournament.

But I think more often than not 'Winning' strategies are better because the accumulation of a small number of much bigger wins over time is better than consistent min cashes. Provided a 'winning' strategy is not viewed as a license to take silly risks.

The thing is motivational preferences are typically operating out of our conscious awareness. This means they shape our perceptions and the people operating 'winning vs not losing' strategies will literally have a very different experience of an identical situation. They will each have different blind spots - and this is blind in the literal sense - certain outcomes are literally out of their conscious awareness.

The 'winning' strategist will focus principally - even exclusively (a recipe for short life) - on a goal. Their perceptions of the tournament will be shaped by their focus on the goal and they will be less inclined to perceive and act on threats. In my observations in more general contexts such as work (I provide a behavioural profiling service) high achievers are typically more goal focused. Although there are specific work contexts in which risk aversion is a hands down better - even essential - strategy.

The 'not losing' strategist will be focused on identifying and avoiding threats. They may not even access the possibility of winning the tounament until, if they get that far with their more conservative style, it is staring them in the face.

I think there are merits ion both styles. But i always say if you don't focus on where you want to get (goal focus) you probably wont get there. And moving away from one problem will not guarantee you move somewhere worth being (out of frying pan but into fire type motivation).

I was definitely a 'not losing' player until I realised it was hampering my game. I was beating bubble a lot but typically limping over the line with just a few big blinds left and recovering stake + minimal reward for 4 hours of poker. Now I switch between a winning and not losing mentality which gives me a better balanced game. I've won several dozen tournaments online (biggest only $980) that I almost certainly wouldn't had I remained a purely 'not losing' player. But I guess if my game was more skillful I could make more money out of a 'not losing' strategy. But for me it's more fun taking risks and I play for fun at the moment.
 
Lheticus

Lheticus

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Total posts
1,198
Chips
0
For me "playing to survive vs playing for 1st" is about 'direction' of motivation - away from threats vs towards goals - and will have a profound influence on attitude and behaviour.

Coincidentally I once witnessed an online argument between two players at my table. It was clear that one was playing a strategy of "not losing" whilst the other was playing "winning". And a 'not losing' strategy will typically yield very different results (and attitudes) from a 'winning' strategy. As it happens in that tournament the guy I pegged to be playing a 'winning' strategy actually did go on to win the tournament.

But I think more often than not 'Winning' strategies are better because the accumulation of a small number of much bigger wins over time is better than consistent min cashes. Provided a 'winning' strategy is not viewed as a license to take silly risks.

The thing is motivational preferences are typically operating out of our conscious awareness. This means they shape our perceptions and the people operating 'winning vs not losing' strategies will literally have a very different experience of an identical situation. They will each have different blind spots - and this is blind in the literal sense - certain outcomes are literally out of their conscious awareness.

The 'winning' strategist will focus principally - even exclusively (a recipe for short life) - on a goal. Their perceptions of the tournament will be shaped by their focus on the goal and they will be less inclined to perceive and act on threats. In my observations in more general contexts such as work (I provide a behavioural profiling service) high achievers are typically more goal focused. Although there are specific work contexts in which risk aversion is a hands down better - even essential - strategy.

The 'not losing' strategist will be focused on identifying and avoiding threats. They may not even access the possibility of winning the tounament until, if they get that far with their more conservative style, it is staring them in the face.

I think there are merits ion both styles. But i always say if you don't focus on where you want to get (goal focus) you probably wont get there. And moving away from one problem will not guarantee you move somewhere worth being (out of frying pan but into fire type motivation).

I was definitely a 'not losing' player until I realised it was hampering my game. I was beating bubble a lot but typically limping over the line with just a few big blinds left and recovering stake + minimal reward for 4 hours of poker. Now I switch between a winning and not losing mentality which gives me a better balanced game. I've won several dozen tournaments online (biggest only $980) that I almost certainly wouldn't had I remained a purely 'not losing' player. But I guess if my game was more skillful I could make more money out of a 'not losing' strategy. But for me it's more fun taking risks and I play for fun at the moment.

Interesting thoughts. I believe I have a few more of my own to clarify. Really, I wonder why "Winning" and "Not losing" have to be mutually exclusive goals at all! In my mind, in order to win, one must also not lose. When I do make a cashing run, I don't generally limp over the line as it is claimed "not losing" players do. I don't take risks unless I believe it is necessary to do so. But if I'm at around 10 BB or less? Doesn't matter the circumstance, doesn't matter if I'm near the bubble, near the opening stages (though I try my darndest to avoid that scenario in the early stages) or even at the final table, if I have a stack that low, I'm not GOING to win OR not lose by continuing to fold my way. If I see something I think is gonna be a good spot, I'm shoving without hesitation there. That, to me, is the very definition of a necessary risk. And if we're at such a late stage that basically no one has more than 15 BB except like a runaway chip leader? If I'm entering a hand at ALL, I'm prepared to commit all my chips.

In other words, if I can't reasonably say that I can go much deeper in an MTT without doubling up, that becomes my objective. If I can, I do my darndest not to put all my chips at risk and instead look for less extreme chances to chip up. Why is it thought that just one or the other--winning or not losing--should be the goal of someone's overall playstyle? Or am I totally off base here and I am in fact following one philosophy much more closely than the other and just don't realize it?
 
L

Lumpz72

Rising Star
Silver Level
Joined
May 8, 2015
Total posts
15
Chips
0
Great info there. I think there is a fine line between playing to survive, and playing not to lose, timidly and fearfully. You have to still be willing to make smart risks.
 
J

johnsonrod

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
May 21, 2015
Total posts
66
Chips
0
First off I think the idea of playing for first and playing to survive is a moot point. As we all know most times we will be out before we have to decide that. players that are playing to survive are the same players that would be playing to win if their situation were different. now if your talking about players that have big stacks and still play tight......it's because they think they can win that way not because their thinking of making it ITM.
 
Lheticus

Lheticus

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Total posts
1,198
Chips
0
Great info there. I think there is a fine line between playing to survive, and playing not to lose, timidly and fearfully. You have to still be willing to make smart risks.

EXACTLY. With the style I play, I take very few true risks. With the risks I DO take, I strive to ensure that the risks I do take are what I would call necessary ones. I mean, it's practically tautological to me that if a risk isn't necessary, you shouldn't take it. Why put your tournament life in danger when there is no need to do so?
 
Last edited:
Mr Sandbag

Mr Sandbag

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 13, 2013
Total posts
2,635
Chips
0
I constantly see threads about this type of stuff on here ("TAG or LAG," "Does small ball work," etc.), but I don't really think about any of it while playing in a tournament. Playing for maximum EV is the only optimal strategy, and there is no one "strategy" or "style" that's going to achieve that.
 
Pococurante

Pococurante

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Mar 12, 2015
Total posts
12
Awards
1
BE
Chips
6
For me "playing to survive vs playing for 1st" is about 'direction' of motivation - away from threats vs towards goals - and will have a profound influence on attitude and behaviour.
This and Nuder's next paragraphs makes it easier to grasp what we're talking about and also gave me some insight into my own game.

I am very much a victim of my own lack or excess of motivation. I'm a purely recreational player who focuses on big (1000+) freeroll MTTs. These tournaments are lenthy, so players tend to play very aggressive in the first 30 minutes or so, while the later stages of the tournament will be played more tightly.

When I started to play MTTs I was much more motivated, resulting in much nicer results, even though my game knowledge has improved hugely over the years. I regret to say that my knowledge of the game does not make me a better player and the reason is motivation. Provided the right mindset I think I would get better results than before, but I got older and more indifferent.

Same as Nuder, I have both strategies/profiles in my game. Provided the right attitude I can move from a passive/no lose game to a very focused aggressive game in seconds. Provided.
 
dino

dino

10 cevapcici = 0 stress
Community Guide
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Total posts
6,534
Awards
3
DE
Chips
247
if you get into that mind set to play to survive, you will develop skills to survive and probably will never win anything like that.
If you get your mind set to play 4 win, and if you work on your game to achive that, you will win and be winner player.
Doesn't matter if you win 1st place or not, but you will hit many top finishes and FT.

Study your game and play to win 4 win, not for min cash.

Just my $.02
 
N

nygmen2007

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Total posts
598
Chips
0
The strategy differs from mtts and satellites... to sit and go's... I find that I play to win mtts and try to survive the satellites.. the only thing you can do is get reads and make the best moves possible..
 
YourHuckleberry

YourHuckleberry

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
May 17, 2015
Total posts
58
Chips
0
I will often combine many of these strategies in a single tournament. For example:

I like to play a lot of hands at the beginning of a tournament when the blinds are low and hope to catch a hidden or deceptive monster and double up against someone who slow-played a big pair or over-played top pair, top kicker. Of course this can get you into trouble if you don't know when to dump but if you know what to look for you can pick off weaker players pretty easily many times.

I also like to play to "survive", which is really just playing slightly tighter preflop than usual, until I have made the money and then I will turn on the aggression after the initial push of "happy cashers" have stopped going all-in with short-stacks just having been happy to have made the money and then I make a push for the final table and first place.

Every tournament is different and each will likely require multiple strategies depending on the situations you find yourself in if you want to be consistently successful. poker strategy is simply far to nuanced to be successful with a single strategy. Just my humble opinion.
 
S

sachith

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
May 25, 2015
Total posts
4
Chips
0
If Your playing to survive every time you will never win. It makes you look too strong and nobody will call you when u raise. The occasional times you loose missing gut-shots will tell everyone ur not that strong hence the double up's later!
 
C

chloebrand

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 6, 2015
Total posts
106
Chips
0
Tournaments and poker in general is playing to survive. I always come in to a tournament with the mind set of feeling like I am going to lose, and that I have to fight for survival. This mindset makes me play the way we are suppose to, with a tight aggressive mentality. With the hopes to survive until first place.
 
M

MaxDamage

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 13, 2012
Total posts
30
Chips
0
I wanna pick both A AND B AND C. I like to raise a lot more hands and steal a lot more blinds, as we get closer to the bubble. Because a lot of people are really tightening up at this point. Raising more hands, also means having to make a contination bet more often. This is the point where i make C-bets 100 % of the time and take advantage of others players fear of busting. If you are just playing to survive, and you are happy with a min cash, it is gonna be very hard to make a profit that way!
 
Top