When do you play to win/cash?

[tazer]

The way I look at it and how I try to play is in the beginning I play to get ITM. So I am guaranteed to make money. From the time I am ITM my goal is to reach the final table. If/When I reach that goal then I try to win the tournament. I think you need to have smaller reachable goals that lead into the obvious more profitable goal. So if you look at it from the tournament perspective your long term goal is to win the tournament, but you have mini goals that get you there. Just make it little things like making it to the first break or get into the top (x) amount of players. Create attainable stepping stones for yourself.

 

[Arjonius]

I've seen this question asked before and the best answer I heard was, play to cash...then once you get in the cash, play to win first. Tournaments are a marathon, not a sprint. Being chip leader early doesn't mean anything if you donk out before you cash.

This seems like the answer you like most. It may be the best for you for this reason and/or because you place a higher subjective value on just cashing than top winners typically do.

But, it's an over-generalization to say it's best in terms of overall profitability and/or best for players who have different values.

 

[Arjonius]

Losing the all-in, on the other hand, carries with it a permanent loss--I'm out of the tournament. There is no longer any chance at all that I will make the money, it's over then and there. I feel that when I fold to a lucky all-in player, I'm trading a chance at a temporary advantage for a guarantee of avoiding a permanent loss, and that seems like the smarter thing to do in my view.

You're thinking within a theoretical universe where other factors aren't worthy of consideration. But how often does this actually happen?

How far should you go to avoid the chance of losing your tournament life? If it's not worth taking a 50/50 flip, then what's the magic number where it is worth it? 67/33? 75/25? 90/10? And how do you figure out what that number is?

Or how about if you're the one with the larger stack? Is it worth taking a flip for half your stack? 1/4? 1/3? Otoh, how much better than 50/50 do you have to be to make it worth risking 3/4 of your stack? 2/3? 9/10?

Your thinking is sub-optimal, and you're defending it by using selected scenarios in which it works out. But how does that it works out some of the time justify playing the same way the rest of the time too?

In any of these situations, remember that the more you need to be favored, the less likely such a situation is to come along. Plus, since you're avoiding +EV situations you don't consider good enough, you have to expect that even if a good enough situation arises, you're more likely to have a smaller stack than either more or the same.

 

[Lheticus]

You're thinking within a theoretical universe where other factors aren't worthy of consideration. But how often does this actually happen?

How far should you go to avoid the chance of losing your tournament life? If it's not worth taking a 50/50 flip, then what's the magic number where it is worth it? 67/33? 75/25? 90/10? And how do you figure out what that number is?

Or how about if you're the one with the larger stack? Is it worth taking a flip for half your stack? 1/4? 1/3? Otoh, how much better than 50/50 do you have to be to make it worth risking 3/4 of your stack? 2/3? 9/10?

Your thinking is sub-optimal, and you're defending it by using selected scenarios in which it works out. But how does that it works out some of the time justify playing the same way the rest of the time too?

In any of these situations, remember that the more you need to be favored, the less likely such a situation is to come along. Plus, since you're avoiding +EV situations you don't consider good enough, you have to expect that even if a good enough situation arises, you're more likely to have a smaller stack than either more or the same.

For me, personally, the answer to the question "how far should I go to avoid this" is "as far as it takes", when the tournament is within its first 5-6 blind levels or so. That is way too early, I feel, in online micro stakes tournaments with 100-200+ participants, to willfully engage in an all or nothing risk. As to your other points, first, I don't see where in this post you expand what these "other factors" I should be considering other than the factor I've outlined before--if I lose, there is 0 chance for a comeback--are. Second, not a single word I've said about avoiding all-in calls applies whatsoever if my stack is the bigger one. If my stack is bigger, but not by much, I'll definitely at least consider a call if I either I have good cards or the player in question is reckless. If my stack is significantly bigger than the all-in, say if a super short stack makes a shove, I'll often call with marginal hands to get the chance to have one less person in the tournament.

You've accused me of using "selected scenarios" to make my point, but the fact is the point I'm making is in fact a conclusion exclusive to such scenarios as I've outlined. If these conditions are met:

1) I have a smaller stack than the all in shover
2) It is early on in the tournament
3) I believe that if I call, I am ahead

Then, I will fold. If any of these three variables change, I will change my outlook. Say, for example, it's later in the tournament, I'm getting somewhat close to the money bubble, and someone shoves with a bigger stack and I believe I'm ahead. Then, I would likely call--because getting at any chips you possibly can and not passing up +EV opportunities is far more paramount than in the early stages, because you set yourself up far more reliably to get not just in the money, but deep in the money that way.

I'm not a total noob, here. Consciously, I realize that every move one makes in poker is situation dependent upon a dozen or more variables. I just have trouble following my own advice when the chips are down.

Better to double up from 10,000 chips than from your starting stack of 1,500, I say.

 

[Arjonius]

Better to double up from 10,000 chips than from your starting stack of 1,500, I say.

You're saying you should pass on flipping to go from 1500 to 3k because you *might* have the chance to go from 10k to 20 much later on. How is this not using selected scenarios?

How often in tournaments with sizable fields do you build your stack to 6.7x the starting stack? It seems pretty safe to say it's far less than 100% of the time. Omitting all the times you don't get there seems selective to me.

You can change 6.7 to any other number 2 or higher and the same basic question applies. The difference is one of degree, not kind.

Fwiw, there is a school of thought that says if you grow your stack from 1500 to 3k less than half the time, you should be willing to flip because getting there half the time is better than your actual %. Not saying I agree, just that some people think this way.

 

[Lheticus]

You're saying you should pass on flipping to go from 1500 to 3k because you *might* have the chance to go from 10k to 20 much later on. How is this not using selected scenarios?

How often in tournaments with sizable fields do you build your stack to 6.7x the starting stack? It seems pretty safe to say it's far less than 100% of the time. Omitting all the times you don't get there seems selective to me.

You can change 6.7 to any other number 2 or higher and the same basic question applies. The difference is one of degree, not kind.

Fwiw, there is a school of thought that says if you grow your stack from 1500 to 3k less than half the time, you should be willing to flip because getting there half the time is better than your actual %. Not saying I agree, just that some people think this way.

I'm saying I should pass on flipping to go from 1.5 to 3k for a wide variety of reasons, only one of which is that I might be able to double up more at a moment where it would be advantageous to do so.

I'd like to go back briefly to the topic that this thread started with, one that I've definitely gotten a better understanding of since first posting this thread. Namely "playing to win". It seems to me that if you're playing to win, you'd want to avoid situations where there is a chance for you to lose--even a small chance, especially at a point in the tournament that is not at all deep into it. You can talk about +EVs in such scenarios and odds favoring and long runs all you want, but the fact is that even in a 95/5 split, the 5% does win some of the time, and in my perception, it is never an acceptable outcome to be instantly eliminated when I have a stack that could, instead of trying to double it, feasibly keep building in a more methodical way. Unless I'm short stacked enough to warrant me being the one to shove, there is no reason sufficient to justify putting every single one of my chips on the line--not when there is any possibility that I can keep building without having to go all-in. Slow and steady wins the race, and all that.

As an aside, I'd like to thank you, Arjonus. This debate has been extremely robust thus far--I'm enjoying it immensely. That goes for anyone else who has contributed to it in this thread, but I'm pretty sure Arjonus has contributed the most by quite a bit.

 

[Arjonius]

I'd like to go back briefly to the topic that this thread started with, one that I've definitely gotten a better understanding of since first posting this thread. Namely "playing to win". It seems to me that if you're playing to win, you'd want to avoid situations where there is a chance for you to lose--even a small chance, especially at a point in the tournament that is not at all deep into it. You can talk about +EVs in such scenarios and odds favoring and long runs all you want, but the fact is that even in a 95/5 split, the 5% does win some of the time, and in my perception, it is never an acceptable outcome to be instantly eliminated when I have a stack that could, instead of trying to double it, feasibly keep building in a more methodical way. Unless I'm short stacked enough to warrant me being the one to shove, there is no reason sufficient to justify putting every single one of my chips on the line--not when there is any possibility that I can keep building without having to go all-in. Slow and steady wins the race, and all that.

I'd be surprised if you can find even one top player who thinks as you do.

You're still ignoring all the times that don't fit your model. For instance, to go deep in a tournament, you have to reach / surpass 2x your starting stack at some point. If I risk my starting stack and tournament life as a 95/5 favorite, I'll get there 95% of the time.

If you're a well above average player in the field, there's a good chance you can reach this same stack size by playing slow and steady. But will you reach it more than 95% of the time? Suffice it to say this is highly unlikely.

If this situation arises in 100 tournaments, I'll double my stack and be alive in 95 of them. You'll reach double your stack less than 95 times. So, you'll have fewer chances than I will to go deep and win.

You can fiddle with the stacks and probabilities, but without introducing special circumstances, can you explain to me and more importantly to yourself how and why it's better to try to build your stack up to X chips by playing slowly if you get there less often than you would by risking your tournament?

 

[Lheticus]

I'd be surprised if you can find even one top player who thinks as you do.

You're still ignoring all the times that don't fit your model. For instance, to go deep in a tournament, you have to reach / surpass 2x your starting stack at some point. If I risk my starting stack and tournament life as a 95/5 favorite, I'll get there 95% of the time.

If you're a well above average player in the field, there's a good chance you can reach this same stack size by playing slow and steady. But will you reach it more than 95% of the time? Suffice it to say this is highly unlikely.

If this situation arises in 100 tournaments, I'll double my stack and be alive in 95 of them. You'll reach double your stack less than 95 times. So, you'll have fewer chances than I will to go deep and win.

You can fiddle with the stacks and probabilities, but without introducing special circumstances, can you explain to me and more importantly to yourself how and why it's better to try to build your stack up to X chips by playing slowly if you get there less often than you would by risking your tournament?

Okay, I've done a bit of number-plugging research, and the 95-5 thing was an exceptionally poor example--it's literally impossible preflop. The biggest advantage you can get is something like 88-point-something-percent--AA vs. 7-2. Matched up against a lot of hands, provided it's just one hand, this percentage doesn't change much, never dipping below 80%, I think. But--and I forgot to mention this in this thread--in a scenario where I have QQ or better, I pretty much would pull the trigger, especially if I'm only up against one other player.

Also, I'm finding myself in agreement with your assessment that the odds I take on doubling up from a risk should be in direct proportion to how good a chance I feel I have to reach that stack. Honestly, I haven't managed yet to perform this bit of self-evaluation, but I feel that in the case of micro-stakes and freeroll MTTs (the tournaments I enter where this scenario feasibly could apply) a realistic goal would be to double my starting stack 60% of the time. So, you certainly have given me pause in my methods of evaluating this scenario--if I'm convinced enough that someone is shoving in order to dingbat their way through and/or bully the table, I could pretty much pull the trigger with legitimate cards. However, given that I want to get my skills to a place where I'm doubling up my initial stack 60% of the time, I would be ill advised to accept the same scenario with a coin flip.

Out of curiosity, is this new position acceptable to you? I thank you for enabling me to consider the factors you've brought to my attention--this should improve my game in the aforementioned scenarios quite a bit.

 

[Arjonius]

You can change the hand odds and stack sizes, but unless you introduce other factors, the underlying principle is generally applicable.

For instance, say you're in mid-tournament with a medium stack of 30k chips, and you have the chance to double up where you feel you're a 2:1 favorite. If you fold, what's your est. probability of getting to 60k chips? If it's less than 67%, you should call.

This is a bit of a simplification because it doesn't factor in any value for your tournament life or the difference in value between adding and losing X chips. However, these aren't major considerations unless you bring in other factors.

As for calling off your stack against a perceived bully, the main difference is that you have to put him on a wide range. So for example, if he's open-shoving half the time, do you call with say AQ? AT? KQ? KJs? Again, the key question is your est. odds of doubling up vs your est. probability of getting to the same stack size if you fold. The closer you can ballpark your odds, the better, of course.

 

[zegaum]

I have a problem: I can get close to or more cashes, but caught a few final tables. I think some of that is due to the fear of getting in a few hands, that could give me a good feedback and put me in strong contention. Just getting scared to enter and lose, and the blinds will eat me: (

 

[Lheticus]

Today, I ran across an article that the text I'm quoting from it has given me a much better way to express the original question I asked in this thread--since this thread is only a couple of days old, I figured I'd just post it here instead of making a new thread.

MM: When I was first getting started, I was definitely more of a play-to-win type of a player, but I’ve come to terms with the fact that poker is my job. My goal is to make as much money as I can. Obviously first place pays more than second place, but I’m no longer one of those guys who is disappointed with anything but a win.
Most players in my social circle feel the same way, but I know of a lot of other poker players who feel differently. Some players have different incentives. They might have sponsorship deals that take care of their buy-ins, so their main motivation is to come out on top. I play in a tournament hoping to make money. If I make money, then I’m pleased with the outcome. I’m not playing for the glory. I think that basing your self-worth on how many titles you win is just a recipe for being unsatisfied and unhappy.

What I really wanted to know from the start here was with this "play-to-win type of player" that Mike refers to here--what exactly does that entail? Logically, I'd say it would be outlandish to think that the people he refers to here play the exact same flavor of winning poker that people who do not strictly "play-to-win" do, but based on the reactions to what flavor or poker I originally posted that I thought the "play-to-win" people do play, I have a lot of misconceptions. Can anyone please help clear them up?

 

[Stevepdx]

I always play to win. First place is weighted so heavily in poker tournaments.

 

[magicius]

Well you cant say i play to win... Ofc we all play to win,problem is that you need good cards,good opponents and some luck to win it

Sent from my HTC Desire X using Tapatalk

 

[zegaum]

Well you cant say i play to win... Ofc we all play to win,problem is that you need good cards,good opponents and some luck to win it

Sent from my HTC Desire X using Tapatalk

It's true, everyone plays to win. But who has more time for study and practice based on proven tactics winners usually are in amis final tables.
I, not etudo glad when I can get a FT, which is rare lol ... but of course, also always play to win

 

[magicius]

It's true, everyone plays to win. But who has more time for study and practice based on proven tactics winners usually are in amis final tables.
I, not etudo glad when I can get a FT, which is rare lol ... but of course, also always play to win

I have problem with br and mtt... Since my br is not great when i play mtt i play it somewhat too tight... And by playing tight you cant make to 1st that easy... Some semi-good hands i often fold,and that my main problem... You have to risk to win mtt

Sent from my HTC Desire X using Tapatalk

 

[rumsey182]

seriously people go look up independent chip modeling:

http://www.thepokerbank.com/strategy/tournament/icm/what/