[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the time you make the final table in a MTT stack sizes are way beyond Gigabets control and you have less time to make up for -EV gambles.

It makes even less sense if he is talking about final tables.

In a tournament with really deep stacks it might be worth thinking about

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think that I wrote this post because I was bored? What is the relevance behind your post, I spend 3 hours writing a detailed post with reasoning behind every action, that follows a pattern of very identifiable logic, and you refute it in 41 one words.

Do you have some kind of reasoning to back up your refutation? HH maybe that can detail what it is that makes the stacks out of control? Or maybe it is your personal experience.....you have been to enough final tables where you are fairly certain that this concept doesn't work, because every single time that you attempted to put this concept to work you weren't able to?

One trick to changing the order of drastically inflated stacks relative to yours is to call utg raises. It works, but it is risky, you probably did that enough times where you know that doesn't work as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reasoning is by the time you end up on a final table stack sizes vary greatly and seating is random.

Sure in an hypothetical situation you could probably create a scenario that is good for exploiting stacksizes and position (in fact you did). But the picture you paint of being some sort of master of puppets of a final table is somewhat silly. Sure you can get involved in a lot of spots you shouldn't, hoping to get lucky and get the small stacks in the right spots. But if you take -EV gambles to do it there is a big chance of it backfiring and you according to your own theory end up in a disadvantageous position.

I know you are a very good player but is it possible that this theory of yours is the reason you has gone out early in the live final tables lately on seemingly very risky plays?