Isolating with the Gigabet Dilemma (long)

[Freudian]

I think you are vastly overrating how much you can control who has what kind of stack and where they are on the table (even moreso online, where players are constantly moved). And taking -EV plays to arrange it that way seems even more pointless (for obvious reasons). I think you should have stuck with the "I can accumulate more chips when I am big so I will take -EV plays to get big" theory.

I do agree that when you find yourself in a favourable table position, it is definately an edge.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are vastly overrating how much you can control who has what kind of stack and where they are on the table (even moreso online, where players are constantly moved).

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP is specifically about FT, so players are not going to be moved anymore. Clearly there is a big advantage in having a better seat with regard to stack sizes and so, although applying advanced techniques would only make sense when your opponents don't simply suck. But at most normal online FTs you'll very often be sitting with few bad players around you (in any case, they are not WC, like the ones Giga mentions), so I don't see the value in making some -EV moves against them in order to manipulate the order of stacks at the table. But when players are great the picture is different.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you are vastly overrating how much you can control who has what kind of stack and where they are on the table (even moreso online, where players are constantly moved).

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP is specifically about FT, so players are not going to be moved anymore. Clearly there is a big advantage in having a better seat with regard to stack sizes and so, although applying advanced techniques would only make sense when your opponents don't simply suck. But at most normal online FTs you'll very often be sitting with few bad players around you (in any case, they are not WC, like the ones Giga mentions), so I don't see the value in making some -EV moves against them in order to manipulate the order of stacks at the table. But when players are great the picture is different.

[/ 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.

[Gigabet]

[ 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.

[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?

[Gigabet]

[ QUOTE ]
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?




[/ QUOTE ]

You are goofy, you have no idea what you are talking about. Give me an example of a final table where I exited late due to a risky play?

I got third at the mirage poker showdown last april due to a very risky play. But that play was purely read based. I acquired all of those chips that I had at that time, because I was able to successfully create a fairly optimal positional advantage over the rest of the table. An example of the idea in place and working. When chad brown was on my right, I reraised his open raise 4 consecutive hands in a row. And was able to take the pot then, or postflop with very little added risk.

Another example from the previous day...remember the 63 hand I played? Using bubble aggression as a positional tool, same ideas presented here.

As far as I know, that third at the Mirage was my only bust that occured that no other knowledgeable player would have made.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]

You are goofy, you have no idea what you are talking about. Give me an example of a final table where I exited late due to a risky play?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. It is a pretty pointless affair though since one is immune to critique by claiming to have a read for making the decision. So with the full expectation of you telling me that I have no clue what I am talking about:

Five Diamond Classic. You probably have something around 2 million chips here.

"Patrik Antonius has the button in seat 2, Dicken raises to $300,000, Pedersen moves all in for $1.2 million from the small blind, and Dicken calls with Q-J. Pedersen shows Ah-Js, and he's in a dominating position to double up here.

The flop comes Ac-9c-9d, and Pedersen solidifies his lead with a pair of aces. Dicken needs something runner-runner to survive, but the turn card is the 3s, and he is drawing dead. (The meaningless river card is the 5s.) Rehne Pedersen doubles up to over $2.5 million in chips."

This hand took a big chunk of your stack, with the exit half an hour later after a push with pocked fours. When I read your OP I thought about this hand. It is no doubt a risky play. It is no doubt -EV.