Two Plus Two Newer Archives

Two Plus Two Newer Archives (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/index.php)
-   STT Strategy (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/forumdisplay.php?f=38)
-   -   Why BB and not M? (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/showthread.php?t=551854)

CheeseMoney 11-22-2007 04:46 AM

Re: Why BB and not M?
 
Almost everyone that gets into STTs after the Harrington book asks this question. The best answer has already been given. I'll treat it more delicately. Harrington's multi-table tournament advice is pretty good, especially for a beginner. It will keep you out of trouble and make you play aggressively for the big prize at the end. The prize structure for a big MTT is so different than that of a STT that you can't even begin to share advice for the two. STTs reward survival, MTTs aggression. While STTs reward playing like a... weak tight nit... MTTs start like a cash game and then typically get even more aggressive near the bubble to chip up and bully, whereas it is not uncommon in 2nd place in an STT to have to lay down AK to a big stack that is guaranteed to be pushing any 2 (in fact, you'd often want him to be on a tighter range than this if calling) STTs are about survival, and Harrington only touches on the ICM subject that drives almost every move of a good STT player. He arrived too late on the scene, and you can pretty much throw his advice out, as far as good STT advice goes. Its almost as if a cash game player tried to write a book for STTs. It's just obvious to good players that many of his recommendations are spewy. I'm pretty sure that if Harrington had brought any new advice to STTs that we may actually have started using M. If you want real insight into the core ideas that changed STTs, look up some old eastbay posts in the archives. Additionally, disagree with fishing-- antes matter a ton, its just that all good players know the difference between t200+25 and t200 on stars, also, Slim is for the most part usually right, so I'd deffer to him if you still have doubts. Also, what amt said.

DevinLake 11-22-2007 04:51 AM

Re: Why BB and not M?
 
It really doesn't matter what you use. We don't really use BBs, or M per se. We basically make our decisions based on ICM and reads.

For any # of BB, there is obviously an equivalent M.

checkmate36 11-22-2007 09:43 AM

Re: Why BB and not M?
 
[ QUOTE ]
if Slim ever writes a book

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be a good book! Slim needs to ship a text to Mason. Maybe even find someone to co-author it with him so it will get done quicker.

Ship it Slim!

Gelford 11-22-2007 05:53 PM

Re: Why BB and not M?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Harrington's SnG advice sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.