Razz - final tables - theory
 

I've made three final tables since I started playing Razz and bubbled once. And every time I've been a 2-to-1 chip leader at some point. But I don't seem to know the trick to bringing it home. Being chip leader at a NLHE final table is a huge advantage. I'm not getting this, tho.'

I like Razz trnys because you almost always have time to make it up if you lose a big race hand. Until the very end. Now, if it was NLHE I'd say, "Oh well, you go all-in, it's luck and inevitable at this point." But I think my approach is just wrong.

So, is it that in Razz you play super-tight with a chip advantage at the end? Or.....what? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: Razz - final tables - theory
 

[ QUOTE ]
So, is it that in Razz you play super-tight with a chip advantage at the end? Or.....what? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

play it like a cash game, IF you play cash games well. Read Sklansky's tournament book to understand why. The ante's are a constant, oddly the short stack is at an advantage because the risk vs reward is less.

Re: Razz - final tables - theory
 

[ QUOTE ]
... oddly the short stack is at an advantage because the risk vs reward is less.

[/ QUOTE ]
That confirms a hunch. I usually play short table well, I also think my short stack game is pretty good. Huh. I'm thinking at a Razz final table with the big stack, I might need to play it like a short stack and play the short table more like a full one.

I love a paradox. Thanks.

Re: Razz - final tables - theory
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
... oddly the short stack is at an advantage because the risk vs reward is less.

[/ QUOTE ]
That confirms a hunch. I usually play short table well, I also think my short stack game is pretty good. Huh. I'm thinking at a Razz final table with the big stack, I might need to play it like a short stack and play the short table more like a full one.

I love a paradox. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are a lot of paradoxes in this forum. I think the issue here is not that the short stack has a better chance to win (based on chip count), but has an easier strategy to play so he can negate a small amount of skill advantage the big stack might have. The other thing to bear in mind is that when the play is HU or 3-way in razz, a lot of the points of strategy that are important at full ring are negated too, so it evens the playing field. Also, remember that until you're heads up being chip leader doesn't mean you're likely to win the tournament. If you're the CL 5-handed with 30% of the chips in play, then if the skill of all players were equal you should win 30% of the time. That means you lose 70% of the time, prax [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: Razz - final tables - theory
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you're the CL 5-handed with 30% of the chips in play, then if the skill of all players were equal you should win 30% of the time. That means you lose 70% of the time, prax [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, and with the skill level being unequal, my chances are 0%. Which is my win rate now. I just have to shift gears. It's more than just the difference between limit and no limit, I think I'll play some SnGs for practice. Shoulda been doing that all along.

The last one I lost, I had outplayed these three at the same table for a long time, but when it got to be three-handed, I lost it. It wasn't bad luck, it was just not having a clue on my part. They kicked my butt.

Time to go to work.