View Single Post
  #11  
Old 11-22-2007, 04:46 AM
CheeseMoney CheeseMoney is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 25 tabling yo mamas...
Posts: 721
Default 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.
Reply With Quote