Longball versus smallball and playing styles and stregths

[betgo]

There has been a lot of discussion about smallball versus longball in tournaments and Sklansky's contention that a good player should avoid gambling for all his chips. Sklansky's theory is that a good player can win chips without gambling and the payout structures favor survival over gambling.

No Sklansky cites Negreanu as an aggressive player who agrees that he wants to avoid big gambles. Hellmuth is famous for being reluctant to take big gambles. Now Sklansky is a high stakes cash game player who probably has a big skill advantage over typical tournament players. He also has a reputation as a solid player. Negreanu is a loose player, but like to limp, miniraise, or call and outplay people postflop. Hellmuth is also excellent at reads and outplaying amateurs in tournaments.

Now Matros said that being willing to take big gambles for small edges is his advantage. Matros is a mathematical player, and probably not as strong a player as Sklansky, Negreanu or Hellmuth.

Typical late tournament play is weak/tight, particularly live. A major part of my game is playing chicken with weak/tight players and pros who are too strong to gamble. I understand the percentages of gambling plays pretty well. If I was not willing to put in all my chips, I could not play as agressively. Also, often times the cEV+ play is a semibluff push preflop or postflop. Now I know I am not as strong a player as Sklansky and maybe he can win without this kind of approach.

Also, I think Sklansky underestimates the value of a big stack because with his tight gambling-adverse style it is not that valuable. Gigabet made a famous post about gambling to build a big chip lead being advantageous. Now I think Gigabet (Dickens) is more effective in exploiting a big stack than most players, particularly a tight player like Sklansky.

So I think that avoiding gambling may be the correct approach for a strong player with a tight style or who is strong at outplaying people postflop. For a TAG who uses aggression and percentage plays and for a LAG who can exploit a big stack, gambling may be a better approach.

Also, Sklansky says he and Negreanu agree that gambling is a bad approach for a strong player. I know that I am nowhere near as strong a player as Sklansky or Negreanu, so for me gambling is an effective approach.

[stokken]

The way I undertood Gigabets dilemma was that he gauged his stack as a block given certain criterias of his and compared that with the other players blocks and weighed his risk, reward, elimination if so with the desired block to allow for his comfort sone. Also when he was big he would use the same criteria and see if he could let his stack take a gamble that might not be immidiately ev+, but if it didnt harm his block hed pursue it if hurting that other block was to his gain, or the message he could send to the table was

I believe the gambles one pursues depends on so many variables and to strictly advocate one or the other is too onedimentional. Finding the gears is what its about no?

And knowing ones comfortsone and picking the plays and time for other moves is the key-its just so damn hard to figure out when.

And that is probably it, pros have a wider idea of how to handle given stacks and tables and hence a variaty of comfort sones.

As an excellent player has said many times. He doesnt mind being shortstacked, although he prefers not to. Cause he knows he will make no mistakes. If only I could feel that way with a big stack( or small stack for that matter)
Stokken

[mornelth]

tl;dr version: the better you play, the less willing should you be to gamble without a significant edge and vice versa.

High skill extreme : Phil Helmuth
Low skill extreme : "Kill Phil"

[stokken]

I have seen alot of "new-school" players with the idea that I need a certain stack vs the field or table to fully use my arsenal of plays-these players also with awsome postflopp skills. In their eyes the chips-contrary to Sklanskys theses- are worth more because it will let them tear the others apart- So I can agree some to your statement Mornelth, but a kill phill start and a switch to Helmuth or whomever one wants to call it isnt a bad aproach either. And it shouldnt be mistaken for less skill imo

Stokken

[mornelth]

[ QUOTE ]
I have seen alot of "new-school" players with the idea that I need a certain stack vs the field or table to fully use my arsenal of plays-these players also with awsome postflopp skills. In their eyes the chips-contrary to Sklanskys theses- are worth more because it will let them tear the others apart- So I can agree some to your statement Mornelth, but a kill phill start and a switch to Helmuth or whomever one wants to call it isnt a bad aproach either. And it shouldnt be mistaken for less skill imo

Stokken

[/ QUOTE ]

My post does not reflect MY personal approach - it just summarizes betgo's ramblings. I personally play loose and wild early on to try and get some chips using both smallball and longball, slow down somewhat in the midstages and then pretty much live in a steal-resteal mode. I like to have a big stack because it allows me to take some chances and to make some LAGtarded plays without getting knocked out.

[FortunaMaximus]

Agreed. Brute-force seems to work well in lower buy-ins. Mind you, I'm talking <$5K buyins here.

You can't pigeonhole yourself and consider that because this style works for you, you're profitable, not if you want to go a lot farther than making an hourly.

It's certainly no criticism, but some players can change gears at will and adapt to what works for the table. While you're right that it shouldn't default to being mistaken for a less skillful player, it's such a bumpy road that most players never really are able to get past the TAG/LAG mindset.

And of course, the process of incorporating the abilities to change gears at will, especially in tournament poker, is the biggest challenge, and the most cruical aspect for anyone aspiring to be a thoroughly dominant player who can play well against any other player and style.

Commitment to the mathematical fundamentals, the ability to gauge table image and table flow, the willingness to go broke at any given point in a tournament because it's the right move, even if it's the wrong holding.

When you're able to play ATC and choose your spots to do so, profitably, that's a huge hurdle to overcome. But once you've accomplished that, you have to learn the right level and the right amount of aggression to bring to bear with that approach. Because the risk/reward equation is huge. And if you persist with unprofitable applications of this approach, it's going to impact your ROI in the long-term, because the worst thing a tournament player can do is be stubborn about his approach to the game.

Summary for tl'dr: Good TAG's and LAG's can be profitable indefinitely, but the best players are those who can play both styles and know when to play these styles.

[nath]

quick hit: one reason i like to use longball strategy as part of my arsenal is precisely because it takes advantage of people's inherent weak-tightness and fear of busting out. you make a move that's clearly +cEV, even though it puts a lot of your chips at risk, and it works-- and it's +cEV because it preys on other people's fears. if i couldn't get other people to lay down the best hand a significant amount of the time, there's no way i could have the success i do.