Chips or Position?

DeliciousBass · #1 07-27-2007, 12:12 PM

I just started in on Arnold Snyder's "The Poker Tournament Formula" and it got me a bit curious about something. If this question doesn't belong here, I apologize in advance. (I'm a bit torn between Psychology and here myself).

Given the following completely hypothetical tournament structure what would you do?

Let's say 10-seated SNG everyone still required to take their turn paying the blinds except the button never moves. Player who elects to take the SB seat starts with the biggest chip stack and with each increase in positional advantage your starting chip stack decreases. Player on the button starts with the smallest chip stack. So even though all players will pay the blinds in turn the player in the UTG seat will always be first to act PF.

So in taking the SB seat you start the tournament with $2K. 100 chip decreases until taking the button starts you with $1100. Let's also assume thirty minute rounds with a 10/20 start.

If this is beyond stupid...flame away but I just haven't been able to answer the question for myself and I'm curious to see what others thoughts are on it.

Perhaps I'm just having a bad "make a decision already" week (can't figure out where this belongs and I can't decide on a seat at this Mr. Roger's table).

I think I would want the button or the cut-off but the more I think about it the more I wonder if I wouldn't rather just have the chips and play tight...or...a middle position seat with an average stack and a chance to have a positional advantage if those behind me are knocked out?

Anyway, I'll be interested to see where this goes.

mce86 · #2 07-27-2007, 12:35 PM

Id take the seat just before the cutoff. The button and CO will likely be out soon, and I will have great pos. on the chip leaders, and the ones who cant knock me out will have position on me.

BiiiiigChips · #3 07-27-2007, 01:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]

If this is beyond stupid...flame away but I just haven't been able to answer the question for myself and I'm curious to see what others thoughts are on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not stupid at all I actually think it's a great topic. I think I'd go with the seat commonly referred to as the "hi-jack" or in Arnold's Book the "raising seat" which is the seat 2 off the button. Second choice would be the the seat to the right of that one.

DeliciousBass · #4 07-27-2007, 02:54 PM

I'm probably leaning more towards position too. I think the advantages (especially with a small blind start) outweigh the short stack...

...with that said, would you still take the hi-jack if you couldn't grow your stack? i.e. First hand of the tourney UTG shoves everyone folds to you and you have AA. You hold up but instead of doubling up the chips are just removed for the tournament. You stay at $1300 but UTG is now at $500.

In other words, if the most in chips you could ever have could only equal your starting stack...would you consider a different seat or is position still the key? This would mean you could dip below your starting point and a won pot would replenish it back to the orginal $1300.

ApeAttack · #5 07-27-2007, 11:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm probably leaning more towards position too. I think the advantages (especially with a small blind start) outweigh the short stack...

...with that said, would you still take the hi-jack if you couldn't grow your stack? i.e. First hand of the tourney UTG shoves everyone folds to you and you have AA. You hold up but instead of doubling up the chips are just removed for the tournament. You stay at $1300 but UTG is now at $500.

In other words, if the most in chips you could ever have could only equal your starting stack...would you consider a different seat or is position still the key? This would mean you could dip below your starting point and a won pot would replenish it back to the orginal $1300.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would anyone ever play a hand if they could never accumulate chips. The SB should fold until everyone is blinded out because they cannot accumulate chips, no?

DeliciousBass · #6 07-28-2007, 02:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Why would anyone ever play a hand if they could never accumulate chips. The SB should fold until everyone is blinded out because they cannot accumulate chips, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point...I'm just trying to get figured which would be more important at a table of unknown players. I was trying to offset the attraction of position initially because if you increase your stack size and have excellent position throughout you'd basically be unstoppable.

tarheeljks · #7 07-28-2007, 03:18 AM

this is more interesting in a cash game. in a tournament you can neutralize position easily w/a sizeable chip lead.

Mook · #8 07-28-2007, 04:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
this is more interesting in a cash game. in a tournament you can neutralize position easily w/a sizeable chip lead.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, but 2,000 chips when the starting table average is 1,550 isn't exactly "sizable". It's not double or triple the average stack ... it's 29% more. Likewise, the button at 1,100 is 29% less than average, and still 55 BB's with the structure the OP presumed.

I'm taking the button's seat and stack every single time in this scenario. I think the decision gets a lot more tricky if UTG has, say, 2,000 and each successive seat has 10% fewer chips than the person to his right (i.e. 2,000 - 1,800 - 1,620 - 1,450 and so on down to the button with ~775).

Mook