A strange STT. Tactics?

[Unknown Soldier]

I was playing in a home game STT the other day and one person was new to the game, and didn't know the rules of a STT. Top two places got paid (33%, 66%). But he thought that as soon as you were in the money the person with the larger stack took 1st place, and the person with the shorter stack took 2nd.

Let's change this to the usual 10-person STT with 50%/30%/20% payoff and say that as soon as you reach the money the shorter stack gets 20%, 2nd stack gets 30% and big stack gets 50% of the pool.

What is your change in strategy, if any?

[BigBuffet]

Obviously you would have to be more aggressive as soon as there are four players left because you want to vault your chip position up in this sudden death type payoff. Without increased aggression you are gambling that the current big chip stacks will take others out and you will coast to (a probable 3rd place) payoff.

[bbartlog]

The main changes I think would be at the bubble. Having a really short stack might make you *less* of a target, since there would be a lot of incentive for those not in first to leave you alone unless stacking you would allow them to improve their position. In a similar vein I'd expect the leader to try to *avoid* tangling with anyone besides the shortstack so as to avoid endangering their position. Might turn into something resembling a headsup match, where shortstack steals blinds from the medium stacks while the big stack tries to hunt him down...

[AaronBrown]

It doesn't make too much difference. The chip leader gets 50% of the payout in this system. In a real tournament his expected value is a little less than 50% if he has a very large lead, down to as low as just over 33% if all three players are about even. So it helps a guy who goes in with a small chip lead.

Similarly, the third place guy gets 20% in this. His expected value is a little more than 20% if he is far behind the other two players, and could be as high as almost 33% if the three stacks are about even.

The middle gal gets 30% in this system. She could expect anywhere from just over 25% to just under 40% in a real tournament, depending on the relative stacks.

So this system helps the chip leader, anywhere from a little to 17%; hurts the third place player, anywhere from a little to 13%; and either helps or hurts the middle stack from -10% to +5%. It doesn't make a great deal of difference to anyone; and early in the tournament it's hard to take actions that would make this system help you or hurt you.

The only time it would make a significant difference to your strategy is when there are four remaining players and your stack is close to someone else's. Say you have 4,700 chips, the leader has 5,000, one short stack has 200 and another has 100. The 100 stack goes all-in, the other two fold and you're sure you have him beat. You fold anyway, because if you beat him you get 30%, while if you keep playing, you might take the chip lead before one of the other short stacks goes out. There's very little chance of losing second place whatever you do.

[BigBuffet]

I was thinking of a situation where there is a chip leader and three others below the chipleader but close together. In a regular STT, you keep playing. So the three non-chip leaders would tighten up (as in a Harrington example).

However, in a sudden death match, you would want to steal blinds or stack someone and advance to second place, and then let the other two play for third.

Are there really STT's where the play stops when three are left or is this a Sklansky type hypothetical [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]