Is Paul Sexton really this weak tight?

[sledghammer]

In SNGPT I've looked at small bubble situations, mainly for satellites: final table, winner take all, but with 2nd-8th paying some small amount relative to winner. The difference in pushing/calling ranges with 9 or 8 left were negligible in that case. I'd imagine that if doubling up would get you less than half a starting stack, it might be worth it to sneak in to the money (which presumably is worth 1-2 starting stacks).

[JoeyJoJo Shabadu]

[ QUOTE ]
Awful tip. Paul Sexton is a very tight player. I made a mistake losing half my stack to him with JJ vs. KK on a low board in the FTOPS ME.

Some of these FTP red name pros are very marginal pros. I think some of them get by on the money they get from FTP because they can't make that much playing. Paul Sexton is obviously there mostly because of his name and daddy got him the job there.

I would be more concerned about playing a regular high stakes online tournament player than a red name pro, and online tournament players are mostly not in the same league with successful cash game pros.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just another prop player then...?

[Cleverbeans]

[ QUOTE ]
He should never get as low as he is in his example outside of losing a big pot to someone you barely have covered the hand before.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree this is the only reason a thinking player would be in this spot.

We shouldn't lose sight of the goal just because we have a plan.

The Goal - Maximize money earned
The Plan - In MTTs play to win rather then play to cash
The Process - Adjust our tactics to help our plan, adjust our plan to help our goal.

I'd assume most good players adjust their style to take advantage of the weaknesses of their opponents, table dynamics, various stack sizes, position and other factors in an effort to succeed with the plan and achieve the goal.

Wouldn't it be considered foolish to stick blindly to formulaic play even though the circumstances had changed? Should we lose sight of our goal because it doesn't fit into our plans?

[Rekwob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who's Paul Sexton?

[/ QUOTE ]
Good question. The son of the commentator on TV. Like I say, I assume dad got him a job as a Full Tilt pro.

[/ QUOTE ]

Keith Sexton is his dad.

[BAK]

It wasn't that long ago that the STT forums were all about going for the win and not just trying to make the money. People were being reassured that their high number of 4th places were a good indication that they were correctly "Playing to win" and it was all good, don't worry. Then apparently, someone figured out that there was a big difference between 4th and 3rd in terms of ROI and the tune changed to make the money then play for first.

It sounds like this guy is advocating the same kind of change in thinking for MTTs as well. I am no math wiz but the problem with this plan is that the difference between just making the money and winning an MTT is so huge that giving up the opportunity to win the tournament deliberately to just make back your buy-in can't be correct. In an STT the difference between 3rd and 1st is 3X the buy-in. In an MTT, the difference between just making the money and 1st can be 200 X your buy-in. I feel that giving up the chance to win the tournament, no matter how unlikely, must be incorrect. But I have no idea how to do the math that proves this.

[cheburashka]

Well, not to be super-obvious and banal, but just as an example...

In a humble 4/180, the prize structure is:
1st: $216
2nd: $144
3rd: $86
4th: $58
5th: $47
6th: $36
...
10th-18th: $9

Currently, there's a 4/180 running with 27 players left. Player in 15th spot has 7,500 chips and could reasonably expect conservate play to land him in the money. But what if he were given a chance to race 44 hu against the player in 14th spot with AK?

49% of the time he'd be out of the money
51% of the time he'd double up, which in this instance would put him very solidly in 6th place (a lot closer to 5th than to 7th).

So assuming he could manage to hold on (or not improve) his position after this hand, folding 44 yields ~100%*$9=$9, while racing yields ~51%*$36=$18.

On this basis, the decision isn't close. Where it becomes trickier, I think, is where the player in 15th spot thinks he's actually a lot better than the people he's playing against and can achieve a higher spot without the race.

Unfortunately, that ain't me (yet [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]).

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Awful tip. Paul Sexton is a very tight player. I made a mistake losing half my stack to him with JJ vs. KK on a low board in the FTOPS ME.

Some of these FTP red name pros are very marginal pros. I think some of them get by on the money they get from FTP because they can't make that much playing. Paul Sexton is obviously there mostly because of his name and daddy got him the job there.

I would be more concerned about playing a regular high stakes online tournament player than a red name pro, and online tournament players are mostly not in the same league with successful cash game pros.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just another prop player then...?

[/ QUOTE ]
Kind of. There was a long thread in NVG that touched on this. They have a lot of marginal pros who get paid some to play and answer questions from donks.

Some of them are grinder type pros and some are amateurs who were on TV and are using the prize money and FTP sponsership to try to make it as pros. The Sexton kids obviously have connections and there are others there because they know someone. They have a lot of real weak women pros, who I guess attract people to the site or something.

Players like that are willing to play low stakes games with the donks they are using the red names to attract to the site. In the high stakes games on FTP most of the players are stronger than the red name pros.