Apathy or unquenched desire?

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
- no, i am not the DeebSpellCheck gimmick [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] I think it might belong to Nath though...

[/ QUOTE ]
it's not me

Leo is right of course and right now he and I are talking about what he mentions in his first post (and what I feel is a major, major impediment in the development of some players on this forum)-- namely that some people would rather be known as a good and unlucky player, and are afraid to get their money in bad and look stupid. Meanwhile they sit back and criticize people they think of as clowns without even stopping to think that maybe they're doing something that, if not technically IMMEDIATELY +EV PERFECT POKER ZOMG, DOES in fact help them win TOURNAMENTS.

But people aren't really interested in hearing this. I've told a few of you this already and you've blown me off. So I'm going to go join the lucky clown camp.

[Bakes]

Why don't you be more specific? All this vague stuff does nothing for me....are you implying that -EV moves are necessary to be a good player?

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you be more specific? All this vague stuff does nothing for me....are you implying that -EV moves are necessary to be a good player?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that you need to play hands and situations very differently in a tournament than you would in a cash game, because the need to accumulate chips is so desperate. So you need to be more aggressive with your hands and you need to attack weakness, and you need to move at pots where you have any decent equity and can win a big one-- and ANY time you think you can make people fold, you should. Taking a pot without showdown is the surest way to not be outdrawn. Many people want to think that just waiting around for their big hands and always getting the money in good is enough, but it's not. You simply don't get enough hands to take that approach and have consistent success.

I personally prize getting the big stack in tournaments because it gives me the leverage to pressure people and boost my folding equity-- and it gives me a healthy cushion if I lose a pot. I try not to play for large chunks of my big stack in marginal spots, but I will flip short stacks for small pieces of it all day. I'll move in on draws against smaller stacks all day. So what if I'm 25% or 30% to win when called? That's great-- they fold so often that I usually have enough equity when called to make the move +EV on the whole.

[nath]

also because other people realize the need to move at these pots they're full of [censored] more often so your FE tends to be even higher than it would otherwise

[Bakes]

Alright I don't really see what you are getting at...which tourneys does this apply to? Which blind level (antes or non)? It just seems like you are talking about the basic concept of semibluffing...which doesn't come up a lot when its push/fold poker preflop. Honestly I can't draw a single thing that would aid me in the 100r, for example, from your above post.

Which people do you notice this attitude in? Which situations are people passing up marginal hands? Is it late position opens? Is it defending the blinds? How do we see these draws when people are playing push/fold poker preflop?

And i'm still a bit confused about this statement.

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile they sit back and criticize people they think of as clowns without even stopping to think that maybe they're doing something that, if not technically IMMEDIATELY +EV PERFECT POKER ZOMG, DOES in fact help them win TOURNAMENTS.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean we've gone over this before...does having a big stack outweigh the negatives of making -EV plays to get there? So far I haven't seen any evidence in favor of that argument. If your semibluffs are +EV, they are +EV in some part due to the fold equity. Obviously if you are making a lot of -EV plays in the name of playing big pots, you will accumulate big stacks, and win some tournaments.

But just because this style of play "DOES in fact help you win TOURNAMENTS", presumably referring to individual tournaments, doesn't mean its a winning strategy in the long run. Without statistics, you are just ranting imo.

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
I mean we've gone over this before...does having a big stack outweigh the negatives of making -EV plays to get there? So far I haven't seen any evidence in favor of that argument.

[/ QUOTE ]
didn't Matt Matros write up an article a while back and do some math demonstrating that you should get your stack in as a 46/54 dog right away if you can, because you simply aren't going to get enough opportunities further on to acquire those chips? (i.e. if you play out the tournament like you normally would, you will double up less than 46% of the time, not to mention factoring in the chips you missed out on accumulating because you didn't have the stack to threaten other people with their zomgtournamentlife.)

I'm saying that people lose sight of what they need to do to win the tournament and just sort of coast along on autopilot until they get a big hand. They don't adjust for individual opponents and they don't recognize when they should try to play a big pot and when they shouldn't. They think their big hands are enough to get them through and they don't go after enough of the other pots.

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
But just because this style of play "DOES in fact help you win TOURNAMENTS", presumably referring to individual tournaments, doesn't mean its a winning strategy in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]
uhhhhh tournaments are so top heavy that any strategy that allows you to win more of them at the expense of smaller cashes is a good one

[NHFunkii]

no, that statement (as well as a couple others you've made) is simply an incorrect generalization

[Bakes]

It might help one win individual tournaments from an observers perspective (ZOMG xxxx has another chip lead!) but that doesn't mean that the whole strategy of -EV moves has been proven as long-term +EV...which i'll be bold enough to say never will, especially if your going to continue making -EV moves when you get the big stack.

You really thinking taking a 46/54 dog at the beginning is +EV? When everyone in the tournament is deeper stacked, including the bad players? Doesn't sound like good poker to me, and until someone comes along and proves it I'll continue to hold this opinion. Find that article and some statistics please, this is still mumbo jumbo.

[Ship Ship McGipp]

it's both, no i didn't read this thread, it's impossible to have one without the other