survival vs. play-to-win?

[davedave]

I'm sure this one has been posted millions of times. Is this a good "whatever your style is"? In other words, if you excel at either style, just hone it?

Or is there a tried-and-true answer that statistically and affirmatively answers "Survival is the best strategy" or "Play-to-win is the best strategy".

Feel free to refer me to previous posts. Thanks.

[yNnOs]

It depends. I think thats "tried-and-true".

[McMelchior]

The FAQ (always a good place to find information) links to this thread: http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/...te_id/1#import

[Pokerfarian]

"play to win" is pretty much "tried-and-true" but yeah check the anthology

[yNnOs]

"Playing to win" and "Playing to survive" aren't strategies, they're philosophies. Furthermore, they aren't philosophies on the same level as one another. Every tournament player has to have the instinct of survival; after all, we're born to fear death. However, to act on the desire to win, and overcome fear of elimination (death, rejection, etc.), is apart of what defines a great player. So playing to win is, in effect, the next step; the break from primordial instincts.

The best "strategy" is to get as much equity (in all its forms) out of every hand with the information available to you. When you can do that consistently, IMHO, you're employing both philosophies simultaneously. We only question whether its one or the other because when we say "play to win", it usually implies foregoing a larger risk over the more prudent play, even though we stand to gain more in the long-run. In this regard, always play to win.

[23Suited]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure this one has been posted millions of times. Is this a good "whatever your style is"? In other words, if you excel at either style, just hone it?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, err atleast it isnt that simple

[ QUOTE ]
Or is there a tried-and-true answer that statistically and affirmatively answers "Survival is the best strategy" or "Play-to-win is the best strategy".

[/ QUOTE ]

As is true with everything in poker it depends is the best awnser... Its actually situational and I dont believe you can ever be a truly great poker player without mastering both ends of this usually highly debated argument...

In the link above they are strictly refering to early stages of tournaments and game theory there in... Che and Paul Phillips hit the nail on the head in the discussion there so if nothing else you should atleast read thier posts in that link... I also like Yenos (sorry If I spelled that incorrectly) post above...

You can make general statements like...

Survival > Playing to Win = Deep Stack slow blind tourneys

while...

Playing to Win > Survival = Shallow stack fast blind tourney

or...

Survival > Playing to Win = In a Satalitte

while...

Playing to Win > Survival = Top heavy large field tourneys

however you could still find yourself in a situation with in each of those scenarios where playing the opposite of the "correct" approach is the most profitable action you should be taking...

LOL I tried to tackle this concept in a single post and somehow I have ended on the value of changing gears... the truth is that I could write an entire book on this subject (and I probably still would not awnser your question from every angle)... If you have a subject with in this larger topic you would like to discuss let me know... sorry If this wasnt much help...