|
|
#1
03-13-2006, 01:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
calling out suitedsixes: the \"lazy agressive\" strategy
In another thread bones said:
[ QUOTE ] Anyone struggling with this [pushbotting too early] should have suitedsixes teach them the "lazy aggressive" bubble approach. [/ QUOTE ] Apparently there is no thread on this "lazy agressive" approach. My guess is this approach means lots of pvs and stop-n-gos over the constant high blind limpers and min-raisers; however, I am sure I may be wrong/incomplete. Anyone want to venture a guess? Does Suitedsixes want to elaborate? Ryan 
|
|
#2
03-13-2006, 02:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: calling out suitedsixes: the \"lazy aggressive\" strategy
Wow! Called out. Never had that happen before.
There are certain issues to be resolved in every tournament and they are resolved in this order: -Who is going to get ITM? -Who is going to finish 3rd? -Who is going to win? The lazy-aggressive approach is identifying tournaments where some or all of these issues can be solved without your participation/risk. Much of this thinking is logical/strategy based and really ignores ICM principles. I liken it to the communicative property of addition (2+3=3+2); at some point I am going to need to get those chips, but the longer I am able to wait, the greater the likelihood of me moving up the payout scale. It is just as easy to steal ITM as it is on the bubble, just with more (some) money already in your pocket. Here are some of the factors to be determined: A) Relative stack size (NegativeEV uses the term 'separation' which I like). If I am 2nd in chips, with a large gap between me and 3rd and 4th, there is a greater burden on 3rd and 4th to resolve the "Who is going to get ITM" question than there is on me. My main concern here is to find spots where I can pick up chips to maintain the separation between me and the likely bubble candidates, while not losing too much ground to the chip leader. I have a good chunk of FE against Big Stack, because he should respect my range, but in general I don't want to tangle with the only guy who can mess up my tournament nor do I want to get loose against #3 and #4 to put my ITM in jeopardy. By the same token, if I am 3rd in chips I need to focus on finding a way to get #4 to lose his, and that may involve taking matters into my own hands by pushing on him or calling against him. While I want every chip that I can get, taking chips away from my most equally-stacked opponent is my priority as they have more worth to me from a competitive standpoint (I know this is wrong from an ICM standpoint). B) Attitude/Playing Style. By the time you get to the bubble you should be able to identify tournaments where 2 or more of your opponents are not going to operate with the same patience as you and are likely to tangle with each other and resolve some of these issues with your participation (Lorinda mentions this from time to time). If I find myself short ITM, but I have identified I am up against two players who are aggressive, I may sit back as long as possible to give them an opportunity to solve "Who is going to finish #3" for me. C) Protection through Position. This is described by Gigabet here and here . For those of you to lazy to click on a link here is a summary: [ QUOTE ] So, all in all, when I said that you don't have to do anything to win when the stacks are set up that well for you, this is the actual why of it. The survivalists are stealing from the players who are on the edge of being a survivalist. You and the other largest stack are stealing from the survivalists. So, basically, until someone calls an all in bet, the survivalists are taking from the players near that point, and are giving me and one other stack those chips(which is why I said I think the best spot for the second largest stack is really two to my right, so he isn't getting any of the survivalists chips. [/ QUOTE ] Gigabet goes into actually arranging the stacks in a way that is advantageous to him which is more possible in an MTT environment. For a STT situation, I like to pay attention to the stacks sizes around me to see who will offer me protection. For example: If you are in survival mode (like the 2nd place situation above), having big stack to your left is great in that he has more freedom to call an all-in from a small stack than you do, and he may be the catlyst to solve the "Who is going to finish ITM" problem. This is especially true when he is in the BB and may, very well, have the odds to call with any two. As I mentioned previously, you have your most FE when Big Stack is in the BB. If a shorty pushes, you know that BS will have a larger calling range allowing two things to happen (both good) either BS will win and resolve the ITM question, or BS will lose and decrease the separation between you and him. This is also typified in the "short-stack hanger-onner guy" phenomenon that we employ as big stacks. We should be able to steal at will from #2 when he is on our left, yet fold our BB to the shorty on our right. Again, as #1, chips from #2 mean more to us than chips from #3. Again, this is not a replacement for ICM thinking, just added factors to consider when making a decision. Not all tournaments shake out this way, but from a competitive standpoint I think we neglect some of the strategy of this game beyond calling ranges and stack sizes. I am also more comfortable than most on a short stack so I don't feel compelled to take risks to avoid that situation.
|
|
#3
03-13-2006, 02:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: calling out suitedsixes: the \"lazy aggressive\" strategy
nice post.
|
|
#4
03-13-2006, 02:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: calling out suitedsixes: the \"lazy aggressive\" strategy
Nice post [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
Your off topic stuff is golden, and then you go drop something like this on the forum. You're too good to us! Post more.
|
|
#5
03-13-2006, 02:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: calling out suitedsixes: the \"lazy aggressive\" strategy
Well, duh [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
P.S. I think ICM agrees with most of this anyway. E.g. when you're 2nd stack with 3rd and 4th far behind.
|
|
#6
03-13-2006, 02:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: calling out suitedsixes: the \"lazy aggressive\" strategy
and the Pink velvet movies are awesome. You said to thank you later. So thank you sixes.
|
|
#7
03-13-2006, 03:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: calling out suitedsixes: the \"lazy aggressive\" strategy
[ QUOTE ]
Well, duh [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] P.S. I think ICM agrees with most of this anyway. E.g. when you're 2nd stack with 3rd and 4th far behind. [/ QUOTE ] Still made about forgetting to "carry the one" hunh?
|
|
#8
03-13-2006, 03:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: calling out suitedsixes: the \"lazy aggressive\" strategy
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Well, duh [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] P.S. I think ICM agrees with most of this anyway. E.g. when you're 2nd stack with 3rd and 4th far behind. [/ QUOTE ] Still made about forgetting to "carry the one" hunh? [/ QUOTE ] I'll probably never forgive you. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]
|
|
#9
03-13-2006, 03:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: calling out suitedsixes: the \"lazy aggressive\" strategy
Nice post. Btw, my original comment was more intended to sound like "Hire suited sixes to teach you to play a less aggressive, more efficient bubble at the lower limits" than "get 6s to write a pamphlet on the boards".
|
|
#10
03-13-2006, 03:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: calling out suitedsixes: the \"lazy aggressive\" strategy
[ QUOTE ]
Nice post. Btw, my original comment was more intended to sound like "Hire suited sixes to teach you to play a less aggressive, more efficient bubble at the lower limits" than "get 6s to write a pamphlet on the boards". [/ QUOTE ] 66's is an idiot....He's like one of the urchins that people have playing $11's in sweatshops in India...And I seriously doubt that he will "sack-up" and come to the BBQ on 3/19 [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
