ITH Poker Forum

[jfletcher]

Catching this interesting thread late.

OP, I'm wondering if your logic would be the same if it were a $200 tourney and not a $2 tourney (and let's assume the same opponents)?

Because it sounds to me like you're saying: "I'm gonna gamble to go big or go home because there's no point in hanging around this thing if I don't have a big stack." I don't really see anything wrong with that logic. In fact, I think a lot of pros play the $1k and $1.5k events at the WSOP that way.

That said, I think from a pure odds standpoint (considering the payout structure as well as the tourney chips), it's still wrong. You just aren't going to hit your perfect flop often enough. And I also disagree that having 120 BBs at this point would make you that much more of a favorite for the FT. It's a long way to go with 30 or 50 or 120 BBs. At this stage, were talking about having 2 pct of the chips vs 4 pct, at best, or something like that.

I think you just need to admit: "I'm playing incorrectly because it's a $2 tourney and I've got better things to do with my time than grind this thing out properly. I'm playing for the fun of a big score, not the highest possible long-term ROI."

[McDivitt]

OP, I'm wondering if your logic would be the same if it were a $200 tourney and not a $2 tourney (and let's assume the same opponents)?

Sure, I'd play a $200 MTT the same way, if I were properly bankrolled. I only play tournaments where I couldn't care less about losing the buyin, in other words, $1-5 MTTs. How much it cost to buy in shouldn't be a factor in changing your playing style. (Of course, the skill level of your opponents tends to be higher in more expensive MTTs, which is a different consideration, although related. If I were to win a satellite into a big money MTT, I'd probably play even more LAG, because it's gonna be a lot tougher to outplay skilled opponents than the average donkament player.) I think a lot of people play MTTs they can't afford, and then they play too tight because they're afraid of losing their buyin.

Because it sounds to me like you're saying: "I'm gonna gamble to go big or go home because there's no point in hanging around this thing if I don't have a big stack." I don't really see anything wrong with that logic. In fact, I think a lot of pros play the $1k and $1.5k events at the WSOP that way.

But if I play a $2 donkament that way I'm crazy!

[Radford]

Whatever the buyin. Whatever the situation. Calling with 56s here is bad bad bad.

[jfletcher]

Because it sounds to me like you're saying: "I'm gonna gamble to go big or go home because there's no point in hanging around this thing if I don't have a big stack." I don't really see anything wrong with that logic. In fact, I think a lot of pros play the $1k and $1.5k events at the WSOP that way.

But if I play a $2 donkament that way I'm crazy!

you're not crazy. Just admit that you're doing a certain way because that's how you want to do it, not because it's optimal.

When I played the $1K at the WSOP recently I took some risks that I knew were -ev, but I did it because there were other factors: namely that I wanted to be able to fly home that day and not nurse a short stack all day and then have to spend the off day in Vegas before Day 2.

I think you're doing the same thing.

[Louswon]

If this isn't Caro's FPS, I don't know what is.

Risking your stack (even 1/3) and moving from the top of the field to the lower half with small (very small) connectors is not winning thinking.

You should fold much better hands than this trash in this situation.

There's a lot more poker coming right up.