| |
 
Entry #9: Bursting the Bubble
Different players have different ways in which they approach tournaments. Some strategies are better than others (and some are simply incorrect) and much depends on the format, field size, blind structure, prize distribution, player's aims and so on. Whatever our mindset, invariably we will find ourselves in a considerably reduced field, hovering around the bottom of the prize list.
"Is your priority to make sure you at least win something after hours of toil, or will you be satisfied only with a more substantial prize?"
|
Let's say you've survived long enough in a 400-player NL freezeout tournament to stand in 38th of the remaining 44 players, with prizes going to the top 40. What's your battle plan now? Again this is horses for courses, with your own view of how to play perhaps completely different from the player in 39th. Is your priority to make sure you at least win something after hours of toil, or will you be satisfied only with a more substantial prize? Remember that a typical prize structure for a 400-player field is something along the lines of 1st place paying 25% of the total buy-ins, 3rd place 11%, 10th 1.25%, 21st 0.70% and 31st-40th a modest 0.45%...
The problem - for some - in concentrating on the prizes higher up the list is clearly the risk involved in making a stand and subsequently going out in a blaze of 'glory' but outside the money. But the downside to wanting to get in the prizes is that if you manage to do so (and this is by no means guaranteed), by the time the field has finally been whittled down to 40 and you creep in in 39th, for example, your prospects of improving the ten places required to increase your prize are not too healthy.
"The survive for any prize approach is rather negative"
|
Of course it is possible to zoom up the placings but, generally, the 'survive for any prize' approach is rather negative. While it is true that your more ambitious neighbour who was initially alongside you in the placings may well have busted out in 43rd this time, his potential (and likely) rewards - assuming you both continue to find yourselves in the same situation and continue to approach each in the same way - are far greater. Once you have reached the last 20 players it is worth taking a little from both strategies if your stack is sufficiently healthy to afford patience and starting hand selection, and the final table strategy deserves more space and will be dealt with in the coming months.
For now, here is a point to consider regarding when to make a stand with a dwindling short stack. Let's say you are on the BB with a pair of sevens (for the purposes of the statistics below these are a club and a diamond), and two players have called a raise that would put you all-in to call. What do you do if folding still leaves you with a short yet workable stack that can survive a further fold in the SB and will then leave you with opportunities during a new round? Some players will see the 'value' in the all-in and make a stand. Others will keep their powder dry. Let's say the other hands are QsQd, AhKh, your 7c7d and 5s6s. Seeing the hand played out to the river, the respective success percentages of these holdings are 34.7%, 34%, 14.9% and 16.4%. Too many cooks spoil the broth. Eliminate the QQ and 56, and the sevens become 52.1%-47.9% favourites over the AK. It is interesting that with a hand such as 77 many players with a short stack will go all-in in an effort to pick up three bets that have already been placed but will hold their fire against one opponent, despite the fact that the heads-up all-in situation is vastly more advantageous...
Happy New Year everyone, hope it's a good one!
How to Play |
Poker Craft |
Poker Hands |
Legends of Poker
| |
|
