When do you stop playing to win?

EdmondDantes · 09-10-2006, 08:51 PM

Is there a point where itÃ¢â¬â¢s optimal to stop playing to win?

A friend of mine was sweating me in the Titan $250k today. With 31 left, I was about 20th in chips with 14,000. With the blinds at 2000/4000/no ante, it was folded to me in the SB with A7o. I pushed on the BB (ActionJeff) who had me slightly covered about 2:1. He called with K3s, turned a K and I was out.

My friend asked me if IÃ¢â¬â¢d always do that in that situation and my initial reaction was Ã¢â¬ÅOf course.Ã¢â¬Â since 1) I want to win, 2) the bigger money is higher (1st prize was $62,000), 3) I still have some folding equity, 4) IÃ¢â¬â¢m 60/40 vs. a random hand and 5) the incremental chips will improve my chances of winning.

As it turned out, there were a couple of stacks on other tables with <600 chips and there was a high likelihood I could have moved up in money (from $1200 to $1800) by simply folding. IÃ¢â¬â¢m far more interested in the 62 grand first prize than the incremental $600, and if the same situation presented itself, IÃ¢â¬â¢d take the same actions, but it got me thinking. What if my stack was so small that my chances of winning the tournament were almost non-existent?

For example, if I was sitting with 50 chips and picked up AA, but it was certain that another short stack would be out ahead of me and IÃ¢â¬â¢d pick up the incremental $600, should I accept that itÃ¢â¬â¢s not my tournament to win and just try to maximize the economic return on the time and money investment? Is there any point at which you turn your attention from winning to simply squeezing the most value out of the tournament you can?

Thanks in advance for the responses.

Not a quitter,

Edmond

Xerond · 04-15-2007, 12:07 AM

I think it all comes down to personal preference and how people hold themselves to what they want out of the tournament, and poker in general.

I mean, some people have the approach to a tournament that they will do whatever it takes to increase their winnings. If they're leaning towards the short stack but they know they've still got a few people infront of them, they can wait it out and let them go out first but let the blinds pretty much make it so you can't recover. If they believe those winnings will aid their game at another event or aid their bankroll in future efforts then to them thats that.

And some people are purely focused on winning. There are quite a few times I've been near but not on the rim of the bubble for winnings, decided to risk my stack to try and push to win rather than sit around, and then go out with nothing or little than the buy-in.

In the long run though, when you focus on purely the cash you end up blinding yourself from becoming a better player. If you focus on trying to win and purely playing better, the winnings eventually catch up to you. Because with that mentality you're going to look at everything with a positive perspective and look at any hands you lost or bad beats and learn from that.

With winnings in mind;
"I'm just not hittings hands in this tourney." "Lets just wait this out." "This is just a bad run for me."

Those could be true. Some luck just, fails to hit.

With the idea of winning in mind;
"I could've played that better." "Why didn't I see that before?" "What put me in this position?" "Should have I played that differently?"

At the end of the tourney, who's reaping more for the long run?

This comes from more of an amatuer aspect and a broad analysis seeing how I've never played it anything more than a 5,000 $ tourney, but to me lately. I've been more focused on simply winning, unless you're already in a position than you can't recover from at all, go for it.

EdmondDantes · 04-15-2007, 06:43 PM

Yeah, I pretty much play to win all the time, but I'll be honest, there's times where it seems like the optimal EV$ play is almost like that in a satellite on the bubble. Guess I'll worry about it when I get there.

Edmond

Adanthar · 04-16-2007, 10:39 PM

Quote:

With 31 left, I was about 20th in chips with 14,000. With the blinds at 2000/4000/no ante...As it turned out, there were a couple of stacks on other tables with <600 chips

For starters, if that's still the structure, iPoker (are they iPoker?) needs to flush it down the drain...

In any event, there's no doubt that you would shove here, but it's a sliding scale that's somewhat covered in TPFAP. If you had ~8K (so AJ is calling any two), there's a decent case to be made for folding 32o; that's a place where cEV and $EV diverge and cEV isn't really that positive to begin with. Once you have < 1 BB in this exact spot, it's probably worth stalling and folding in with pretty much anything except ~JJ+ (not AK), just because the random hand you get in the BB won't decrease your cEV by enough over the two big cards you have now for the extra $600 to stop mattering.

Playing with the ICM calculator (the STT forums on 2+2 have numerous links to it) will give you the exact math answer for a given spot, if you're willing to spend a bunch of time on it.

Gentom · 04-20-2008, 04:05 PM

I stop playing to win when i have all the chips. Money is at the final table, last 3 spots. Going out on bubble playing aggressive (with shortish stack) don't phase me at all.
Play for the win.
There goals of every tourny,
1st. make money
2nd. make final table
3rd. win it.

lakong · 04-20-2008, 10:35 PM

Ed, I think you had to push here. Perhaps if you had no chance to win and you could fold into money or higher money you might fold. But in this situation I'm not sure I understand ActionJeff's call unless he puts you on any two cards and even if he's fairly certain that your range is any two cards he's basically 50/50 at best. Why does it make sense for him to call? I would love to hear some discussion on this.

FatMan · 05-02-2008, 11:03 AM

I think you are always playing to win - just how much is the question. I'll give you two examples. The first is the example from the opening post. There is nothing wrong with pushing it once you get in the money and think you have a hand that might either steal a pot or double you up. Even if the cards are marginal, doubling your stack there could have you rising up several places or even give you a chance to win it all. If you lose the hand and bust out, you still have cashed.

Example 2 is when you are very short-stacked and on the bubble. The popular thinking is to push with any decent hand and try to double up and survive, but depending on position, if you can hold on until the bubble breaks, you'll have a positive expectation. Just last week, I had 7 chips left with 12 players left and top 10 payed out and the blinds were 4 and 2 (we had just colored up a little before then). I decided to fold both the big and little blinds unless I had A-A or K-K. With 1 chip left, two players busted out before it got back to me. I had made the final table with one chip! The final table decided to chop, and I gave up $50 to the chip leader as did places 6,7,8, and 9. I ended up getting $800 with one chip to my name.

09-10-2006, 08:51 PM	#1 (permalink)
EdmondDantes Guest Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Formerly, Chateau d'If. Now, at large in California...last seen in Fresno, propping 2/2 NL... Posts: 105	When do you stop playing to win? Is there a point where itÃ¢â¬â¢s optimal to stop playing to win? A friend of mine was sweating me in the Titan $250k today. With 31 left, I was about 20th in chips with 14,000. With the blinds at 2000/4000/no ante, it was folded to me in the SB with A7o. I pushed on the BB (ActionJeff) who had me slightly covered about 2:1. He called with K3s, turned a K and I was out. My friend asked me if IÃ¢â¬â¢d always do that in that situation and my initial reaction was Ã¢â¬ÅOf course.Ã¢â¬Â since 1) I want to win, 2) the bigger money is higher (1st prize was $62,000), 3) I still have some folding equity, 4) IÃ¢â¬â¢m 60/40 vs. a random hand and 5) the incremental chips will improve my chances of winning. As it turned out, there were a couple of stacks on other tables with <600 chips and there was a high likelihood I could have moved up in money (from $1200 to $1800) by simply folding. IÃ¢â¬â¢m far more interested in the 62 grand first prize than the incremental $600, and if the same situation presented itself, IÃ¢â¬â¢d take the same actions, but it got me thinking. What if my stack was so small that my chances of winning the tournament were almost non-existent? For example, if I was sitting with 50 chips and picked up AA, but it was certain that another short stack would be out ahead of me and IÃ¢â¬â¢d pick up the incremental $600, should I accept that itÃ¢â¬â¢s not my tournament to win and just try to maximize the economic return on the time and money investment? Is there any point at which you turn your attention from winning to simply squeezing the most value out of the tournament you can? Thanks in advance for the responses. Not a quitter, Edmond

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

04-15-2007, 12:07 AM	#2 (permalink)
Xerond Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Loma Linda, CA Posts: 7	I think it all comes down to personal preference and how people hold themselves to what they want out of the tournament, and poker in general. I mean, some people have the approach to a tournament that they will do whatever it takes to increase their winnings. If they're leaning towards the short stack but they know they've still got a few people infront of them, they can wait it out and let them go out first but let the blinds pretty much make it so you can't recover. If they believe those winnings will aid their game at another event or aid their bankroll in future efforts then to them thats that. And some people are purely focused on winning. There are quite a few times I've been near but not on the rim of the bubble for winnings, decided to risk my stack to try and push to win rather than sit around, and then go out with nothing or little than the buy-in. In the long run though, when you focus on purely the cash you end up blinding yourself from becoming a better player. If you focus on trying to win and purely playing better, the winnings eventually catch up to you. Because with that mentality you're going to look at everything with a positive perspective and look at any hands you lost or bad beats and learn from that. With winnings in mind; "I'm just not hittings hands in this tourney." "Lets just wait this out." "This is just a bad run for me." Those could be true. Some luck just, fails to hit. With the idea of winning in mind; "I could've played that better." "Why didn't I see that before?" "What put me in this position?" "Should have I played that differently?" At the end of the tourney, who's reaping more for the long run? This comes from more of an amatuer aspect and a broad analysis seeing how I've never played it anything more than a 5,000 $ tourney, but to me lately. I've been more focused on simply winning, unless you're already in a position than you can't recover from at all, go for it.

04-15-2007, 06:43 PM	#3 (permalink)
EdmondDantes Guest Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Formerly, Chateau d'If. Now, at large in California...last seen in Fresno, propping 2/2 NL... Posts: 105	Yeah, I pretty much play to win all the time, but I'll be honest, there's times where it seems like the optimal EV$ play is almost like that in a satellite on the bubble. Guess I'll worry about it when I get there. Edmond

04-20-2008, 04:05 PM	#5 (permalink)
Gentom Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1	I stop playing to win when i have all the chips. Money is at the final table, last 3 spots. Going out on bubble playing aggressive (with shortish stack) don't phase me at all. Play for the win. There goals of every tourny, 1st. make money 2nd. make final table 3rd. win it.

04-20-2008, 10:35 PM	#6 (permalink)
lakong Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 98	Ed, I think you had to push here. Perhaps if you had no chance to win and you could fold into money or higher money you might fold. But in this situation I'm not sure I understand ActionJeff's call unless he puts you on any two cards and even if he's fairly certain that your range is any two cards he's basically 50/50 at best. Why does it make sense for him to call? I would love to hear some discussion on this.

05-02-2008, 11:03 AM	#7 (permalink)
FatMan Junior Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Charlotte Posts: 3	I think you are always playing to win - just how much is the question. I'll give you two examples. The first is the example from the opening post. There is nothing wrong with pushing it once you get in the money and think you have a hand that might either steal a pot or double you up. Even if the cards are marginal, doubling your stack there could have you rising up several places or even give you a chance to win it all. If you lose the hand and bust out, you still have cashed. Example 2 is when you are very short-stacked and on the bubble. The popular thinking is to push with any decent hand and try to double up and survive, but depending on position, if you can hold on until the bubble breaks, you'll have a positive expectation. Just last week, I had 7 chips left with 12 players left and top 10 payed out and the blinds were 4 and 2 (we had just colored up a little before then). I decided to fold both the big and little blinds unless I had A-A or K-K. With 1 chip left, two players busted out before it got back to me. I had made the final table with one chip! The final table decided to chop, and I gave up $50 to the chip leader as did places 6,7,8, and 9. I ended up getting $800 with one chip to my name.