LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksI know Caro's written some on this, but I want to toss it out for general discussion since there's so many online WSOP qualifiers out there with a miniscule number of prizes compared to the number of entrants. It just seems like a good time to re-visit this subject...
How should a tournament player's mentality change in a winner-takes-all sort of environment? For purpose of a more focused discussion, lets say there's 100 players and the winner gets a WSOP seat...the other 99 get nada.
--How does your mentality change from a normal MTT that might see 9-18 places paid for a field this size? Tighter? Looser? More willing to take risks in coinflip situations?
--At what point in the tournament do you implement this new mentality? From hand one? When 50 percent of the field has dropped? 75 percent? Final table?
I'm sure I'm missing some of other good questions to spark discussion on the topic, but this ought to get things flowing for now.
Welcome to PokerForums.org
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Results 1 to 5 of 5
-
03-31-2005 #1Check Raiser
- Join Date
- Sep 2004
- Posts
- 615
Mentality changes for winner-takes-all
:cool:
To be successful in business, surround yourself with professionals. To be successful in poker, surround yourself with idiots.
-
03-31-2005 #2PokerForums God
- Join Date
- Sep 2004
- Posts
- 8,204
This is interesting.
I imagine a players skills would be improtant in the discussion.
If you excel at full ring play, ou want to get your chips during that period so you have a good stack for short handed play.
If you excel at short-handed play, you may want to take fewer risks in the full ring.
Look how Sklansky played the "Booker By the Book" tourney, laying down AK to TJs raise.
I have only played one winner take all event, a $13 TEC SnG, and I was too drunk to remember much besides the Stone Cold Nuts runner up Brass_Rhino was in it and played horribly - and that I won.
Can't say I played it any differently than I would a normal SnG, I never used to concern myself with the bubble.
-
03-31-2005 #3Poker Hustler
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
- Location
- nyc
- Posts
- 828
it's better to be pissed off than pissed on
missot on stars. come to my poker vent server! (its a voice chat program)
-
03-31-2005 #4Check Raiser
- Join Date
- Sep 2004
- Posts
- 615
Good article...hadn't seen that one JKo. Thanks for the post. Reading through it I'm struck with another question to guide the discussion now.
Since both Keller and Caro agree that more aggression is better in a winner-take-all environment, where is the fine line that divides aggression from recklessness in this sort of situation?
Loved his idea for making at least some of the PPT events a winner-take-all format. And that NBC idea sounded awesome too.:cool:
To be successful in business, surround yourself with professionals. To be successful in poker, surround yourself with idiots.
-
04-06-2005 #5Check Raiser
- Join Date
- Sep 2004
- Posts
- 615
Bumping this once to see if it gets more comment. (partially self-serving since I might find myself in this sort of a situation in a month or so)
What sort of situations constitute being "more aggressive" rather than being "too reckless." Should I push all-in with my pocket 9's after 2 limpers trying to pick up the blinds and limped bets? More pre-flop raising? Bet harder on top pair, top kicker? All of the above?:cool:
To be successful in business, surround yourself with professionals. To be successful in poker, surround yourself with idiots.
Reply With QuoteThread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
