Question for the PROS

[KingPoker]

PM sent to el blondie, Camel & Roland.

Next!

havent got my pm yet......

[MANTIS01]

Seriously, MANTIS has been Posting regularly of late, & I am not alone in loving his style of writing, but I was curious as to who the guy was. I went to Walsall on Saturday, sat down & the guy next to me introduced himself to me - it was none other than MANTIS. Top bloke, too, though he enjoyed no luck on Saturday.

Yes Tikay, it was a real coincidence that one.

I was naturally humbled to be sharing the table with a living legend once again, however, I do think that it distracted me from my game.

Tony had barely settled into his seat before I was swiftly and unceremoniously dumped out slow-playing AA into 2-3.

I read somewhere that you should raise with aces....hmmmm....think I may give that a go next time.

Good to see you though!

[elblondie]

Well I base my strategy on the payout structure. In 90% of tourneys 1st prize is double 2nd and almost quadrouple 3rd. This is plain wrong if you are getting through fields of 200 runners or more. They dont do this in tennis or Golf or any other type of competition.
It is because of this though I feel that the correct strategy is to play to win the comp. If that means putting my life on the line during the bubble period then so be it. 1 win probably pays more than 20 minor money finishes. If you are in it for the long term you have to play to win.
No guts No glory.

[AndrewT]

Well I base my strategy on the payout structure. In 90% of tourneys 1st prize is double 2nd and almost quadrouple 3rd. This is plain wrong if you are getting through fields of 200 runners or more. They dont do this in tennis or Golf or any other type of competition.
It is because of this though I feel that the correct strategy is to play to win the comp. If that means putting my life on the line during the bubble period then so be it. 1 win probably pays more than 20 minor money finishes. If you are in it for the long term you have to play to win.
No guts No glory.

Dave, do you factor into your calculations the fact that you will not be able to play enough live 200 runner tournaments for your 'true edge' over the field to distinguish itself through the noise of variance?

[tikay]

Well I base my strategy on the payout structure. In 90% of tourneys 1st prize is double 2nd and almost quadrouple 3rd. This is plain wrong if you are getting through fields of 200 runners or more. They dont do this in tennis or Golf or any other type of competition.
It is because of this though I feel that the correct strategy is to play to win the comp. If that means putting my life on the line during the bubble period then so be it. 1 win probably pays more than 20 minor money finishes. If you are in it for the long term you have to play to win.
No guts No glory.

So, assuming, say, 300 runners, what % do you think 1st, 2nd & 3rd in that elusive "ideal world" should pay, & how far down should the money go?

As a "grinder" (me, not you) I obviously prefer flatter structures, & more positions paid, but that sure as hell is not to the liking of many.

[wsopin07]

The worst day of my poker life was the 2nd place finish in the 888.com UKopen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1st place $500,000    not me
2nd place $150,000    yeap, thats mine

oh what could have been???

[totalise]

Well I base my strategy on the payout structure. In 90% of tourneys 1st prize is double 2nd and almost quadrouple 3rd. This is plain wrong if you are getting through fields of 200 runners or more. They dont do this in tennis or Golf or any other type of competition.
It is because of this though I feel that the correct strategy is to play to win the comp. If that means putting my life on the line during the bubble period then so be it. 1 win probably pays more than 20 minor money finishes. If you are in it for the long term you have to play to win.
No guts No glory.

So, assuming, say, 300 runners, what % do you think 1st, 2nd & 3rd in that elusive "ideal world" should pay, & how far down should the money go?

As a "grinder" (me, not you) I obviously prefer flatter structures, & more positions paid, but that sure as hell is not to the liking of many.

I think flatter structures are a much better idea for the poker economy.... (even though i personally prefer top heavy)  it affords a better distribution of the wealth which in a game where in the short term the winners and losers are divided by a paper thin line, and we likely dont live long enough for the long run to meterialise, is probably a good thing.

[MANTIS01]

As a player who is interested in the psycology of other players in given situations I have found this thread quite fascinating.

It is because of this though I feel that the correct strategy is to play to win the comp. If that means putting my life on the line during the bubble period then so be it. 1 win probably pays more than 20 minor money finishes. If you are in it for the long term you have to play to win.
No guts No glory.

When I was 14 I used to sit next to the sexiest girl in school.

Her name was Jane Allwood and double biology on a Monday was the highlight of my week. Incidentally and somewhat disappointingly, we sat next to each other by virtue of the fact that my surname begins with A and the seating was alphabetical.

Her perfume used to make me feel dizzy.

I used to tell my mates that if only I could get Jane alone for half an hour there would be no stopping me.

We started to get on really well and later on in the term I did get her alone after a friend's party.

I shit myself.

Anyway, this is relative to what we are talking about because how we would like to act and what we actually do in the heat of the battle can be different.

I remember reading a blog from Dave on blonde about the world series. He was playing in a pot limit event and was killing his two remaining opponents.

He decided to do some business.

Although he got the most money he felt that he lost the bracelet because of that decision.

So I find it very interesting that as people we can have or at least want to have a win at all costs mentality but then in reality find that hard to follow through with.

Especially when significant sums of money are involved.

This is the very reason Noel Edmonds "Deal or no Deal" show is so popular. As people we want to win but we also don't want to loose.

It would be interesting to know whether Dave feels that this experience shaped his attitude towards winning and/or dealing at the final table.

By the way, Biology was the only G.C.S.E. I failed so thanks for nothing Jane!

[taximan007]

Your in Monte Carlo to play in the EPT Grand Final.

You have paid the entry fee out of your own pocket. The evening before the event, someone who is desperate to play (but cant its sold out) offers you 13,720 euros, the equivqlent prize money for places 64-57.

What do you do?

[wsopin07]

If u take the money u r not hungry enough to play poker so u should not. There is no way u should be able to allow yourself to settle for that.

[tikay]

It would be interesting to know whether Dave feels that this experience shaped his attitude towards winning and/or dealing at the final table.


Just in case el blondie misses this, I believe he thought he made the right decision at the time, but has regretted it ever since, & is now a strong opponent of final Table Deals, as it affects the way the game plays out.

Not his words, or even thoughts maybe, hopefully he will reply himself if he sees it.

[elblondie]

It would be interesting to know whether Dave feels that this experience shaped his attitude towards winning and/or dealing at the final table.


Just in case el blondie misses this, I believe he thought he made the right decision at the time, but has regretted it ever since, & is now a strong opponent of final Table Deals, as it affects the way the game plays out.

Not his words, or even thoughts maybe, hopefully he will reply himself if he sees it.

Well it did obviousl shape my views...and nowadays I rarely do deals for that reason.
However, if 3rd to second was a 25% increase and 2nd to first was a 25% increase then the players wouldn't feel that they had to do a deal all the time. It is the structure that forces the players into this deal mentality, and I dont blame anyone for making a deal in a double double payout situation.
I am not saying pay more people. 10% is too much in my opinion. I am just saying flatten it down a bit on the final table especially the last 3 or 4 spots.
Then people would play to win just because they wanted to win the tourney and they wouldnt be obsessed with making deals.
 

[Royal Flush]

Your in Monte Carlo to play in the EPT Grand Final.

You have paid the entry fee out of your own pocket. The evening before the event, someone who is desperate to play (but cant its sold out) offers you 13,720 euros, the equivqlent prize money for places 64-57.

What do you do?

I take it and go out on the lash!

[marcro]

By the way, Biology was the only G.C.S.E. I failed so thanks for nothing Jane!

lol - another good post Mantis, keep em coming.

[Senor Nick]

Surely the current size of your bank roll must be a major if not the overiding factor weather to do a deal or not.

At Cardiff they did a deal when down to 3 and not knowing the players finances that made good sense if there bankroll wasnt that high, they still played for a bit