Chip accumulation in an MTT

[GreekStein]

lol

[  ] $6k is a big swing at MTTs.

Sure is a big sample I've played.

Happy to play you heads up online or live for whatever you want.

Feel free to post some of your stats. I'm open with mine

200+ games doesn't prove anything so you want to play me one live game to prove something. Your thought process has me outfoxed already tbh.

well it probably wouldn't take me long to break you but I wouldn't wish Walsall on my worst enemy.

How about an online challenge? Me vs u. 20k hands min, you pick the game.

[pleno1]

thread has potential!

[BAM]

Always happy to offer my opinion. OP you're asking how you should play these levels and you detail your own view as opposed to a contrary view. In reality you're just illustrating two different styles of playing poker. Your approach is tight and that of your friends is loose. No doubt there could be an endless debate about the pros and cons of each style. Generally I think a tighter approach is more fruitful early in these MTT's for several reasons. There are less thoughtful players at this standard in the early stages who just want to pure gamble, you have no info on your oppos, you have no image to trade off, and the blinds are small. So personally I don't think 4betting Q-J at 25/50 and playing weak hands strongly is the most profitable way to approach these games. You don't want to pure gamble yourself because that nullifies your edge right? The fact that lots of people play weak hands so aggro means playing stronger hands vs this sort of action is a more beneficial strategy. What's important is that you're looking for a formula that you can implement in a game before that game even begins. Poker is a game where you need to be flexible and reactive so for eg if you happen to end up at a tight table then loosening your playing requirements becomes more profitable.

Now we've covered that perhaps Greekstein can illustrate the style he employs to currently be losing over $6k in MTT's on Full Tilt alone. Then you can do the polar opposite and expect to make a decent profit.

Great post Mantis your thoughts are well appreciated.

As for OP surely you cannot have a set strat before you sit down, apart from MTT's being a meh game, I find it very hard for anyone to sit down before they know the players, table dynamics, structure (showered or no showered) etc etc etc how you are going to play the game.

Isn't the key word 'adaptable'

[Sack it off]

TY for the reply Mantis

[Woodsey]

lol

[  ] $6k is a big swing at MTTs.

Sure is a big sample I've played.

Happy to play you heads up online or live for whatever you want.

Feel free to post some of your stats. I'm open with mine

200+ games doesn't prove anything so you want to play me one live game to prove something. Your thought process has me outfoxed already tbh.

well it probably wouldn't take me long to break you but I wouldn't wish Walsall on my worst enemy.

How about an online challenge? Me vs u. 20k hands min, you pick the game.

limit 2-7 triple draw imo...........

[Sack it off]

Always happy to offer my opinion. OP you're asking how you should play these levels and you detail your own view as opposed to a contrary view. In reality you're just illustrating two different styles of playing poker. Your approach is tight and that of your friends is loose. No doubt there could be an endless debate about the pros and cons of each style. Generally I think a tighter approach is more fruitful early in these MTT's for several reasons. There are less thoughtful players at this standard in the early stages who just want to pure gamble, you have no info on your oppos, you have no image to trade off, and the blinds are small. So personally I don't think 4betting Q-J at 25/50 and playing weak hands strongly is the most profitable way to approach these games. You don't want to pure gamble yourself because that nullifies your edge right? The fact that lots of people play weak hands so aggro means playing stronger hands vs this sort of action is a more beneficial strategy. What's important is that you're looking for a formula that you can implement in a game before that game even begins. Poker is a game where you need to be flexible and reactive so for eg if you happen to end up at a tight table then loosening your playing requirements becomes more profitable.

Now we've covered that perhaps Greekstein can illustrate the style he employs to currently be losing over $6k in MTT's on Full Tilt alone. Then you can do the polar opposite and expect to make a decent profit.

Great post Mantis your thoughts are well appreciated.

As for OP surely you cannot have a set strat before you sit down, apart from MTT's being a meh game, I find it very hard for anyone to sit down before they know the players, table dynamics, structure (showered or no showered) etc etc etc how you are going to play the game.

Isn't the key word 'adaptable'

I agree yeah, but I feel differently about >$50 buy ins. I feel like the early stages have very basic styles which you can almost predict there will be a certain proportion of each type of player on your starting table. Enough to be able to generalise and adopt a similar style for each tournament.

[George2Loose]

Fk the luton haterz imo, except Marty Pelham, he knows a player when he sees one :-)

And Celtic, he just had to have a random busted flush, 2 pair combo - he can never have the straight - I still can't quite get over it

Anyway, sorry for the derail, good post Mantis and to the OP, just pick the player(s), tailor accordingly, and be right more often than wrong is all there is to poker

Nirvana doesn't need to accumulate chips. He needs just enough to do a deal 4 handed where the winner gets more than first place prize

[BAM]

Always happy to offer my opinion. OP you're asking how you should play these levels and you detail your own view as opposed to a contrary view. In reality you're just illustrating two different styles of playing poker. Your approach is tight and that of your friends is loose. No doubt there could be an endless debate about the pros and cons of each style. Generally I think a tighter approach is more fruitful early in these MTT's for several reasons. There are less thoughtful players at this standard in the early stages who just want to pure gamble, you have no info on your oppos, you have no image to trade off, and the blinds are small. So personally I don't think 4betting Q-J at 25/50 and playing weak hands strongly is the most profitable way to approach these games. You don't want to pure gamble yourself because that nullifies your edge right? The fact that lots of people play weak hands so aggro means playing stronger hands vs this sort of action is a more beneficial strategy. What's important is that you're looking for a formula that you can implement in a game before that game even begins. Poker is a game where you need to be flexible and reactive so for eg if you happen to end up at a tight table then loosening your playing requirements becomes more profitable.

Now we've covered that perhaps Greekstein can illustrate the style he employs to currently be losing over $6k in MTT's on Full Tilt alone. Then you can do the polar opposite and expect to make a decent profit.

Great post Mantis your thoughts are well appreciated.

As for OP surely you cannot have a set strat before you sit down, apart from MTT's being a meh game, I find it very hard for anyone to sit down before they know the players, table dynamics, structure (showered or no showered) etc etc etc how you are going to play the game.

Isn't the key word 'adaptable'

I agree yeah, but I feel differently about >$50 buy ins. I feel like the early stages have very basic styles which you can almost predict there will be a certain proportion of each type of player on your starting table. Enough to be able to generalise and adopt a similar style for each tournament.

really?

tbf I have no idea as I only play MTT's online occasionally and when I do it is usually a sat (which is a different ball game) but I would love a 2nd opinion from other MTT specialist on here

[Sack it off]

Always happy to offer my opinion. OP you're asking how you should play these levels and you detail your own view as opposed to a contrary view. In reality you're just illustrating two different styles of playing poker. Your approach is tight and that of your friends is loose. No doubt there could be an endless debate about the pros and cons of each style. Generally I think a tighter approach is more fruitful early in these MTT's for several reasons. There are less thoughtful players at this standard in the early stages who just want to pure gamble, you have no info on your oppos, you have no image to trade off, and the blinds are small. So personally I don't think 4betting Q-J at 25/50 and playing weak hands strongly is the most profitable way to approach these games. You don't want to pure gamble yourself because that nullifies your edge right? The fact that lots of people play weak hands so aggro means playing stronger hands vs this sort of action is a more beneficial strategy. What's important is that you're looking for a formula that you can implement in a game before that game even begins. Poker is a game where you need to be flexible and reactive so for eg if you happen to end up at a tight table then loosening your playing requirements becomes more profitable.

Now we've covered that perhaps Greekstein can illustrate the style he employs to currently be losing over $6k in MTT's on Full Tilt alone. Then you can do the polar opposite and expect to make a decent profit.

Great post Mantis your thoughts are well appreciated.

As for OP surely you cannot have a set strat before you sit down, apart from MTT's being a meh game, I find it very hard for anyone to sit down before they know the players, table dynamics, structure (showered or no showered) etc etc etc how you are going to play the game.

Isn't the key word 'adaptable'

I agree yeah, but I feel differently about >$50 buy ins. I feel like the early stages have very basic styles which you can almost predict there will be a certain proportion of each type of player on your starting table. Enough to be able to generalise and adopt a similar style for each tournament.

really?

tbf I have no idea as I only play MTT's online occasionally and when I do it is usually a sat (which is a different ball game) but I would love a 2nd opinion from other MTT specialist on here

s'why I made the thread.

Yeah I think it's rare that you find a table that is one extreme these days, or maybe I'm just not looking indepth enough

[Simon Galloway]

I agree yeah, but I feel differently about >$50 buy ins. I feel like the early stages have very basic styles which you can almost predict there will be a certain proportion of each type of player on your starting table. Enough to be able to generalise and adopt a similar style for each tournament.

I don't see how this helps?  You could get a table move and a friend can tap you on the shoulder and say "watch out, there are 4 tight players and 4 loose players and 1 unknown."  The point is, you still have to work out which are which and then playing accordingly against each?

[Sack it off]

Of course I identify and adapt to players once I have built a read. My original question is referring to your aims; are you looking to chip up and accumulate chips quickly or do you prefer to sit back and wait until the later levels to get active.

[Ironside]

online i try not to sit in till the end of the buy in period this normally means i miss out on the early stages and gets me in as the antes kick in and players start tightening up allowing me plenty of stealing oppotunities

[MANTIS01]

Of course I identify and adapt to players once I have built a read. My original question is referring to your aims; are you looking to chip up and accumulate chips quickly or do you prefer to sit back and wait until the later levels to get active.

Your aim is to win all the chips in play and that is always your aim from start to finish. The speed with which you accumulate those chips isn't really something you can control. You may get a game where lots of opportunities to play hands present themselves in quick succession, or you may get a game where folding mostly everything is the best strategy. You can't put your aim ahead of good decisions and what's profitable. It's making good solid plays that accumulates chips, it's not simply the aim to accumulate chips that makes that a reality. As a general target I am looking to double up at the end of every hour, and to achieve that I can play 1 hand or 20 hands, but I can't decide how active I'm going to be in advance of the game starting. In the early stages you don't need to be active to be profitable so you can sit back and wait, but in the latter stages sitting back and waiting is never profitable.

[MC]

Tight is definitely the correct strategy for turbo MTTs early.

I think this theory still applies to normal MTTs. Doubling or trebling your stack early doesn't double or treble your cash expectation in the tournament...

[Skgv]

Tight is definitely the correct strategy for turbo MTTs early.

I think this theory still applies to normal MTTs. Doubling or trebling your stack early doesn't double or treble your cash expectation in the tournament...

Would you say the same for live poker or does it depend on the buy in an stucture?