Laddering

[corkeye]

Have heard the term 'laddering' mentioned a lot recently, and have witnessed it with my own eyes in watching the stream of some of the high gnt tourneys at dtd (not good enough to FT these myself )

What are your thoughts on laddering? I've always held the philosophy of push on/ put pressure on yr opponents to give myself a chance of the higher place finish where frankly the serious money is.

It seems at the moment many people, especially for example the satty winners, are sitting tight in the late game to try and sneak up a payment spot or two. Not a fan. Discuss.

[pleno1]

i
c
m

suicider

i
t
t

?

[corkeye]

Rather than mock me, can you give me some constructive to go on pleno pls?

[cambridgealex]

im a fan of laddering. also a fan of winning. it's a tough balance to crack.

[TightEnd]

Different players have different motivations

Of course in a vacuum everyone should play for the win, make optimum decisions at all times...tournament poker is all abiut the long run, variance evens out etc etc

but for a recreational player, or a satellite winner, the chance to survive a bubble, or then ladder can be massive, depending on size of comp and their personal circumstances

you see this in the final stages of comps everywhere, watch any DTD final table live stream for example

People shouldn't be criticised for laddering, its part of what makes the game interesting, working out the motivations of those you are playing against and acting accordingly

[c4ught]

Play the game how you want to play it and let other people play how they want to play..........whilst you build your stack up on the bubble?

I don't like how some people play terrible. I don't go complaining about it though!!

[cambridgealex]

Play the game how you want to play it and let other people play how they want to play..........whilst you build your stack up on the bubble?

I don't like how some people play terrible. I don't go complaining about it though!!

rofl

[corkeye]

Play the game how you want to play it and let other people play how they want to play..........whilst you build your stack up on the bubble?

I don't like how some people play terrible. I don't go complaining about it though!!

Wait
Who is complaining about anything?

[rfgqqabc]

It depends, don't go in with an overall strategy, just make the most +$ev decisions possible. Generally on FTs, it is correct to be quite nitty. Just how icm rolls.

[corkeye]

thanks for the comment rfgqqabc - but how nitty though?I guess its a case of it depends, but.. If you nit up too much are you not essentially being exploited by your aggier opponents and you should therefore adjust to it?

[rfgqqabc]

thanks for the comment rfgqqabc - but how nitty though?I guess its a case of it depends, but.. If you nit up too much are you not essentially being exploited by your aggier opponents and you should therefore adjust to it?

Well to some degree you may be getting exploited in the moment, but if your making the correct play, in the long run you will make the most. ICM is a very strange beast, and something well worth looking into. I'm not 100% I can explain it well myself, or to what level you understand it. Basically it relies on this principle.

Your Phil Ivey in the main event, you double up the first hand, because your Phil mfkin Ivey. Your equity in the tournament, will not double. You are not twice as likely to win. Ivey probably goes from 40k$ in EV to 70k$ in ev. Obviously this is impossible to quantify at such an early stage, however, when we get to a final table, we can quantify this. ICM works by converting each chip into a $ amount. The problem is the value of each chip in $ terms is not linear. If there were 3 people left in a tournament, and the stacks were 49k/49k/2k it is obvious the big stacks want to avoid confrontation to ladder up. This works in the same way with more players and different size stacks that are less extreme. Say one of the 49k stacks shoves, and we have AKo. We would make a decision to fold, even though the decision is +Cev (chip equity) we lose out on $ev, because x% of the time we get 3rd place, when in reality we virtually have 2nd locked up.

ICM is strange, and I still make many ICM mistakes, where normal hands like rejams etc become just terrible due to the $ev we lose. Here is a huge explanation for anyone that wants it. I read some of it but just found the link on google, seems decent though

http://cvsng.blogspot.co.uk/2007/11/partial-sng-book.html

[c4ught]

It seems at the moment many people, especially for example the satty winners, are sitting tight in the late game to try and sneak up a payment spot or two. Not a fan. Discuss.

Play the game how you want to play it and let other people play how they want to play..........whilst you build your stack up on the bubble?

I don't like how some people play terrible. I don't go complaining about it though!!

Wait
Who is complaining about anything?

Was reading between the lines, this is why I don't post much 

[corkeye]

thanks for the comment rfgqqabc - but how nitty though?I guess its a case of it depends, but.. If you nit up too much are you not essentially being exploited by your aggier opponents and you should therefore adjust to it?

Well to some degree you may be getting exploited in the moment, but if your making the correct play, in the long run you will make the most. ICM is a very strange beast, and something well worth looking into. I'm not 100% I can explain it well myself, or to what level you understand it. Basically it relies on this principle.

Your Phil Ivey in the main event, you double up the first hand, because your Phil mfkin Ivey. Your equity in the tournament, will not double. You are not twice as likely to win. Ivey probably goes from 40k$ in EV to 70k$ in ev. Obviously this is impossible to quantify at such an early stage, however, when we get to a final table, we can quantify this. ICM works by converting each chip into a $ amount. The problem is the value of each chip in $ terms is not linear. If there were 3 people left in a tournament, and the stacks were 49k/49k/2k it is obvious the big stacks want to avoid confrontation to ladder up. This works in the same way with more players and different size stacks that are less extreme. Say one of the 49k stacks shoves, and we have AKo. We would make a decision to fold, even though the decision is +Cev (chip equity) we lose out on $ev, because x% of the time we get 3rd place, when in reality we virtually have 2nd locked up.

ICM is strange, and I still make many ICM mistakes, where normal hands like rejams etc become just terrible due to the $ev we lose. Here is a huge explanation for anyone that wants it. I read some of it but just found the link on google, seems decent though

http://cvsng.blogspot.co.uk/2007/11/partial-sng-book.html

Very good post, thanks- I have tried myself to get to grips with ICM too, and I struggle! i will check out the link

[corkeye]

It seems at the moment many people, especially for example the satty winners, are sitting tight in the late game to try and sneak up a payment spot or two. Not a fan. Discuss.

Play the game how you want to play it and let other people play how they want to play..........whilst you build your stack up on the bubble?

I don't like how some people play terrible. I don't go complaining about it though!!

Wait
Who is complaining about anything?

Was reading between the lines, this is why I don't post much 

No dramas fella- i think you just misinterpreted my initial post and it confused me.

[smashedagain]

im a fan of laddering. also a fan of winning. it's a tough balance to crack.

You usually get to the top of the ladder so winning and laddering is the same thing.