Passive Final Tables

[Im_new]

This has happened to all of us before. We're shortstacked after losing a flip or a BB, but we made it final table nonetheless. There are a other players more shortstacked than us. They should be pushing ATC from all over the place, and the blinds should be calling just as wide.

NO ONE IS DOING THIS.

The short stacks are waiting, and waiting, and waiting.
The big stacks are calling SOME shorty shoves.

You keep getting very marginal hands that you aren't supposed to push because there are shorter stacks sitting around. This assumes that the other shorties are shoving correctly, but instead, they're complete rocks.

Are you guys still gonna fold those marginal hands because the other shorties are blinding-out? Or are you shoving them as though you're the only short stack around?

[drmcboy]

the precise stack/blind sizes & position matter here, I don't think the question can be generically answered. Except that you would of course shove more if you have nothing but short tight players behind you.

Did you read TPFAP yet?

[mcatdog]

Yeah...in this situation, nothing you can do but gamble and either take 9th or else take top 2 or 3. If you just try to outlast the shortstacks, by the time they're out you'll practically be out yourself. This is a dynamic where being the big stack is so highly profitable that you're willing to take a gamble in order to get there.

It's good that you're thinking about situations like this though, nice post.

[JoeShowdown]

Punish the tight players. Win those blinds and soon you will become the big stack and then you can really punish them because if you lose a race you still will have a good stack from all the dead money they offered you.

[Im_new]

the precise stack/blind sizes & position matter here, I don't think the question can be generically answered. Except that you would of course shove more if you have nothing but short tight players behind you.

Did you read TPFAP yet?

I have no idea what TPFAP is. lol What's it about?

[Poker Orifice]

Punish the tight players. Win those blinds and soon you will become the big stack and then you can really punish them because if you lose a race you still will have a good stack from all the dead money they offered you.

??? OP is shortstacked too here

good question imo, I've been in this spot a bunch of times and as usual (imo) 'it depends'

[Im_new]

the precise stack/blind sizes & position matter here, I don't think the question can be generically answered. Except that you would of course shove more if you have nothing but short tight players behind you.

Did you read TPFAP yet?

Oh yeah, I'm thinking in terms of there being larger stacks to act after you, and the tight ones are mostly off to your right, mostly.

And it's also mind-wrecking to consider your calling range vs these tight short stacks. When you have a stack less than or equal to 5bb, you know that you should (generally) be calling with ATC in the big blind, BUT what's the affect when you practically KNOW you're dominated (or flipping if you're lucky) whenever you call?

[drmcboy]

in this situation you described you would be more conservative calling and more aggressive shoving. But if you ended up with like 10 BBs while there were several 5BB stacks I would think you would tighten both up for an orbit or two, unless now you scare the big stacks as well.

you would not call with ATC if someone is only shoving the top 5% and you're getting 2/1 but if it's 10% or more it gets closer. Also you would again want to look at the situation - if you think you can steal with 3 BBs it may be worth folding the bottom X% with 5BBs in the BB. I played a lot of 45 man turbos SNGs for a while and found that passing up that slight +EV spot often lead to much better ones later.

re TPFAP it's Tournament Poker For Advanced Players by Skansky. I think I told someone else to read it and thought it was you. It's probably the best book re: ICM & payout situations. Kill Everyone also has some good math stuff. You can also get some software you can use to run some ICM calcs on although I think with 9 people it's hard to really model that well, especailly since like Mcat said there is a big edge to having a chip lead here that may make some seemingly bad gambles worthwhile.

[baudib]

TPFAP it's Tournament Poker For Advanced Players by Skansky. I think I told someone else to read it and thought it was you.

Is there a new edition of this? I bought this title a few years ago, not long after the Moneymaker craze started (ironically, it was the first poker book I ever bought). My impression/recollection is that he was recommending passing up slim edges in a lot of spots "if you are one of the better players" in the tourney. This is probably obselete thinking, because it may have been a good idea if you're Phil Hellmuth and the Main Event at the WSOP is 250 people, probably not so much for most people in large-field donkaments.

It was still an excellent book.

[Im_new]

TPFAP it's Tournament Poker For Advanced Players by Skansky. I think I told someone else to read it and thought it was you.

Is there a new edition of this? I bought this title a few years ago, not long after the Moneymaker craze started (ironically, it was the first poker book I ever bought). My impression/recollection is that he was recommending passing up slim edges in a lot of spots "if you are one of the better players" in the tourney. This is probably obselete thinking, because it may have been a good idea if you're Phil Hellmuth and the Main Event at the WSOP is 250 people, probably not so much for most people in large-field donkaments.

It was still an excellent book.

Well, think of it this way. The book is written for the advanced player, thus they should be one of the better players in the tourney already.

[baudib]

yeah but one of the constant themes here is that we don't pass up the kind of edges he's talking about passing up.

[tbdbitl]

I have seen this where people are just satisfied with trying to withstand the blinds in hopes to creep up the money ladder. I've done it, but it has been when the play has been crazy--not passive.

I have been able to pick up some blinds and move up by avoiding the big stacks and attacking the other medium and short stacks. But, position is everything--don't want too many big stacks with position on you.

[FernAAndes]

i dislike be passive with a big big blinds and antes.
I a long time the stack go away.

[mykeyFinn]

If you are at a table with player like that, try and steal the blinds as often as possible. This will up your stack and drive those short stacks out eventually.

[Extremophile]

It also depends on the prizes. If you are in a big tourney like PokerStars Sunday Million, the difference between 9th place and 5th place is 50k. Sometimes you need be a businessman.

[Im_new]

It also depends on the prizes. If you are in a big tourney like PokerStars Sunday Million, the difference between 9th place and 5th place is 50k. Sometimes you need be a businessman.

That's the entire argument here. ICM assumes that every other player is making the optimum decision given his stack size and payout. I'm trying to figure out how things will change when those players are neglecting to make correct decisions, thus playing passively and surviving longer than we anticipate.

[Extremophile]

It also depends on the prizes. If you are in a big tourney like PokerStars Sunday Million, the difference between 9th place and 5th place is 50k. Sometimes you need be a businessman.

That's the entire argument here. ICM assumes that every other player is making the optimum decision given his stack size and payout. I'm trying to figure out how things will change when those players are neglecting to make correct decisions, thus playing passively and surviving longer than we anticipate.

Well, that is the case when the ultimate goal is to win or so to say only the first place is paid. In that case, you would expect even more action from short stacks. Short stacks have no time to wait and should shove with any 2 or any reasonable 2 cards if they want to have a chance to win. Because as long as they wait, even if they double up, they will still be short stacked and the probability of thier getting eliminated increases everytime they put all their chips in.

Otherwise "right play" is case dependent. How do you define right play? Playing for win or playing for getting the best prize for the specific case?

[Im_new]

It also depends on the prizes. If you are in a big tourney like PokerStars Sunday Million, the difference between 9th place and 5th place is 50k. Sometimes you need be a businessman.

That's the entire argument here. ICM assumes that every other player is making the optimum decision given his stack size and payout. I'm trying to figure out how things will change when those players are neglecting to make correct decisions, thus playing passively and surviving longer than we anticipate.

Well, that is the case when the ultimate goal is to win or so to say only the first place is paid. In that case, you would expect even more action from short stacks. Short stacks have no time to wait and should shove with any 2 or any reasonable 2 cards if they want to have a chance to win. Because as long as they wait, even if they double up, they will still be short stacked and the probability of thier getting eliminated increases everytime they put all their chips in.

Otherwise "right play" is case dependent. How do you define right play? Playing for win or playing for getting the best prize for the specific case?

The "right" decision is the one that will yield the most profit in the long haul. Usually, the "right" decision is to play using ICM. But, I'm noticing that at a final table where everyone isn't well-versed in correct, mathematical play (ICM), it becomes very dangerous waters for those players who ARE versed. This often leaves the ICM-guy either OTM, or in the top three, which has amplifying affect on variance. I'm not saying that it is an absolute bad thing, but I'd like to discuss how we can exhaust our poker toolbag to get more 1-3 finishes by exploiting these situations with minimal risk.

As far as your question, I think it depends on the tournament type and your stack size. If this is the sunday million and I'm in 9th place with a short stack that'll last a couple of orbits, (the big/average stacks are 4+ consecutive double-ups away) I'm not gonna play very much risky poker. If this is a 45man tourney, I'm shooting for first with whatever stack I have. All of this is very situationally dependent and there are times where ICM doesn't feel perfectly adequate.

[bjsaust]

Simply put, ICM works, but you gotta put the right ranges in. ICM doesnt change because players are playing sub-optimally, their ranges change which will change the ICM calcs.

[Im_new]

Simply put, ICM works, but you gotta put the right ranges in. ICM doesnt change because players are playing sub-optimally, their ranges change which will change the ICM calcs.

YOU ARE SOOO VERY RIGHT! That's the true problem, I'm not adjusting their ranges readily enough. thus, this situation is a big leak for me.

[bjsaust]

Thing is, when most people are practising ICM away from the table, they tend to use fairly standard ranges, so when faced with an unusual situation they dont really know how to adjust. Spending some time looking at tigher and looser ranges will help.

[Im_new]

yeah, that's what I'll be doing.

THough, I'm probably going to go back to ring tables. I don't like the variance in these parts.

[drmcboy]

Is there a new edition of this?

he updated it but I dunno when, if you have the new one it will say something about 100 pages of new material on NLHE tourneys.

[drmcboy]

ps I would probably not re-buy just for those pages unless you are a sklansky lover like me or like to have tons of books, also like me

[baudib]

I love him, tho I wouldn't marry him.

[Im_new]

I love him, tho I wouldn't marry him.

well, is it legal?