Requesting A Little Advice From Our Mtt Experts

[LTrace17 0]

i was wondering if any of you guys would be able to give me some advice regarding mtt strategy...some things i am curious about is how to approach a tournament with a large field between 1000-2500 as opposed to under 1000 do you have a different startegy?also how many notes on players do u take during a tournament?how does your play change when you approach the bubble as a short stack or big stack?what is the general rule in regards to moving in when the blinds become too high?and any other information you think is valuable any feedback is appreciated.sorry should have posted in strat forum my bad

[Zach6668 513]

I would read the Harrington on Hold Em first and foremost, most notably 1 and 2. I haven't read the 3rd, but I heard it's pretty good as well. Either way, 1 and 2 will teach you more than we can in just replying to such a broad question.

[mikeysong 0]

play a lot of sit n go's and learn to beat them consistently. It's the best way to learn about bubble play

[TB17 0]

i was wondering if any of you guys would be able to give me some advice regarding mtt strategy...some things i am curious about is how to approach a tournament with a large field between 1000-2500 as opposed to under 1000 do you have a different startegy?also how many notes on players do u take during a tournament?how does your play change when you approach the bubble as a short stack or big stack?what is the general rule in regards to moving in when the blinds become too high?and any other information you think is valuable any feedback is appreciated.sorry should have posted in strat forum my bad

I'm no MTT expert, but I'll try and answer some Q's.1) No, my strategy is to get chips early, whether it's 500 players or 5600.2) I try to take notes not whether they are aggressive or tight, but whether they are consistently strong. Since I don't play enough MTTs, I dont have many notes. A tight player who raises 6 hands in a row might have quality hands all 6 times, and an aggressive player might play tighter in many tourneys. I only have notes on super donks, and players I've played with numerous times and have impressed me.3) My bubble strategy doesn't change whether I'm short or big. The strategy is to get as many chips as possible. The bubble is a great time to do so.4) The general rule should be to try and at least have enough chips to get people to fold, once you become that low, you are either the victor or victim of the cards. I personally don't like that. I try to stay above 10 BBs at all times.As for general advice, I'm gonna disagree with Zach and not read HoH. I find that I disagree with a lot of his strategies, and I find that whenever I do follow him, I'm stuck with one CRUCIAL race that either wins it or loses it because I am playing way too tight. I prefer getting chips so I can fade at least 4-5 races, and although playing the LAG style is a lot harder, the more wins you will get will surely be worth more than the many cashes, and maybe 1 victory because you got lucky and won 10 races in a row. Just my opinion though.

[STYLINHAWYN 0]

play a lot of sit n go's and learn to beat them consistently. It's the best way to learn about bubble play

i have to aggree with this completely. and focus mainly on playing the bubble, with 4 or 5 people left, perfect time to accumulate chips and make a run and winning 1st place.

[Fade2241 0]

HOH is a solid foundation but telling someone who is just getting their feet wet in MTT’s to play LAG is a recipe for disaster.

[pokerfan1080 0]

HOH is a solid foundation but telling someone who is just getting their feet wet in MTT’s to play LAG is a recipe for disaster.

I agree.HoH may not be the "perfect" quide, but it's a great foundation. Read them, play tournies, read them again, play tournies, read them again.....rinse, repeat.Playing lag in tournies is not easy. I started playing tournies tight/aggressive. Was very successful. I heard playing lag in tournies was a good strat so I tried it. My results took a nose dive for quite some time. I went back to tight and the good results returned.I'm not saying lag isn't effective. Simply stating my results. I probably just didn't understand lag strategy, probably still don't. lol

[Highlow16 0]

I agree with you TB that playing a LAG style can be very affective, but i must say DONT play this way if your a new player or new to MTT. I think HOH2 is one of the most important books written on MTTs. It may have included alot of information that TB already naturally understood from playing for a while, but I think its important to read about inflection points. I happen to disagree with Harrington that your M decreases as the table gets shorthanded but hey.... guys not perfect. Harrington talks about the different styles of play and how each can be sucessful. I agree with him though that as the blinds increase and your M becomes lower than about 10 that all the strategies from LAG to TAG and anywhere in between become very similiar in their approach.

[TB17 0]

Actually I read HoH and disagreed with almost everything he said. I think it's an overrated book and is good for people who only want to win at a low level.If I taught someone I wouldn't teach a lot (if any from HoH), it kinda annoys me to see everyone refer it. But to each their own I guess.BTW, M sucks.

[mikeysong 0]

experiment w/lag in freerolls and other low buy in tourneyswhat helped me the most w/stt and mtts is the stuff written by Gigabet. U can find em on 2p2 or somewhere way back in my blog. But, they're good stuff. Chip stacks > or = to cards is the basic concept.

[Highlow16 0]

Actually I read HoH and disagreed with almost everything he said. I think it's an overrated book and is good for people who only want to win at a low level.If I taught someone I wouldn't teach a lot (if any from HoH), it kinda annoys me to see everyone refer it. But to each their own I guess.BTW, M sucks.

I dont understand how you can say his book sucks. So your saying that the many sucessful pros, online and live, who have said that it is one of the best strategy guides EVER writen on tournaments are wrong? That they are all incompetent luckboxes who dont have a clue? How does your mtt record stack up against the likes of those players. Dont be redonkulous.

[CobaltBlue 662]

I happen to disagree with Harrington that your M decreases as the table gets shorthanded but hey.... guys not perfect.

I've been wrestling with that concept for a while now. It's a factor that I often "forget", but it doesn't seem as pronounced as he suggested. For example, last night, I was playing an MTT and got down to HU w/ 80k in chips versus my opponent's 280k. Blinds were 1500/3000 w/ 200 ante. That makes my CPR 4900...which would suggest an M of around 16. However, if I "adjust" it like Harrington suggests, that cuts me down to ~4...which means I should just be pushing. I don't think that's necessary at that point.

1) some things i am curious about is how to approach a tournament with a large field between 1000-2500 as opposed to under 1000 do you have a different startegy?2) also how many notes on players do u take during a tournament?3) how does your play change when you approach the bubble as a short stack or big stack?4) what is the general rule in regards to moving in when the blinds become too high?

1) Same approach. Mostly just accumulate chips.2) Whenever something stands out, I take a note. Whether that's the player's looseness, aggressiveness, or approach. Showdown hands are goldmines for information.3) If you've got a big stack, you should be picking up the blinds a couple times or more per round when you're approaching the bubble. If you're a short stack, you're a little more selective about stealing. Pick on the medium stacks.4) When my M gets in the 6 range, I'll generally start shoving if I'm going to play.

[TB17 0]

I dont understand how you can say his book sucks. So your saying that the many sucessful pros, online and live, who have said that it is one of the best strategy guides EVER writen on tournaments are wrong? That they are all incompetent luckboxes who dont have a clue? How does your mtt record stack up against the likes of those players. Dont be redonkulous.

Don't put words into my mouth. First off, a lot of those "successful" pros aren't as successful as you might think, and second off, I don't think they are wrong at all. I just happen to prefer a different style. When you look at live tournaments, just look who are usually winning the tournaments lately. It's not the ones who tag it up and follow M religiously. It's the ones who go out there and get what they feel are theirs. Online it's not as prevalent, but many of the dominant ones aren't TAG. And of course it can be one of the best strategy guides ever, when you compare it to...Play like the pros? TJ Cloutier's book? It was one of the first PREDOMINANTLY Tournament books, so of course people are going to think it's great.

[Dormie 0]

i'm a Harrington discipleDan was born and raised in Boston, and graduated from Suffolk Law School in Boston. After graduating, Dan spent nearly 10 years working in Boston as a bankruptcy lawyer, but the work made him weary.- he felt stagnant and unfulfilled,.Harrington now runs Anchor Loans, where he loans money while at the same time investing in the stock market and real estate.He excelled at all types of games as a child, and played chess, backgammon and poker while attending university. In fact he was a state chess champion in 1971 and won the World Cup of Backgammon in 1980. In Dan’s college years he played poker with some students from Harvard including Bill Gates and his Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen. As the popularity of bridge faded, poker took on a new luster, hold'em became the dominant game at the Mayfair Club in New York City. The core group of players there included Dan, Jay Heimowitz, Al Krux, Erik Seidel and Steve Zolotow. By 1990, Al Krux had placed 6th in the World Series of Poker main event, and in 1988, Steve Zolotow took 5th in an Omaha tournament while Erik Seidel was finishing second to Johnny Chan in the main event. However, in 1987, the $10,000 tournament was simply dominated by the Mayfair Club regulars. Approaching the final table of the WSOP main event, Jay Heimowitz was knocked out in 11th place. Next came Dan, playing in his first championship event, who finished 6th and collected $44,000. A young Howard Lederer, playing in his first WSOP event finished 5th and collected $56,000.At the WSOP in 1995, Dan obtained one of his goals - winning a gold bracelet. His win in the $2,500 No Limit Hold'em tournament game him a quarter-million dollars to play with, so he entered the $10,000 main event again. Just a few days after his first win, Harrington made the final table and stared at his stack of chips. He wasn't leading, and in typical Harrington fashion, assessed his chances of winning and then proposed a nine-way split between the remaining players. They passed. After three players were knocked out, Dan's stack stood at just over $532,000 and he held down second place to Howard Goldfarb's $1.2 million. Again, Harrington proposed a split. This time, he tried to explain that with $2.2 million remaining in prize money they could each walk with enough money to invest and live comfortably. He even offered to help them invest their winnings, but the other players passed on his offer - so he busted 'em all and took the $1 million dollar first-place check for himself. For most players, making the final table of the Main Event at the WSOP would be a once in a lifetime event, but Dan isn't like most players he returned to the WSOP in 2003 and made the final table again, taking down third place and winning $650,000 and in 2004, Dan repeated the feat, finishing fourth in a much larger field and won $1,500,000.

[trystero 0]

Don't put words into my mouth. First off, a lot of those "successful" pros aren't as successful as you might think, and second off, I don't think they are wrong at all. I just happen to prefer a different style. When you look at live tournaments, just look who are usually winning the tournaments lately. It's not the ones who tag it up and follow M religiously. It's the ones who go out there and get what they feel are theirs. Online it's not as prevalent, but many of the dominant ones aren't TAG. And of course it can be one of the best strategy guides ever, when you compare it to...Play like the pros? TJ Cloutier's book? It was one of the first PREDOMINANTLY Tournament books, so of course people are going to think it's great.

You seem like a good poster so I don't know where this is coming from. It does seem like you misunderstand the concept of M however. You can 'follow M religiously' and still be super LAG. The concept doesn't dictate whether you should play tight or loose - it dictates what you're capable of doing with a certain chip stack. When your M is 5 9-handed you should be pushing or folding; there's no middle ground. Whether you want to push 6-2o is your business, but you shouldn't be raising to 3X the BB or open limping.Paying attention to chip stacks is a TREMENDOUS advantage. That is what M is, essentially.

[Highlow16 0]

You seem like a good poster so I don't know where this is coming from. It does seem like you misunderstand the concept of M however. You can 'follow M religiously' and still be super LAG. The concept doesn't dictate whether you should play tight or loose - it dictates what you're capable of doing with a certain chip stack. When your M is 5 9-handed you should be pushing or folding; there's no middle ground. Whether you want to push 6-2o is your business, but you shouldn't be raising to 3X the BB or open limping.Paying attention to chip stacks is a TREMENDOUS advantage. That is what M is, essentially.

Thats all im saying. I completely agree with you TB that that LAG approach can be devastating in MTT. Without a doubt its the ideal way to play deep stack tournaments such as WPT. I too try to play a "Chip Gatherer" LAG style in MTT online, although its a much harder line to walk with shallow stacks. I think the best part of harringtons book is in explaining short stack theory. No matter how LAG you play you still have to adjust your game as your M decreases. Period. Especially online when the average M is 10 late in a tournament.CobaltBlue, as for adjusting M when the table shrinks Im pretty sure Harrington says to go back to normal M strategy when heads up. I dont particularly agree with some of the things he says in heads up though.

[Highlow16 0]

I wanted to quicky answer some of the OPs original questions cause this got a little of track.1. I dont play differently when the number of players in a tournament is 205 or 2005. I try to adjust to my table.2. I take notes on players like weak/tight, folds bb to steal alot, plays loose out of blind, all kinds of stuff.3. when approaching the bubble with a short stack my strategy doesnt change, im not worried about cashing or not cashing. Im trying to play was well as I can to win. As a big stack I try and abuse the table if they will let me. I try to point out who is just trying to cash and whos playing to win. Typical tables will play alot closer to the vest at bubble time. This goes for the final table bubble as well.4. For a general rule on moving in when your a short stack. Less then ten BB your looking for a spot to move all in. Preferably in late position because it gives you the best chance to pick up the blinds with out resistance and increase your stack by 10-25 %. You want to be the FIRST ONE IN. Dont reraise all in with AT with 7bb because "its the best hand your gonna see". If you have no fold equity you can only do this with a monster IMO. Id rather push with 72o on the button than reraise all in with no fold equity. Also I try to never get below 5 bbs. If you are below 5, there are diferent theorys on the subject so I wont get into it now.Theres a good post the grinderMJ started on MTT strat discussion and PMJackson had some good things to say so search for that. Hope I helped

[TB17 0]

You seem like a good poster so I don't know where this is coming from. It does seem like you misunderstand the concept of M however. You can 'follow M religiously' and still be super LAG. The concept doesn't dictate whether you should play tight or loose - it dictates what you're capable of doing with a certain chip stack. When your M is 5 9-handed you should be pushing or folding; there's no middle ground. Whether you want to push 6-2o is your business, but you shouldn't be raising to 3X the BB or open limping.Paying attention to chip stacks is a TREMENDOUS advantage. That is what M is, essentially.

I prefer to look at BBs rather than M. I dont think M is anything mindblowing or groundbreaking like most people seem to believe. You can pay attention to chip stacks without looking or paying attention to M, or Q, or Z, or whatever.Also it's pretty common knowledge that when your "M" is 5 you should push. I just don't think that M is anything special. That's all.

[Uppie_ 0]

one thing i havn't seen anyone say is watch for guys who are raising a lot from late postions and look for spots to resteal from them this is a great way to build up chips. a second thing is pick on the medium stakes most the time as they actually have to make tough choices. Notes I make are blind defender or not, late postion raiser or not, and try to figure out what they are doing and expolit it.

[Highlow16 0]

one thing i havn't seen anyone say is watch for guys who are raising a lot from late postions and look for spots to resteal from them this is a great way to build up chips.

This is something ive been thinking alot about because ive been thinking about Gig's block theory, chip flow crap, and being the DAM that catches the chips. Also there was a good article in cardplayer last month by David Apostolico that made me think about it too. Has anyone read his book The Art of War and Tournament Poker?On PStars its really easy to calculate "M". With their chip structure just double the number of BBs you have and voila. This only works when there are antes though

[psujohn 0]

I prefer to look at BBs rather than M.

If there are no antes thinking in terms of BBs is just as good thinking in terms of M. Of course there's nothing earth shattering about M. There's nothing earth shattering in any poker book. It's all stuff that an observant player will learn on their own with enough experience. All you're doing is paying to learn from Harrington's experience rather than playing tourneys yourself for 40 years.

[mk 11]

Actually I read HoH and disagreed with almost everything he said. I think it's an overrated book and is good for people who only want to win at a low level.If I taught someone I wouldn't teach a lot (if any from HoH), it kinda annoys me to see everyone refer it. But to each their own I guess.BTW, M sucks.

Yep, BKice only winning at a low level. PMJackson, only winning at a low level. Bizzle, Chucksty, Hoosier, myself all winning at a low level.

[TB17 0]

Yep, BKice only winning at a low level. PMJackson, only winning at a low level. Bizzle, Chucksty, Hoosier, myself all winning at a low level.

There's more to tournament poker than Sunday Millions and daily 200k guaranteed tournaments or whatever. Some of the players you listed are good players and can succeed in top level buyins, yet most people say it's someone like JC who is most likely to succeed at 10k buyins. I wonder why...it must be because he follows Harrington better than you guys.

[mk 11]

There's more to tournament poker than Sunday Millions and daily 200k guaranteed tournaments or whatever. Some of the players you listed are good players and can succeed in top level buyins, yet most people say it's someone like JC who is most likely to succeed at 10k buyins. I wonder why...it must be because he follows Harrington better than you guys.

Boy, "most people say...most likely". This is thorough, damning evidence. Thank you. Sounds a lot like you're being contrary just for the sake of being contrary. If you honestly believe that playing lag is the only way to succeed in 10k events, I'd point you in this direction: http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=51 http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=212 http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=185 http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=82 http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=110 http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=230 http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=147 http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=214 Oh, and Pat (PMJackson): http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=50565

[Bizzle 0]

There's more to tournament poker than Sunday Millions and daily 200k guaranteed tournaments or whatever. Some of the players you listed are good players and can succeed in top level buyins, yet most people say it's someone like JC who is most likely to succeed at 10k buyins. I wonder why...it must be because he follows Harrington better than you guys.

JC is more likely to succeed at a 10k buyin than myself or Mike because right now, he is a better player (especially postflop) than myself or Mike. This isn't because he is LAG, it's because he plays more than either of us. You're misapplying playing style in terms of profitability and variance here. For the most part, if you took players who were identically good, their profitability wouldn't be different because they were playing LAG or TAG, but the variance would be much higher for the LAG player.