Just when is middle & late play?

[quintass]

Curious if anyone has an opinion as to when a you reach "middle" and "late" play in a MT tourney. Assuming it's a MT no re-buy $100 FR with 200 players,,, is it "middle" play when there are 100 players left, and "late" play when there are 30 players left? Or 125/50? Or 90/25? What do you consider "middle" & "late' play and why? quint

[nodepositneeded]

I could go on and on about middle and late "position" play at a single table, but I really don't have much to say about middle and late play in a tournament. I believe eejit and some others will chime in on this topic quin.

[Borgouise]

Yes, I could be willing to bet a good portion of my bank roll that eejit will have something to chime in on this...

[eejit101]

Yes, lets bet borgs bankroll, and as long as i dont have to pay it, i will contribute, as it appears its my damn job mr Borgo :lol:


OK, the question as i understand it is when would you consider it mid / late play in an MTT. And how to play these levels.

There are 2 theories on when they play is referred to as mid/late.

One is the amount of plays in a tourney indicates where about in your tournies life you are. IN this situation once 50% of the people are out, your in the middle section of an MTT, and once your in the money, your in the late section.

I dont like that summary. I do like this one.

Say there is 1,000 people in your tourney, and the top 100 are paid. Its the start of the tourney until there are 200 people left, meaning you are a 50% shot to finish in the money. Id cal from there in the mid section.

With this 200 left, and 100 paid, i am using the fact that you are still in. From here, i would call this the mid section all the way until there is 50 people left in. Once there is 50 people left in, your in the top 50% of the money positions, and in the nice payday section.

So the way i look at it -

100% - 21% of entrys - early
20% - 6% of entrys - middle
5% - 1% of entrys - late
final table - exactly that, final table



Now for part 2 -

I like to start off tight, and agressive. IM assuming were talking freezeouts here as ill do rebuys later. I call from the SB with anything if the pot isnt raised, as its basically free. In early positions i play AA/KK/AK for a raise. IN mid positions at the table ill open that up to include AQ/JJ-77, and Aj suited. IN late positions ill play A8 or higher, and any suited ace, all face cards, and the low pairs.

After 4 levels ill go a bit looser, and play a few more of the mid position hands in early poition, and the same for mid/late positions. Once the blinds get higher in a toureny, say for example we go into the mid section of a tourney, which as i described above, is 20% of the field left, ill raise with position, make more bluffs, steal blinds with semi bluffs, move all in more, play suited connectors if the pot isnt raised, and go a bit more from instinct.

IN the late section of a tourney, depending on how the blinds are vs the average stack of the tourney, ill start making all in raises to steal blinds, move all in preflop if i have less than 12x the Big blind, as i know that if i make a standard 4x BB raise, and get put all in, i have to call as im getting 3-1 from the pot, and depending on my hand, cant be much worse that 2-1, unless he has a higher poker pair than me, and then im only 4-1 against. Ill start to bully if i am the big stack, put people to all in decisions more, make THEM risk their chips to my plays, not the other way round.

FInal table is more luck that skill, this is a common consensus by all people who play big tourneys. Small tourneys the blinds will not affect the chip stack as much as bigger ones.

So final table ill steal like mad, so super agressive, as Borgo knows to his fate Play most cards all in, ill start calling small allins from small stacks with KT and 89 suited and thinks, always attack the blinds from the button or the cut off, basically ultra position play.



Now for rebuys -

IN a rebuy, you MUST be prepared to take the initial rebuy, or i would not advise playing them. You are at a 65% disadvantage to the field, if you dont take the immediate rebuy. Why start with 1,500 chips when u can start with 3,000? yes it costs another buy in, and yes u can double up without rebuying, but if u did double up with 1,500 from a 3k stack, you have 3k, if u rebuy, you have 6k if you double, and have a damn good chance.


Until the first break has come, the add on break, i play loose, i look for the double up opportunities, play all suited connectors, one gappers and things. I want to be on 2.5x my starting stack by the fdirst break, so thats 7,500. Once there, if its before the break, i tighten up and play like its a freezeout.

Only take the add on if your in the top 15% of players AFTER they have added on, so wait till the end and find out where u are, if your a leader without doing it, dont bother, as it wont make much difference.

Then after the first break, i play like i said above, but maybe a bit more tight if im ahead, as some of the crazy rebuyers will continue their style to try and get a big stack of chips.




I hope this helps in any way. Hope you read it all, my fingers hurt because of it

[eejit101]

I know people will say i dont play like that, and i reply with this.....

1 - youve only seen me play freerolls, i get bored easily, and play very loose as i have nothing to lose.

2 - Ive read alot of books about poker, ive used stuff in there from Sklansky and Harrington and Hellmuth in that post, so dont criticize me if you dont agree, thats a proffesionals view as well as the one i hold.

3 - "Do as i say, not as i do" i love that phrase


Its good advice that is for the poker player, its not all mine, im not trying to tell you how to play, im just advising you on what is deemed by the stars the correct wy to go about it.



of course, change some of the hands i put in if you play a certain hand well, but the one think i love to say alot is -


Dont have a favourite hand, and by that i mean a bad starting hand (J8,Q7 e.t.c) - I used to have one cos i won a couple of big pots for me, then it starts to lose, but you dont remember the ones it loses. Playing your "favourite" hand in the long run will lose you money, you should only have one favourite hand - AA

[traca69]

Well.......I'm almost afraid to reply with my opinion for fear of being burned at the stake lol.

But here goes anyway.

Firstly I most of all play freerolls as I dont have the extra to throw into real money games. So from first hand experience I would have to say....Let all the "ALL INS" go ALL OUT first.

You can usually sift out the players who are there to muck around in the first 10 hands. IE you can lose a few thousand registers within those hands. As I have seen quite often at Bet365....with up to 10,000 players.

The stayers are those that sit back and watch ..... Once the all in frenzy is over I would then suggest playing anything above a Jack.....when I say playing I dont mean raise just call preflop. Then you can decide whether to fold or raise depending on the flop. This way you dont lose to many chips on a wasted hand.

In freerolls especially with only 10 to 260 places paid....you need to get the pack down to at least a third of those that registered before you even try an all in.

Lets talk about hands shall we...... "To play or not to play"

Yes I have a favourite hand......why not it makes the game fun.

I will always call the flop with anything above a Jack in my hand. Unless of course somebody went all in.

I personally would pick A K over AA anyday.

I dont know how many times I have seen someone lose with AA.....being beaten by Trips.

If your going to go all in with AA then see the flop 1st.....If there is no pair in the flop then your in with a chance.......better still just raise.....

If you go all in on a hand you think will win to soon.....chances are you will miss out on a bigger pot...... Instead raise the bet a bit...if the river card guarantees a win ......then have your glory and go ALL IN


I'm just gonna love the responses to this,.......I just know it lol

[eejit101]

My responses in red/bold

Well.......I'm almost afraid to reply with my opinion for fear of being burned at the stake lol.

But here goes anyway.

Firstly I most of all play freerolls as I dont have the extra to throw into real money games. So from first hand experience I would have to say....Let all the "ALL INS" go ALL OUT first. While this is fine in freeroll play, people do go all in alot, but theres no point folding a good hand if they are betting at you, but in buy in tourneys this wont happen.


The stayers are those that sit back and watch ..... Once the all in frenzy is over I would then suggest playing anything above a Jack.....when I say playing I dont mean raise just call preflop. Then you can decide whether to fold or raise depending on the flop. This way you dont lose to many chips on a wasted hand. Once the all in frenzy is over, and you have been sitting back and watching it, you will have say 1250 chips. The blinds will be 25/50, and your seriously receommending to us to play any hand over a Jack? Like J2 off suit, Q3, K5???? You have 25 big blinds left if my maths is averaged, this is not the way to play.



In freerolls especially with only 10 to 260 places paid....you need to get the pack down to at least a third of those that registered before you even try an all in. Ummmm, so if you get dealt AA and someones put you all in on ht efirst hand you would fold? Going all in is the best way to maximize your chipstack when you have the best hand, if you are getting some action. You cant not go all in till only a third of the entries are left. You go all in at any stage, whether bluffing or betting, you cant make a definate time to start going all in.


Lets talk about hands shall we...... "To play or not to play"

Yes I have a favourite hand......why not it makes the game fun. While it makes the game fun, it more often than not costs you chips, as your favourite hand is 73 clubs.

I will always call the flop with anything above a Jack in my hand. Unless of course somebody went all in. The amount you will have to put into pots by doing this, will over time seriously be a bad idea. Your gonna be behind preflop each time, unless for once you have a decent hand, and the money you will get from finally wiinning a good hand will not pay you off for the times you have lost by betting crap

I personally would pick A K over AA anyday. Please tell me this is a joke. AA wins against a random hand 79% of the time, AK wins 65% of the time.

I dont know how many times I have seen someone lose with AA.....being beaten by Trips. 1 in 4 times is the answer. AA is 80/20 over an underpair. You just dont rmemeber the times it wins, or the times people muck it when everyone else folds. If you get dealt AA 4 times in a tourney, you should on average win three of them. if u get AK 4 times in a tourney, then on average win 2.5 if them

If your going to go all in with AA then see the flop 1st.....If there is no pair in the flop then your in with a chance.......better still just raise. if the action is passive preflop then of course raise and make a continuation bet on the flop. If people are raising you, then why flat call and give ourself a reason to look to fold on the flop, go all in preflop with the huge advantage of having AA, and let the gods of poker decide. Just because youve seen AA lose a few times, and you remember it as everyone thinks AA is the nuts, you cant advocate playing it less agressive than you normally would.


If you go all in on a hand you think will win to soon.....chances are you will miss out on a bigger pot...... Instead raise the bet a bit...if the river card guarantees a win ......then have your glory and go ALL IN. Once again, play the hand as per the normal preflop raise of 3x the BB, if you hit the flop either slow play or make a 1/2 pot bet. Of course your not going to go all in is someone raised it 50, and you go over the top for 2,000 are you? You make the plays as per the relation with the pot size. Go all in if its not too much extra thn a normal raise, or if someone raises pretty big, say 400, and u have 1,500 left, then an all in is fine.


I'm just gonna love the responses to this,.......I just know it lol Yep :lol:

IM not trying to change how you play, but im sure everyone here will agree what i said works. You cant expect to win tourneys by playing every hand that has a jack or better in it. And you should play your hand that you are dealt hand by hand dont make theories that you wont go all in till blind level 7 or something, if the action requires you to go all in first hand, i make the move every day. Play tight/agressive, when you get the hands bet them fast and strong, when youget crap, like Q2, fold, why waste 50 chips or 100 chips on a hand, where EVEN IF YOU HIT THE TOP PAIR, HOW DO YOU KNOW YOUR KICKER IS GOOD?

[quintass]

eejit,

Just to clarify, you say you can expect to win tourneys by "playing every hand with a Jack or better in it".

But then you say to fold "when you get crap like Q,2 (better than J) ??


quint

[eejit101]

I didnt say that?

Traca said u shoud play any hand with a Jack in it, i said you shouldnt.

I cant see where i typed that, my replies to her points are in red, her points are in white.




Did u find it useful?

[quintass]

The replies are a bit confused but anyway, I agree with you: J in hand does not constitute playing the hand. quint

[eejit101]

grrr, it took me an hour to write those 2 replies.
Was using all kinds of books for you

[quintass]

your theroies were understandable, its figuring out which reply came form which person is where I got a little confused! :lol:

[Borgouise]

I will have to agree with traca greatly on one thing: I prefer AK over AA. And I am not the only one to cite this preference, many past champions (including Brunson and Moss) prefer the slickster. Why, you ask, would I want something that loses more often?

Because I will lose less when I do lose, and gain more when I win.

More often than not, if I get dealt AA, I will end up in two situations: I am going to win a small pot, or going to lose a big one. Yes, I will win a lot more small pots than losing big ones, but when I lose a big one, it will cripple me.

However, with AK, the roles are reserved: I am going to win a big pot, or lose a small pot. Again, I recognize I will win less often than with AA, but the pots I win will often be for greater amounts, and I have nothing against folding AK post flop, even if I do hit top pair. FOlding AA, on the other hand, can often be difficult if there is no straight/flush/pairs showing. So, if I am beaten, it will be hard to get away from said hand.

This is not solely Borg's opinion, feel free to pick up a Brunson/Moss book, and read up on it yourself.

Borgo

[traca69]

At the end of the day...........

If you play a freeroll and lose.....you have lost nothing.....but had fun.

I believe poker is a higher percentage of luck than skill.

The skill in poker is the ability to bluff.

Nobody knows what cards will be dealt next.

Thats all folks

:lol:

[eejit101]

At the end of the day...........

If you play a freeroll and lose.....you have lost nothing.....but had fun.

I believe poker is a higher percentage of luck than skill.

The skill in poker is the ability to bluff.

Nobody knows what cards will be dealt next.

Thats all folks

At the end fo the day......

I was talking about buy ins tourneys
Poker is not more luck that skill.
The skill in poker is the ability to bluff yes, however theres also, the correct reads on people, betting decisions, using mathematics to influence your calls and folds, knowing how to play the hands your dealt, knowing the odds of a certain draw, bullying, stealing, making value bets, making continuation bets for the correct amount.

Noone does know, hence the need for skill.

[eejit101]

Borgo, reading a brunson quote as i speak....

"The best 2 hole cards are AA, the best chance of winning a pot against a random hand is AA"

I can agree kind of that you "may" lose less with AK. But think about the LONG TERM. you are foten all in preflop with AA, your often all in preflop with AK. Over my poker life, about 2 years now, i have to say ive won alot more with AA< and lost more with AK suited and unsuited.

[Borgouise]

You poor, poor little sheep fellow. I cannot argue the statistics of AA being the prime hand in poker. However, I can easily argue that strategically, and in teh case of value, AK is a much superior hand. Since you are so fond of quotes...

Doyle Brunson's Super System 2 , page 582, paragraph 1:

"A-K vs A-A or K-K. Ive already mentioned that I'd rather ahve A-K than either a pair of aces or a pair of kings."

Id suggest your reading that section of the book, very valuable. Hell, who knows, there may be something you dont think you already know in there!

[eejit101]

I never said i know everything :cry:

Been playing 2 years, read about 9 books, i know enough, but theres sooo much more.

[quintass]

Interesting, but I truly believe luck plays much MORE of a factor than poker skill and ablilities in who wins, and who loses. Bottom line is, what cards come out!

[Borgouise]

Spoken like a true amateur!

On that topic, on one hand, yes, luck is the dominating factor. However, throughout an extended period of time (an NDNPT season, for example ), the skill of the player plays a much larger factor. For, if luck were a dominating factor, how is it that we have people that make livings, and nice ones at that, by playing poker. No, in the long run, luck is a miniscule factor.

[traca69]

"Hallelujah"

thank-you quintass

[eejit101]

Spoken like a true amateur!

On that topic, on one hand, yes, luck is the dominating factor. However, throughout an extended period of time (an NDNPT season, for example ), the skill of the player plays a much larger factor. For, if luck were a dominating factor, how is it that we have people that make livings, and nice ones at that, by playing poker. No, in the long run, luck is a miniscule factor.

the above quote surely cancels out he below one?

Interesting, but I truly believe luck plays much MORE of a factor than poker skill and ablilities in who wins, and who loses. Bottom line is, what cards come out!

I mean come on, phil ivey is a god, can u really say hes the "luckiest" player alive? no, hes the most skillful. same for borg this season, he has shown the most skill, been the most patient while i frequently get bored and bluff too much.

Lets all play 20 x $100 buy ins, we will invite Phil Iver and Negraneu and Hellmuth, everyone playing for the huge cash, and see who wins. My guess, one of the more skilled players who has experience playing at the higher level.

[Borgouise]

same for borg this season, he has shown the most skill,

How painful was that to right? I am willing to guess that your hand still hurts from typing it. :lol:

[quintass]

Cmon folks, now really. "Can't we all just git along".

No really, luck does come into play quite a bit more than some would think. How much? I guess Im really not sure. But I am sure that skilled proffesional players have 2 things working for them that we do not, at least in my case. The first being "MONEY". Usually lots of it. Which in turn leads to more tourneys, which in turn leads to more experience, which in turn leads me to the second thing they have that we do not, "EXPERIENCE". So, is this the equation I see? "MONEY" + "EXPERIENCE" = PROFESSIONAL POKER PLAYER?
Could be. Sure sounds like if you combine "MONEY", "EXPERIENCE", and and a couple of sets of 3's on the river you just might have a professional poker player! ??????

[quintass]

Better yet, I offer up to all of you the following equation pieces so that you can place them in the order you see fit to equal a "Professional Poker Player".

(NOTE! - the random order below is not necessaraly the view of this writer)

money + skill + luck + experience = Professional Poker Player