Is tight really right?

    • gadget51
      gadget51
      Bronze
      Joined: 23.06.2008 Posts: 5,622
      Been reading a few articles here and elsewhere about chip dollar value in MTTs. It seems the general concensus is that a big stack's chips are worth less than a short stack's and that a chip you lose is worth more than a chip you win, especially during low blind rounds; these being in a standard percentage payout structure game. These are two of the reasons we play tight during the early stage. These ideas are most commonly associated with the likes of Skilansky and Malmuth et al.
      However, these notions have been disputed by Snyder who says that your chip stack determines you skill and you skill determines your chip stack. For example; if I am outchipped say 9:1 after gatting HU I do not have a one in ten chance of winning given the villain has equal skill; i actually have nearer a zero chance.

      So my question is; if the latter idea is true, does this then negate the commonly regarded notion of playing tight early in an MTT?

      I don't even know if I'm asking the question correctly or if it even the right question, so I apologise in advance if I've only confused.
  • 2 replies
    • THeGaME23
      THeGaME23
      Bronze
      Joined: 12.10.2009 Posts: 398
      Im wondering about this too. Getting a big stack early on makes it soo much easier to play in the later stages of MTT's because you can attack the blinds and afford to get caught while if you have a mid or short stack late if you get caught once or twice your basically out the door unless you get really really lucky.

      And because of the payout structure of MTT's you need to go for 1st every time. Im starting to be more aggressive early on in MTT's. Just playing a wider range of hands and raising things like suited connectors and pocket pairs so if I hit its well disguised and I can take their whole stack instead of just limping and giving away the fact that I was set mining etc.. But against most players in micro buy in limits they wont even think about it so if your playing like $1 buy ins I would say tight is right for the beginning.
    • gadget51
      gadget51
      Bronze
      Joined: 23.06.2008 Posts: 5,622
      Thanks for the nice reply. I've posted a link to the articles if anyone wants to have a read and comment further. I think it's a very interesting theory but then I'm not expert enough to validate it's worth.

      http://www.pokertournamentformula.com/