# Re: On Topic: MTT situation

On 8/10/11 5:16 PM, Tad Perry wrote:

I have made this exact fold in such situations. The last time I folded
QQ with short stacks on the bubble, I ended out 2nd by the time it was
over, and I would have lost if I had played it.

Results-oriented analysis. "I played it this way once and it worked, so it must be the right way."

When I analyze your situation, it's similar to the last time we talked:
you need to weigh what you feel is the chance of survival by *not*
playing it versus playing it. When we do that, we note that there is a
non-zero chance that you will make nothing combined with a chance that
you may go a bit further being weighed against a significant chance of
making the money with very little risk to you. Plus, if the queens are
strong enough to win, you're probably only going to win the blinds. The
times someone does pose a strong threat (with AA, KK, AK), they *will*
play with you and they *will* bust you out a fair amount of the time.

This kind of timid play, playing only to survive rather than to build your stack, may produce a few more small cashes but cost you the chance to win real money. It is a mistake that a lot of players make. Your approach is only valid for very flat payout structures such as satellites.

The mathmatical side of me thinks: why even introduce this term into the
equation? Are the blinds you'll likely win really enough to place higher
enough times to make up for the the times you bust? I don't think so.

False dichotomy. You are leaving out all the times you will be called and double up.

If you only get the blinds and antes, fine, you got them with no further risk. If you are called you are only a dog to two hands, and a coinflip for one, way ahead on all others. Treating this as a losing situation is bizarre.

If you're the angling sort, stall and stall and stall and make them put
the clock on you if they have to and see what happens to that small
stack. It may become a non-issue and then you can make the money AND
play the queens.

Unless they are playing hand-for-hand to prevent this sort of angle.

--
Truthseeker
.

## Relevant Pages

• Re: Requesting help from mathematical minds
... Did you REALLY play 20,000 hands? ... entriely based on the table - if it was loose with crazy callers play it. ... dont play it) You end up having won 90% of stack AA, plus 70% QQ of stack, ... Blinds in this time period would be 22 big and 22 small. ...
(rec.gambling.poker)
• Re: Help with some late SNG play
... Here I basically fold most of my hands and only try to play premium ... I usually try to cap some blinds or pick up a pot with some raises so ... By now there are usually about 7 players remaining. ... They don't target your blinds because of your stack size; ...
(rec.gambling.poker)
• Re: When should you go all in?
... If you have less than 10 times the big blind, the blinds are going to eat ... If you have better things to do than play four hours in a \$100 ... Go all-in if you have position and two strong cards and you are ... raised by a large stack, or maniac, then don't make the bet, unless ...
(rec.gambling.poker)
• Re: Sit and Go strategies
... This is only true if the course, and/or obstacles, have a memory. ... NO chance to finish the course. ... half your stack). ... in less likely that hands like A2, K3, A4 will be in play, though some ...
(rec.gambling.poker)
• Re: WSOP ME - Satellite vs. buying in
... Not for tournament play. ... If you have a 40% chance of winning in the first hand of the ME, ... in EV of about \$10K and it would be a serious error for any player to ... waiting for a perfect situation before committing much of your stack ...
(rec.gambling.poker)