I agree with Tommy's point that it really depends on what the payoffs are going to be in relation to your bankroll.

It's pretty simple, really. If I'm in a $10 tournament where the only payoff that's going to impact my roll is top three places, I'm going for the win. In that case, the money I get back for just finishing in the money, say $20 or so, really means nothing. The reason I entered the tournament in the first place was to take a shot at the $500 first prize or whatever.

However, if I'm in a big $50 tourney where I can boost my roll by just finishing, say, in the top 20 or something, then I'd be more inclined to play to survive the bubble and then just creeping up the ladder as much as I can.

Of course, a lot depends on how things are playing out. If it gets down to bubble time in that $10 tourney and I've just barely been hanging on for the past couple of hours, then I'll probably try to figure out a way to at least come out of it with something. And if I'm in pretty good shape at bubble time in that $50, then I'll get balls-to-the-wall and go for the win.

Essentially, my decision to play for the win or to play to survive dictates how I'm going to play the first hour. I'll play fast and loose and take a lot of chances in that first hour of the $10, but I'll stay really tight and conservative in that first hour of the $50. And then reevaluate the situation coming out of the first break.

Any way we can jumpstart this conversation?

I thought it was an interesting take that Caro has. Most are either like Lindgren, Negreanu and Ivey, or Harrington on the other side. Caro seems to think you're better off playing even tighter than HoH.

Guys, regardless of the buyin and your BR, shouldn't you be thinking about how to play, regardless of buy in? Maybe talk about the meta-game and let the exceptions fall when and where they may.

There might be some interesting ideas we can conjure together.

Is the play at a $10 buy in that much different than a $100 buy in? Seriously. I'm not convinced that you are better off playing a different style depending on your bankroll. That would make you "scared money," and we've all been warned about that, at least we used to be warned about it.

To say that you play differently depending on the buy in or bankroll means that you would play the same hands differently, right? So you're saying there are two ways to play every hand, with either being correct?

Pardon me for being slow, but that really doesn't make any sense to me. Granted, if I were crazy enough to beg, borrow or steal a buy in to the WSOP, I probably wouldn't play the same as I'd play a $5 rebuy on Stars, but that doesn't mean I'd play better. Probably would mean I'd play much, much worse.

I guarantee one thing: The players who win often are looking for players who are only hoping to move up. They are sharkbait, par excellence.

I'm not going to take a coin flip in the first hour. I may not for quite awhile. I know at some point I will have to, but some players are quite willing to play any edge, as long as they are convinced it's in their favor. Is this nothing more than psychology?

(Pardon me, but I've taken more bad beats in the last 3 days than I've ever, ever seen before, so my mind is a little less clear than it should be.)

That made me think of SNGs, too, Andy. I can't do any better at the regular SNGs than the Turbos on Stars. The increasing blinds mean nothing to me, as I'm not really all that into it until the blinds get up to a decent level. Until then, you are the mercy of the cards. Get a good hand early, and you could easily go home early, even AA over any two cards. Same in both. One bad beat and you're a goner.

I can see that being a LAG and accumulating chips is smart, if only because it can insulate you against one or two bad beats. If you've gotten enough chips in the middle of the tournament, you can survive more than one bad beat. Beginning and end, forget it. One and done.

I can also see surviving at all costs. In the middle, if you have few chips, you're in no worse shape than you are at the beginning. Even if you are down to just the blinds, you are only three double ups from being way up the board. You're still in it, and in NL, never far out of it. Really. You can win if you never are all in. You're going to lose all but the last hand, if you're lucky. So survival does has its arguments.

Lots of ways of thinking about this.

(You're sitting in a tournament that your wife gave you as a birthday present. You don't have any idea what it cost. How will you play it?)

CJ

OK, I was going to post this hand in another thread, but since it relates sooo much to what we're talking about, I'll post it here and see what your thoughts are. I've been thinking about it a lot since it was played Tuesday. I don't have the hand history, but I'll post the details to the best of my ability.

$5 MTT. We are closing in on the bubble. Blinds are 50/150. I have about 4500 in chips and I'm an easy shot to cash and probably even hit the 2nd rung of the pay scale if I don't get too crazy.

I am dealt [Ks] on the button. UTG3 raises to 400. He seems very aggessive and has raised with many hands and not been tested yet. The two players behind him immediately call. I have them all covered. The two callers have about 2500 and 3000, the orignal raiser has about 3600 total before the cards were dealt.

I could push, get a call, and lose and still have 900 left, but then I definitely have to at least double up pretty quick if I want to cash. If I take one of these guys out I will probably be top 3 in chip leaders.

I don't think preflop raiser is particularly strong. If the two callers had KK or AA they definitely would have raised there, so I think my A and K are both live cards. However, there is a good chance I am up against a high pocket pair and a big Ace or KQ or even AK which takes some of my outs away and makes it less than a coin flip. Considering stack size and my spot in the tourny right now, would you call, raise, push, or even lay it down?

survive until the break, and then kill your way to first.

I'd push. AK needs to see the whole board to give it the greatest chance to win. You got dead money, everyone is in front of you, who knows who will call all in and I think you're right, no one has you dominated. Plus, at the blind level, you've still got a few orbits to play. Going for the home run.

On the other hand, if you call, everything happens in front of you. Flop hits, you might stack at least one without a worry. If it misses, you let it go without much damage. That's small ball.

That's how this can go either way.