My new MTT strategy

[Aisthesis]

Ok, I'm going to just copycat Tex on this one, if you guys don't mind. The real trick is imo shifting gears decisively and immediately between these various strategies:

1) Early phase: Tight ABC with adjustments depending on table. No follow-up of raises on unimproved AK or big pairs with an overcard (as a rule--I'd probably change this at a tight table, which I almost never see, so it's rather moot). Get detailed reads quickly so you know how far you can go on your TP hands.

2) Middle phase. Where this begins depends both on stack and on blinds. After playing tight, you can generally profitably open up just a hair when antes start. Then just back off and go into more aggressive ABC, depending on stack-size and adjustable for reads.

a) Short-stack: Pick the right spots for all-in or fold

b) Medium stack: ABC all the way. But bear in mind that you can't play ring style because of the lacking stack depth--e.g., drawing for sets to a raise is often a problem if you have less than 30xBB. I just had a rather difficult 22, which I laid down. Actually, in this case, I did have the stack depth, as did my opponent, but he was just stealing from CO, and I was on the button, so I thought I'd need a very lucky flop to get him in even if I did hit the set. But, anyhow, the shorter your medium stack, the tighter and more cautious your play has to be.

c) Big stack: You DON'T (!!!! this is my downfall!!!) have to be constantly raising. Better is to just play ABC and just be a little more aggressive with blind steals. I think it's better (for me, psychologically, anyway) to make the blind-steals more dependent on weakness of opponents rather than on cards at all. Good example from the same tourney: In a pretty big stack (45xBB, which at 100/200 with antes is pretty decent), I raise 77 against a tough BB with another big stack. This all gets really screwball, however, when I bet again to a check despite 2 overcards, then get checkraised disastrously and have to fold. Well, suddenly my stack has gone way down. Much better would imo have been NOT to even try the blind steal but to just play for the set with a limp--and I will obviously call a reasonable raise here. But the blind-steal appearance actually weakened my hand--and I could have considered betting the flop to a check from EP, getting away from the hand with few problems had the checkraise occurred. In any case, with the limp and the board of KQX, if I bet, it looks now like I just hit very plausibly rather than sitting there on a possible AX that missed or even a very weak K that couldn't stand any heat.

Moral of the story: ABC is the way to go with few exceptions.

[TexasKowboy]

[Aisthesis]

Yep, exactly. I've definitely been there, and these maniacal tables make it easy to get confused and make dumb plays. For me, anyway, I feel like I play my best game when I am constantly asking myself whether I am accurately representing my hand with my bet, raise, or whatever.

The main difference in a tournament is that you have to really pay attention to stack-sizes, and you're often in a situation where you don't have a deep enough stack to explore other hands with raises, etc. (I really feel uncomfortable in a cash game in playing with less than 100xBB for exactly that reason). So, in addition to some often complex decisions on difficult boards, you have to know when you are pot-committed (If I bet the flop is there any way I can fold the turn? If not, at least in my own simple-minded view, might as well just go ahead and move it in right there if you have a hand you need to bet). And in biggish stacks, I think you also need to be very wary of getting large amounts of chips out there against stacks that can hurt you unless you have an enormously strong hand.

[Dumb Snowman]

I like what you wrote.


...except when you said there are very few exceptions to playing this way