So if you want to make the money or the final table in an MTT, obviously if you estimate the total chips in play at the point of no new player registrations, then divide that by either the number of places at the final table, or the number of places paid (whichever you prefer), then that will clearly be enough to make the final table or money - i.e. we’ve calculated the average stack and a target to aspire to (no harm doing better either). However, from my experience due to uneven stack sizes, e.g. the leader may have fives times the average, actually having half the average stack is normally enough to almost GUARANTEE making the money or final table. Even a quarter of the average and i think there’s a reasonable chance. Just wondering what people think of this and whether any studies been done? I know we all want as many chips as possible but balancing risk vs reward sometimes means making sure you make the money over crashing out near the bubble (especially after investing fours or more hours of your time). Over to you!
Though I can see the merit of having a good understanding of your stacksize regarding to the structure, I really can't see what point you are trying to make.
We are trying to make optimal decisions which include accounting for stacksize, possible bubble situations, payjumps/icm. This will be different every single time. Sometimes we have average and all of the other players do too,... sometimes we have avg. and there are serveral monsterstacks and very very shorties involved. Each of them require a different approach and strategy, though our avg stack would be exactly the same.
It seems like you are advocating a more passive approach based on avg. stacksizes and expectations of reaching a certain point with that stack. This could easily mean we don't pay attention to the best spots or +EV decisions. And above all, money is made at the FT... very topheavy. We should be focussing on chipping up.
Good points - i guess it works for me because my risk appetite changes relative to my stack size. I guess i’m using it as a simplistic alternative to icm to adjust my risk appetite. If i have enough chips to cruise into the final table i am more risk averse, whereas if i am going to struggle i’m more risk-seeking. I get your point that icm is better though. Of course i’m more ready to call a small stacks all-in than a big stack (relative to my stack).
For me this seems to work reasonably well as it stops me losing chips when i’m doing well. It takes account of my pre-disposition to generally finish well if i make it to final table (from whatever position i arrive there). I kind of go by the motto ‘get to the final table and then anything can happen’. Not standard recommended strategy i know but works for me so far, hence my interest in the original question.
Originally posted by avanbuiten
Good points - i guess it works for me because my risk appetite changes relative to my stack size.
Yes, everyone's does. If you don't play a hand, your stack will bleed down fairly quickly.
There is a stat called "M-factor" that is your stack divided by the total of the blinds + the ante x the # of players at the table.
If is the number of orbits left until you blind out.
This concept comes from Dan Harrington's book "Harrington on Hold'em" and is covered by the (silver) article:
https://www.pokerstrategy.com/strategy/mtt/dan-harrington-m-factor/
The levels are:
Green zone: M > = 20
Yellow zone: 10 < M < 20
Orange zone: 5 < M < = 10
Red zone: 1 < = M < = 5
Dead zone: M < 1
How you play in each zone varies:
Green -- wide open
Yellow -- open tighter, but 3-Bet shove wider
Orange -- Open shove in later position only, and let the calling range of the people behind you govern your push range
Red -- Push first in
Dead -- Pray
All the best,
VS;