play for ITM or 1st place ?

Hi all , I have some pro's saying that we should play for the win instead of itm ? I don't know about this advice, it clashes with my soul
I like to break down a MTT into steps, step 1 last first hour, then 2nd then 3rd etc and once I get ITM then I will try harder to get further until approching
the FT , then more steps until win ! well thats the rough idea , but some pros' saying play for the win...please discuss and maybe I can change some of my ideas

I play as you, first to get to the ITM and go through the bubble.
After this stage, it's time to fight to be better classified.

In free or cheap tournaments, it makes more sense to play to go far and try to win. But when the bubble is close and the prize matters, I don't think it's wrong to play first to enter the prize zone.
Once you have reached the prize, you can invest more and try to reach the final table.

I dont know, which pros you are talking about, but Doug Polk have said things like "ICM was invented to keep poor people poor". And he does have a point in this as far as people sometimes overadjusting to ICM or payjumps. In a recent video he said, that the ICM model does not take future play sufficiently into account. Which is true.

Just as we all hate that "chip bully", who pushes us around and put us in tough spots, there is value in becoming that "chip bully" ourselfes. So I will say, that if a spot is close, we should usually go for it rather than blinding away, because we are overly focused on min-cashing or securing the next payjump. But this does not mean, we should disregard payjumps completely and play, as if it was a cash game.

I play for ITM first then for first, tbh I hardly even play for first, normally just for final table or to see how far I can get

I think both ideas can work, but they apply to different situations. “Playing for the win” doesn’t mean punting chips or ignoring the money bubble. I think pros mean that you shouldn’t become too scared to take profitable spots just because you want to min-cash.
Your step-by-step approach actually sounds very reasonable from a mental game perspective. Breaking a long MTT into smaller goals can help with focus and patience. The important thing is not becoming too passive once you get close to the money.
In the long run, final tables and top finishes are where most tournament profit comes from, so sometimes you need to take controlled risks to build a stack instead of only surviving. The balance between survival and accumulating chips is what makes tournament poker so difficult and interesting.

fundiver199 said:

I dont know, which pros you are talking about, but Doug Polk have said things like "ICM was invented to keep poor people poor". And he does have a point in this as far as people sometimes overadjusting to ICM or payjumps. In a recent video he said, that the ICM model does not take future play sufficiently into account. Which is true.

Just as we all hate that "chip bully", who pushes us around and put us in tough spots, there is value in becoming that "chip bully" ourselfes. So I will say, that if a spot is close, we should usually go for it rather than blinding away, because we are overly focused on min-cashing or securing the next payjump. But this does not mean, we should disregard payjumps completely and play, as if it was a cash game.

Click to expand...

I took what this pro said on his Youtube coaching channel as we should chose , take the risk to get busted early and win a huge stack vs playing
what I call percentage poker , and only take calculated risks which mostly get itm (at least 33% of the time my stats say)
don't get me wrong, I respect and very grateful for his content , since I can't ask him directly (well tbh I haven't tried) , I thought I would post
here and get community ideas ...
I understand being the chip bully , but are you ( and Polk implying) that we should risk early exit in order to become the chip bully/huge stack/Chip leader ?
I also understand not getting too low just too min cash, but I have been stubborn this way quite a few times and even won the mtt , but yes in
general my stats say knocked out 40% mid game, mid-late 22% (itm maybe) and only 6% early exit , 14% late exit and 5% FT
so overall perhaps I should change gears once in the mid-game

SergioV said:

I think both ideas can work, but they apply to different situations. “Playing for the win” doesn’t mean punting chips or ignoring the money bubble. I think pros mean that you shouldn’t become too scared to take profitable spots just because you want to min-cash.
Your step-by-step approach actually sounds very reasonable from a mental game perspective. Breaking a long MTT into smaller goals can help with focus and patience. The important thing is not becoming too passive once you get close to the money.
In the long run, final tables and top finishes are where most tournament profit comes from, so sometimes you need to take controlled risks to build a stack instead of only surviving. The balance between survival and accumulating chips is what makes tournament poker so difficult and interesting.

Click to expand...

very kind words , I would say as I play longer and longer I get more interested in the game , I get to know some of the bigger stacks
( I always keep my eye on them first) and then any other stand-out players , depending on how aggressive or good/bad hand selection
this focus on how they play draws me in and I start to compete more and more , and yes sometimes the trap is on me and I lose hahahaha ,
so becoming too passive isn't a big worry, of course counting how many bbs always makes me adjust , the last mtt I played had 15min blinds
it felt like forever , I had plenty time and had to keep re-adjusting. There some spots where I would fold (mid to big stack) in a risky situation
and then regret it once I see the cards , but the approach has worked most of the time , I have played a lot of freerolls , so I have adjusted to
a lot of players who don't value the game (in my opinion) and just play huge volume, jamming bad range in hope they get lucky , then they play as
the big stacks ..... my specialty is big stack hunting ....( so I like to think)

I try to play to win, but avoiding being eliminated in situations where I don't feel the risk is worth it. The difference between the lowest prize and first place is huge. But it's situational. If the bubble is approaching and I'm short-stacked, then I try to make some profit. But the difference is too great. The issue is that being the chip leader very early on, or at certain times, doesn't have that much of an impact. It's about having patience, but without losing focus on building strong stacks.

I try to miss the bubble,but cant resist AA KK QQ AK JJ

Marcos1315 said:

The issue is that being the chip leader very early on, or at certain times, doesn't have that much of an impact.

Click to expand...

very nice , and yes this idea of being chip leader too early in a 4hr+ mtt and being chip leader in first 30mins hardly seems to work,
I have seen so many chip leaders failing to get itm ... so this alone give less weight to the idea of risk early vs percentage poker,
perhaps better can be as some others have suggested over the years , take more risks later on , maybe 4 or more rounds before the bubble
or even 2 rounds before the bubble ....? the reason why it gets difficult in my opinion are the short stacked very good players ( I like to put myself in here)
.that will choose spots and start doubling up and these will be watching the bigger stacks with an eagle eye, so could be risky for medium stacks
to start loosening their ranges etc ....

ninjareal said:

very nice , and yes this idea of being chip leader too early in a 4hr+ mtt and being chip leader in first 30mins hardly seems to work,
I have seen so many chip leaders failing to get itm ... so this alone give less weight to the idea of risk early vs percentage poker,
perhaps better can be as some others have suggested over the years , take more risks later on , maybe 4 or more rounds before the bubble
or even 2 rounds before the bubble ....? the reason why it gets difficult in my opinion are the short stacked very good players ( I like to put myself in here)
.that will choose spots and start doubling up and these will be watching the bigger stacks with an eagle eye, so could be risky for medium stacks
to start loosening their ranges etc ....

Click to expand...

Yes. I like to look at the context of the tournament. If someone has 10, 12, or 15 big blinds, with a stack to spare, they'll advance significantly. Or the impact of a good hand or some pot steals. Sometimes, small things put you in a good position to take advantage. And in some tournaments, the final table is full of short stacks. Stealing a pot can make you finish fifth instead of ninth, and win you a much bigger prize.

I think “play for the win” just means don’t become too scared to bust before ITM. Sometimes you need controlled aggression to build a stack.

Example: folding AQ because you want to survive a bit longer, but winning that pot could give you the stack needed to get even further.

Then again, I just called an all-in with AQ and busted right before the bubble... got beaten by AK 😅

Like you, I play first to position myself and then to reach first place.

ninjareal said:

I understand being the chip bully , but are you ( and Polk implying) that we should risk early exit in order to become the chip bully/huge stack/Chip leader ?

Click to expand...

Having a big stack is most important, when we can exploit risk aversion among other players. Which mean near the bubble, near the final table bubble and on the final table. So no. We should not "risk an early exit" to become the chip leader. We should however "risk an early exit", if a high variance spot on average is going to win us chips.

Its a common misconception, that early exits are to be avoided, or that a "tournament life" is something very important. Its not and especially not these days, where nearly all MTTs allow players to reenter. So if for example we 3-bet AKo and get 4-bet jammed on for 46BB, then the vast majority of the time we should be happy to get it in, and if we bust, then we just press the reenter button and play on.

On the bubble we would at least consider folding in such a situation, or maybe we dont 3-bet AKo in the first place, if its two big stacks against each other. But many people take risk aversion on the bubble to far, which is likely, what your "pro" is trying to say. If we open AQo and get rejammed on for 19BB, then the vast majority of the time we should call even on the bubble.

Many people love large field tournaments like a $5.5 MTT with a $10.000 guarantied price pool. It appeals to them, that they could get lucky and turn their $5.5 into $2.000+ in a single tournament. But when the bubble get near, they nit up and reduce their chance of actually getting this "bink" just to lock up a min-cash of $9,85, which wont even pay for the next similar tournament.

And on the final table there is huge value in becoming the chip leader. Especially in fast games like turbo On Demand SnGs, where you can often blind your opponents away by relentlessly jamming and rejamming on them again and again. Even here people get to caught up in wanting to secure the next payjump and pass on profitable spots. Kristen Foxen is a very good player, but this is a bad fold and a good example of over adjusting to ICM on the final table.

fundiver199 said:

We should not "risk an early exit" to become the chip leader. We should however "risk an early exit", if a high variance spot on average is going to win us chips.

Click to expand...

Hello , very nice information , thank you , and yes I would not fold with 19bb and so low down on the FT , I might do other tricks but
folding will not be an option
I was mainly talking about risking early exit while still in the first hour of the mtt mainly , for mid-game and late mid-game , I agree on some moves need to happen!
"if a high variance spot on average is going to win us chips." haha this is always the tricky spot , I do agree on average , but only later in
the game maybe, it really does now depend if I have history or reads with the players , Like I mentioned in earlier post , the longer I play
the more involved and invested in the game I will be ,
so yes I agree on some risks , especially with a PP , an eye needs to be kept on results so leaks are spotted if any appear.
I have a bad win-rate apparently , I checked my stats on acr , I have 1700+ games played , 83 FT and only 13 wins , so the FT play needs more work.
so in a long sort of way this thread and ideas are very relevent to my game .