Is solid play the wrong play in tournaments

[PHIL_TC]

After some advice..

I"ve been playing poker now for 5 years, and I"d classify myself as a solid player. Starting to think though that its just not enough. Made four day 2"s at APAT events, cashed in 3 but never made a final table. Played in a 160 field over the weekend and again made the final 2 tables but went out on a race. Seem to find myself average stack, lose a race and its game over time after time.

Watching some excellent players like rupinder bedi and neil blatchley at the worlds as I was lucky (or unlucky as the case may be!) enough to be on their table at the start it made me realise that I need to open up my game so much and be more agressive rather than being solid. Maybe I"m answering my own question here.. but is "solid" really not the way to go, do I need to completely rethink my tournament game  

Any advice would be much appreciated.

Phil

[AMRN]

I think "solid" is a bit of a myth - and no style is the "correct" style.

In my opinion the best tournament player is one who can scope and understand the way the table is playing, and then adapt his game to suit the play at the table - ie rock at a table full of maniacs, or 3 bet lots on a weak table, etc. Also, you can"t win a long tourney by playing the same style throughout - getting the timing right for gear changes is crucial.

I guess if being able to recognise and respond to changing dynamics is termed "solid", then solidity is a good trait.

[PHIL_TC]

I think "solid" is a bit of a myth - and no style is the "correct" style.

In my opinion the best tournament player is one who can scope and understand the way the table is playing, and then adapt his game to suit the play at the table - ie rock at a table full of maniacs, or 3 bet lots on a weak table, etc. Also, you can"t win a long tourney by playing the same style throughout - getting the timing right for gear changes is crucial.

I guess if being able to recognise and respond to changing dynamics is termed "solid", then solidity is a good trait.

Cheers Steve - I"m thinking that may be where I"m going wrong, I feel I can adapt quite well to a table, but struggle going through the gears and tend to play a similar style throughout the tournament. Will try and put that right in Bolton  

[monkeyman]

I think "solid" is a bit of a myth - and no style is the "correct" style.

In my opinion the best tournament player is one who can scope and understand the way the table is playing, and then adapt his game to suit the play at the table - ie rock at a table full of maniacs, or 3 bet lots on a weak table, etc. Also, you can"t win a long tourney by playing the same style throughout - getting the timing right for gear changes is crucial.

I guess if being able to recognise and respond to changing dynamics is termed "solid", then solidity is a good trait.

Couldn"t have put it better myself, no-one wins a tournament playing at the same pace throughout.
The value of someone with an APAT live record as bad as mine dispensing advice is debatable, but what held me back in my earlier live efforts was being scared to make myself look silly by busting out early. Anyone who is serious about trying to win a 200 winner event has to be prepared to put the gun to an opponents head and stick the chips in at any stage regardless of whether you"re playing online or have travelled across the country to play live    

[noble1]

Daniel Negreanu on playing with aggressive players in a deep stacked mtt -

This is actually the type of flaw I see made most often in deep stacked tournaments amongst the good online players that are more accustomed to playing tournaments with shallow stacks. They often overplay hands pre-flop,post-flop and risk tournament death. While there play isn"t necessarily -EV, by taking a more careful approach you last longer which allows you to wait longer for lower risk/high reward situations.

I really don"t mind being "run over" and players try that against me all the time. Sometimes they are successful, but often what they end up doing is betting my hand for me. The key to being successful with that approach is the ability to sniff out bluffs and make some light calls in certain spots. Not the easiest thing to do, but if you are good at it, it"s a great way to build a big stack of chips without showing much aggression at all.

i agree with ARMN"s points also and i"d add improving your reads on players betting patterns/tendencies would be more beneficial to your game than just trying to get more aggressive.
One way to improve is to watch bad players in mtts   and don"t do what they do .. on the flipside Barry Greenstein once wrote something on his website, he described a player as being "solid", and it had extreme negative connotations. he asked -

""Is that a good thing? No. Solid means ****ty. Its sweet that you can reraise before the flop with premium hands, fold ****ty ones, and play right along with your cards. Some people do well. But if you want to become a real tournament player, you don"t want to be solid.""

edit
another quote lol lol that sums up poker

poker is ultimately about conquering yourself and less about beating your opponents.There are also many situations where players know the right move but cannot bring themselves to make it because they are either afraid (in the case of calling a large bet or making a big bluff) or reckless (in the case where they should fold to an obviously better hand). Poker is about controlling your desire to gamble and your fear of losing.

[Pears27]

Every time I find myself getting too crazy-loose, I read Harrington again.

Every time I find myself getting too tight, I read Hansen again.

Bit black & white, but I find it helps.