peterbirks (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
peterbirks) wrote2005-04-23 12:59 pm
peterbirks) wrote2005-04-23 12:59 pm
Parkinson's Disease
I'm sure that it's a complete coincidence, but ever since I forked out £67 for "Power Poker" by Parkinson, Grey and Gardiner, I haven't been able to do a thing right in tournaments. Fortunately I've restricted myself to Stars FPP super satellites (since I have bundles of FPPs) and the value-added Betfair tournies. So, no damage done.
There are definite flaws in the book, although I would recommend it to much of the "dead money" that currently occupy seats in many tournaments. For a start, it overestimates the likelihood of you finding maniacs early on. It also overestimates your chance of doubling up. This means that you are VERY likely to end up short-stacked just at the time you are meant to be beginning to play poker (a la "Renaissance Man" style) in Gear 3.
Now, for a lot of players there is nothing wrong with this advice. There is a chapter that says "What to do if you are in danger", although it implies that this will happen only occasionally, rather than 75% of the time. The recommendations are good and along the lines of the Sklansky all-in system and the Andy Ward all-in system. Some minor differences, but sound advice from all three nevertheless.
The second major flaw in the book is that, in my experience, it is writing about tournaments that, online, are becoming a thing of the past. The idea is to win lots of uncontested pots by picking your spots to raise. The problem is, these opportunities are getting thinner on the ground. In SOME situations this system works, but not all. In other words, these guys are talking about a subset of a subset of a subset. (a type of freeze-out (lots of people scared to go out) in a type of tournament (a freeze-out with reasonably timed levels) in a type of poker (Hold 'em).
That doesn't mean that the book isn't worth the money. If you get just one gragment of useful advice from a poker book these days, then it is worth the money. And the "wrong" advice that it gives? Well, I'm happy about that as well.
And what is the "wrong" advice? Well, basically, if you follow the Parkinson game plan you are following the old principle used by winning tournament players in the 1990s, which is to get your money in first on the principle that you have two ways to win. Usually your opponent will fold, but if he doesn't, you have a fighting chance. This used to work when your opponents duly folded, as planned, but, as the saying goes, a semi-bluff loses most of its strength if your opponent is unlikely to fold. And, in most parts of this book, it advises you to fold if someone makes an all-in move on you. As Parkinson (I'm sure that this is his line rather than Grey's or Gardiner's) says, utterly incorrectly, it's no good getting 2-to-1 about a 6-to-4 shot if you are out of the tournament if you lose.
This is utter bollocks, but it's a prevalent thought amongst a number of top-flight tournament players. There are a few (Ivey, that young Finnish player Huppi, Ferguson) who have spotted the flaw in the logic, but others, such as Men The Master, Cloutier, McEvoy, the Mob apart from Beevers, stick to the concept that they can win tournaments by turning down such "all-or-nothing" situations, because they will be able to steal uncontested pots later on. Then, when they bang in an all-in raise with K9 suited on the button, they are utterly gobsmacked when they are called by A9 off. "How could he call with that?" they cry (because they themselves would have folded....). Because the maths are on their side, boys. The maths are on their side.
Although, next month, they might not be.
There are definite flaws in the book, although I would recommend it to much of the "dead money" that currently occupy seats in many tournaments. For a start, it overestimates the likelihood of you finding maniacs early on. It also overestimates your chance of doubling up. This means that you are VERY likely to end up short-stacked just at the time you are meant to be beginning to play poker (a la "Renaissance Man" style) in Gear 3.
Now, for a lot of players there is nothing wrong with this advice. There is a chapter that says "What to do if you are in danger", although it implies that this will happen only occasionally, rather than 75% of the time. The recommendations are good and along the lines of the Sklansky all-in system and the Andy Ward all-in system. Some minor differences, but sound advice from all three nevertheless.
The second major flaw in the book is that, in my experience, it is writing about tournaments that, online, are becoming a thing of the past. The idea is to win lots of uncontested pots by picking your spots to raise. The problem is, these opportunities are getting thinner on the ground. In SOME situations this system works, but not all. In other words, these guys are talking about a subset of a subset of a subset. (a type of freeze-out (lots of people scared to go out) in a type of tournament (a freeze-out with reasonably timed levels) in a type of poker (Hold 'em).
That doesn't mean that the book isn't worth the money. If you get just one gragment of useful advice from a poker book these days, then it is worth the money. And the "wrong" advice that it gives? Well, I'm happy about that as well.
And what is the "wrong" advice? Well, basically, if you follow the Parkinson game plan you are following the old principle used by winning tournament players in the 1990s, which is to get your money in first on the principle that you have two ways to win. Usually your opponent will fold, but if he doesn't, you have a fighting chance. This used to work when your opponents duly folded, as planned, but, as the saying goes, a semi-bluff loses most of its strength if your opponent is unlikely to fold. And, in most parts of this book, it advises you to fold if someone makes an all-in move on you. As Parkinson (I'm sure that this is his line rather than Grey's or Gardiner's) says, utterly incorrectly, it's no good getting 2-to-1 about a 6-to-4 shot if you are out of the tournament if you lose.
This is utter bollocks, but it's a prevalent thought amongst a number of top-flight tournament players. There are a few (Ivey, that young Finnish player Huppi, Ferguson) who have spotted the flaw in the logic, but others, such as Men The Master, Cloutier, McEvoy, the Mob apart from Beevers, stick to the concept that they can win tournaments by turning down such "all-or-nothing" situations, because they will be able to steal uncontested pots later on. Then, when they bang in an all-in raise with K9 suited on the button, they are utterly gobsmacked when they are called by A9 off. "How could he call with that?" they cry (because they themselves would have folded....). Because the maths are on their side, boys. The maths are on their side.
Although, next month, they might not be.
no subject
Interesting that you should exempt Joe from the "survival" crowd. He must have adapted since I've seen him play, but to be fair that is a long time ago and God knows I only see how these people play when I'm on the same table.
I can't remember where I saw the statement "you don't win tournaments, you steal them", but it was a few years ago. That was then but, as you say, this is now and I just don't think it applies any more. Players like Negreanu have adapted to great effect. If he thinks he's in front or has pot odds, he calls, and he's not afraid to make high-risk bluffs. Meanwhile Hellmuth thinks he can turn up 4 hours late, play the way he always has done and it's someone else's fault when he loses.
Andy.
PS Pope Idol, damn, why didn't I think of that ?
no subject
It isn't actually pitched towards people with high levels of experience. It's about taking marginal or losing players and making them profitable.
One thing I thought interesting was the advice against a diet of sit'n'go tournaments, where they say that the money will just get shipped around, and the rake will kill you. It seems to me that they are relying on "dead money" in MTT to make mug punters profitable as much as anything else.
I actually bought the thing to see the note-taking advice they had, and that was a bit thin. On the other hand, there are a large number of commented hands included, which I'm working my way through. It's easy to find hands taken in isolation, but unusual to see a series of hands, so I think there is value in that, even if there are a lot of folds and all-in pre-flop raises included among them.
Anyway, how bad is the advice to always be the raiser?
Always be the raiser...
If you perpetually pass in these situations, you will become a losing tournament player in all but the weakest tournaments. So, in that sense, the advice to always be the raiser, never the caller, EVEN WHEN YOU ARE GETTING POT ODDS, is dreadful.
PS. Just went out in 16th AGAIN. Bashed in an all-in (8200) raise in MP1 with AQs (blinds 300-600, antes 75, 8 players at table) ad was called in a flash by MP3. I knew it was going to be AK even before I saw the cards. And it was. Walking again...
Pete