Tournaments are easy games... or are they?

You have to love reading Mason Malmuth and, it would appear, all the other writers in the new(ish) 2+2 Internet magazine, because it would appear that no play they ever make goes wrong. I swear that Malmuth hasn't reported on a hand that he lost since 1986. I, meanwhile, only seem to report on hands that have gone belly-up. Is this part of some underlying national psyche? Or is it, rather, representative of the fact that you learn more from hands that you lose than those that you win? Nearly all of Malmuth's posts seem to be along the lines of "look how good I am", whereas I would rather see more along the lines of "now, how can we improve on this?"

Here's a hand that set me thinking in a tournament that I just busted out of in 66th place out of 82.

I am in the small blind at near the end of level 2 with 1250 out of my original 1500 chips. There are 66 players left (but, you could have guessed that from the previous sentence, couldn't you?), making the average stack about 1800. There is one limper in mid-position who has 1600 chips. This is a low-level tournament, so I have no reason to suspect a slowplay with a powerhouse. He probably has a limping hand.

One more limper and I complete. BB checks. The argument isn't about whether I should raise here. At this point in the tournament I think not. Far better to go for a double-through if a 3 flops.

And a 3 does flop, along with an Ace and a two, both of which are spades. (I suspect you can see where we are heading here). I decide to check and attempt to get an Ace to put in some cash. BB checks and limper bets 360 into a 120 pot. Next player folds and it's now to me. That kind of bet looks like an Ace trying to protect its hand to me, rather than anything already made. I decide to call. BB folds.

Turn brings the nine of spades. I check and my opponent goes all-in. Do I call with my remaining 835 chips into a 1700 chip pot?

Well, that isn't the question I'm asking, actually. In a more Lederer-like manner, my question is as follows. How sure do I need to be that I am behind before I fold? In other words, suppose I think there is a 50% chance that my opponent has A9, or 22 (to make a set), do I call? Obviously, yes. What if I think there is only a 25% chance that he has these hands (or worse?). What if I think there is only a 5% chance that I am in front? What if I make it a 0% chance?

In this instance I put my chance of being in front at about 5%, and I still called. Part of my reasoning here was that this was not the last tournament I would play on this site, so I didn't want people to think that I could be bullied off a pot on the turn if I had called a sizeable bet on the flop. In other words, I wasn't playing as if this was my last tournament in my life. Ayway, he flipped 54 of clubs for the straight and my 7-to-2 chance failed to come in on the river, and I was out.

Should I fold this turn even if I am almost certain I am behind? I don't know. In terms of expected EV for that particular tournament, I should probably lay the hand down (or go all-in on the flop). I suspect that most "experienced" tournament players would say that a call here is correct, but, what if they are wrong?

The Madness of PLO

I was getting bored with things, and I had read on Big Dave D’s site that the PLO action was a bit juicy at the moment, so I decided to give it a go. This was despite my having very little idea about the game’s nuances.

I deliberately chose a low-stakes game (10c-25c) and bought in for the max ($25). One good sign was that most of the players seemed to have bought in for less than the max!

About 8 minutes and $50 later I realized that things might not be that simple. I put my head down and clawed my way back to $25 down. Then the table broke. Flushed with the speed of my (semi) recovery, I moved up to the 50c-$1 game and bought in for $50. It gradually became clear to me that the tactics that were needed at the Vic’s one hundred quid buy-in game were not the same as those needed here. For a start, there were a lot of minimum raises – clearly these guys were limit players at heart. Any pot raise seemed to indicate Aces. And a lot of people were seeing flops. It seemed to me that, rather than play fast pre-flop, I could win money by better post-flop play.

Anyway. My stake had been whittled down to $37 when the following hand came.

Powered by UltimateBet
Started at 06/Mar/05 11:53:38

Madman 1 is at seat 0 with $45.30.
Madman 2 is at seat 4 with $24.
Madman 3 is at seat 5 with $85.85.
Birks is at seat 8 with $37.05.
The button is at seat 5.

Birks: 5s 6d 4s 4h

Pre-flop:

Birks calls
Madman 1 calls.
Madman 2 calls.
Madman 3 calls
BB checks.

Flop (board: 3h 9h 4d):

So I have trip fours and a four-card straight. My only worry is the hearts. I decide to bite the bullet and check

Birks checks
Madman 1 bets $3.25.
Madman 2 calls.
Madman 3 calls.
BB folds.
Birks raises to $22.75.
Madman 1 goes all-in for $44.80.
Madman 2 goes all-in for $23.50.
Madman 3 folds.
Birks goes all-in for $36.55.
Madman 1 is returned $8.25(uncalled).

Turn (board: 3h 9h 4d 8s):
(no action in this round)
So far, so good.
River (board: 3h 9h 4d 8s Tc):
(no action in this round)
It’s looking promising. QJ, 67, J7 or a set above 4s are all that beat me.

Showdown:

Madman 1 shows 5d Qs Qh 6h. Madman 1 has Qs Qh 9h 8s Tc: a pair of queens.
Madman 2 shows 2h Ah 9s Th. Madman 2 has 9s Th 9h 8s Tc: two pair, tens and nines.
Birks shows 5s 6d 4s 4h. Birks has 4s 4h 9h 4d Tc: three fours.

$3 is raked from the main pot of $80.25.
$0 is raked from side pot #1 of $26.10.
Birks wins the main pot $77.25 with three fours.
Birks wins the side pot $26.10 with three fours.

Running the whole thing through Pokercalc, I see that my equity on the flop against these two opponents was just over 60%, which makes my raise all-in okay. With just the three fours I would probably have taken a card off the top, but with the 4-card straight as well, I’m prepared to risk the 35% chance of a flush (especially since I amd 40% to house up anyway.

Madman 1 thinks he has lots of outs, what with a 4-flush and 4 straight, but in fact he is going for a Queen to win. A straight ties with me, and the heart loses to the other hand. The other hand is in fact only a 3-to-1 dog, so he is getting pot odds to his $23 bet.

This appears to be the general standard of play at the moment. What, I must ask myself, am I doing playing limit hold ‘em?

Well, of course, the variance will be much higher at PLO, and the games seem to break up with alarming frequency. This isn’t surprising, because most of the players are so bad that they either go broke or get a big win. In either case, they seem to leave.