Nice day for it
May. 28th, 2005 04:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksOne of the tournaments that I try to play as a matter of principle is the Betfair 12.15pm game with £150 added. With about 80 entrants, this gives you a nice overlay and, with 10 places paid, fairly low volatility (in as much as any MTT can have low volatility). Also, I like any system that means Betfair are (effectively) giving me money to play.
So, flushed with my 27th place out of 489 on Monday, I played my normal game. In a sense, this is the kind of tournament that Parkinson and Co are writing about. You get lots of limpers and you can win pots either pre-flop, on the flop, or on the turn without worrying too much about cards. Antes kick in at level 7, the blind levels are 10 minutes, and the pace of the game is slow. This means that you often get to a stage quite quickly where people are the tournament equivalent of "scared money".
I've recently spotted a prisoners' dilemma in MTTs. As you approach the bubble, a lot of the short stacks stall for time. However, since both tables are doing this, all it means is that you get fewer hands per level. This works to the advantage of the big stacks, not the small stacks.
Somehow I got myself into an average position when there were 16 players left and the stalling started. I went on a stealing frenzy and got myself up to 3rd place in chips without showing down a hand (yay, antes!) and the blinds promptly went up 50%, putting the short stacks in an even more desperate position than they would have been in if they had played quickly. As I wrote previously, if a poker book gives you just one piece of money-making advice that you had not previously thought of, then it is worth the investment. Parkinson et al pointed out the obvious (except that I hadn't thought of it) -- that anyone who starts playing slowly when the bubble approaches, no matter what the size of their stack, is a prime candidate for blind-stealing. Similarly, any player who puts in the chat box something that indicates that he is watching the number of players left, or looking at THE OTHER TABLE, is a man with, as his primary ambition, getting in the money, not coming first.
Unfortunately it nearly all went belly-up when I was called on the bubble and lost, bringing me down to 11th of 11 with 6000 chips left and the blinds on 800/1600. However, a couple of uncalled all-ins in succession (UTG +1, UTG) soon solved that minor hitch, and I hit the final table with an average stack.
From then on it all seemed to go remarkably smoothly (as it does when you get the right cards at the right time -- this is why so many "lucky" beginners who have some idea what they are doing think that tournaments are an easy game -- until it starts to go wrong). I tightened up just as the other players relaxed (as weaker players tend to do having got "in the money") and soon found myself with the fourth-highest chip stack of six. Once again it all seemed to travel without much excitement until I found myself heads up against a dream opponent. OK, I had a 2-to-1 chip disadvantage, but this guy was not that good at heads up -- too passive by far. Within 20 minutes the advantage was the other way round, and we hadn't had a showdown.
It nearly all went tits up when, with the blinds on 3000/6000 and 1000 antes, I got dealt AQ with 72000 chips. Opponent had about 35,000. All my money went in, he called like a shot, and promptly turned over AK. Luckily a Queen came on the flop. end of story and first place for the good guy.
OK, only £116 (a mere couple of hands at $5-$10!) but this is kind of "{bonus money". A win at $5-$10 might be given back in seconds the next time I sit down. It will take me a lot of three-quid +25p tourneys to give back the £400 that Betfair has donated to the Birks "fly me to Vegas 1st class, please" fund.
Incidentally, one of the players at the table said "2nd will do me. £77 will pay for a good Saturday night out" (he eventually came fourth, so maybe it will be just pints rather than doubles). I promptly celebrated my victory by going into Lewisham and buying some fitted sheets, pillowcases, valances and "luxury goosedown pillows", for £88. I sure do know how to live it up, me.
So, flushed with my 27th place out of 489 on Monday, I played my normal game. In a sense, this is the kind of tournament that Parkinson and Co are writing about. You get lots of limpers and you can win pots either pre-flop, on the flop, or on the turn without worrying too much about cards. Antes kick in at level 7, the blind levels are 10 minutes, and the pace of the game is slow. This means that you often get to a stage quite quickly where people are the tournament equivalent of "scared money".
I've recently spotted a prisoners' dilemma in MTTs. As you approach the bubble, a lot of the short stacks stall for time. However, since both tables are doing this, all it means is that you get fewer hands per level. This works to the advantage of the big stacks, not the small stacks.
Somehow I got myself into an average position when there were 16 players left and the stalling started. I went on a stealing frenzy and got myself up to 3rd place in chips without showing down a hand (yay, antes!) and the blinds promptly went up 50%, putting the short stacks in an even more desperate position than they would have been in if they had played quickly. As I wrote previously, if a poker book gives you just one piece of money-making advice that you had not previously thought of, then it is worth the investment. Parkinson et al pointed out the obvious (except that I hadn't thought of it) -- that anyone who starts playing slowly when the bubble approaches, no matter what the size of their stack, is a prime candidate for blind-stealing. Similarly, any player who puts in the chat box something that indicates that he is watching the number of players left, or looking at THE OTHER TABLE, is a man with, as his primary ambition, getting in the money, not coming first.
Unfortunately it nearly all went belly-up when I was called on the bubble and lost, bringing me down to 11th of 11 with 6000 chips left and the blinds on 800/1600. However, a couple of uncalled all-ins in succession (UTG +1, UTG) soon solved that minor hitch, and I hit the final table with an average stack.
From then on it all seemed to go remarkably smoothly (as it does when you get the right cards at the right time -- this is why so many "lucky" beginners who have some idea what they are doing think that tournaments are an easy game -- until it starts to go wrong). I tightened up just as the other players relaxed (as weaker players tend to do having got "in the money") and soon found myself with the fourth-highest chip stack of six. Once again it all seemed to travel without much excitement until I found myself heads up against a dream opponent. OK, I had a 2-to-1 chip disadvantage, but this guy was not that good at heads up -- too passive by far. Within 20 minutes the advantage was the other way round, and we hadn't had a showdown.
It nearly all went tits up when, with the blinds on 3000/6000 and 1000 antes, I got dealt AQ with 72000 chips. Opponent had about 35,000. All my money went in, he called like a shot, and promptly turned over AK. Luckily a Queen came on the flop. end of story and first place for the good guy.
OK, only £116 (a mere couple of hands at $5-$10!) but this is kind of "{bonus money". A win at $5-$10 might be given back in seconds the next time I sit down. It will take me a lot of three-quid +25p tourneys to give back the £400 that Betfair has donated to the Birks "fly me to Vegas 1st class, please" fund.
Incidentally, one of the players at the table said "2nd will do me. £77 will pay for a good Saturday night out" (he eventually came fourth, so maybe it will be just pints rather than doubles). I promptly celebrated my victory by going into Lewisham and buying some fitted sheets, pillowcases, valances and "luxury goosedown pillows", for £88. I sure do know how to live it up, me.
