Tournaments are easy games... or are they?
Mar. 6th, 2005 02:07 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksYou 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?
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?
Assuming you hold 3-3...
Date: 2005-03-06 05:55 pm (UTC)As ever in poker, you need to take other factors into account. One of which is that in a cash game, one can work with a linear utility function for chips (if not, you probably shouldn't be in the game). My tournament play (as you probably know) is pretty poor, are 2400 chips more or less than three times as likely to win this tournament than 800? If less (which I suspect, but am happy to be corrected on), then you need to be more than 15% to be ahead here.
Either way, I have to trust your 5% estimate, but think you've severely overpaying for your advertising here. I certainly think you shouldn't be making a habit of that sort of play.
Aside: Am I going to have to start an account here at some point for convenience of (identified) replies? I'm not a blogger, in part because I don't have the time. Monthly lunch party sounds like a good idea btw, despite never having met most of the people at your Christmas do 15 months ago, I had a great time - I remember the main thread of conversation on the train back into town was how well the evening had gone. We (or least, I) missed St Martin's last year, do you want to go this year?
Iain.
Re: Assuming you hold 3-3...
Date: 2005-03-06 07:59 pm (UTC)I think that in the early stages of a tournament it is best to ignore the differentiation between cash prizes and tournament chips. In other words, your equity with 2,400 chips is three times your equity with 800. Since I have taken this line (and I actually extend it quite deeply into the tournament) I have been doing considerably better.
I went to St Martin's last year and there was't much to write home about. From the previous year one artist whom I liked (Sarah something, darn, can't find all the cards) seems to have had an exhibition. She painted these empty waiting rooms, hospital corridors and the like.
As for the anonymous posting, don't worry about it. Just sign name at bottom. That's what I do on blogspot.
Now, onto the PLO.