Tournaments are easy games... or are they?

[peterbirks]

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?

Comments

[andy-ward-uk.livejournal.com]

Hi Pete,

Regarding the pundits who never lose a hand, there are a lot of them about, in the magazines and the blogs. Certain bloggers who happily describe winning hands they have played terribly should have the words "YOU'LL BE ALRIGHT" emblazoned on their work as a permanent backdrop. Just after my first article on Gutshot, someone popped up on the forum absolutely convinced that I was a losing player. I wonder if this is partly because I do describe the hands I lose when so many others don't.

As for the on-line tournaments, they just aren't worth it as a consistent on-line earner. If you're good enough, sit and goes are much better. MTTs are ok for entertainment and/or shot-taking. I can happily get my fill of them playing money-added comps on Betfair, while that lasts anyway.

The hand you describe sounds a lot like how I used to play a few months ago. Now I would have bet around 100 on the flop, and pushed all in if raised. If I was magically transported in time to the turn, having check-called the flop, I'd have to throw it away. At this stage of the tournament, there's no need to do anything more than make a pot-odds calculation based on X% he has it, (100-X)% he does it, times the prob of winning in each case. I also wouldn't bother about image plays unless I played the same tournament every day against a small field. Even if they are using pokertracker or something you're just unlikely to run into the same players very often.

Blog kicks ass by the way !

Andy.

Betting the flop

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Yes, I like the idea of betting the flop for a medium amount here (I would probably plump for 200 rather than 100) and reraise any raise all-in. Result's the same, but I give myself a better chance than 7-to-2 for my money.

I dunno, I guess that I felt that the guy had two-pair Aces or a lower set. If we assume that he plays the same way with 54s, A9off or the other low pair that gives a set, then there are 12 hands where I am winning and only 7 that I am losing. However, if we assume that he would only go all-in with the two-pair, say, a quarter of the time, then we have 3 hands where I am winning and 7 where I am losing. That comes out at a 30% chance of me being in front -- alot better than my initial estimate of 5%, so maybe my call wasn't that bad after all!.

In answer to your second point, these tournies are usually about 80-strong, most of whom are repeat players, so the only question is whether they are bright enough to take notes.

Probably not.

Re: Betting the flop

[andy-ward-uk.livejournal.com]

Doh. I thought there were 4 spades on the board by the turn. In that case it's an almost certain call. Sorry, my mistake. But the thinking is the same - just do a pot odds calc based on the range of hands he can have.

Andy.