tournaments can be bad for your wealth

[peterbirks]

The 15-30 games in the afternoon on Party look pretty tight at the moment, and the 5-10 games are no better. Following my new self-imposed diktat that at these levels game selection is more important than self-improvement, I have not been sitting down. So, what to do? Well, how about a couple of these 90fpp satellites on Stars?

Once again I ended up one for two, with the PLO qualifier being almost embarrassing. With 11 qualifiers from 118 players, there were only 46 left at the first break. At which point the inexperienced players start thinking "hang on, I've got a chance of qualifying here", so what had been a loose call-fest where I hardly played a hand, turned into a tight rock-fest where I hardly folded one. By the end of the second hour I had mysteriously accumulated 50,000 of the 165,000 chips in play, and there were still 25 players left. Not one to fall to the temptation of walking away and playing something else while the others ran down the clock in an attempt to survive, I merrily continued raising every hand, causing mayhem everywhere I walked, but the wins and losses about averaged out this time, so I had a "mere" 60,000 chips when it got down to just eleven left.

Now, if super sats are always going to be this easy, I might start taking them up again. The second hold'em one went wrong when I bashed in an all-in raise from the BB with a pair of 10s (five limpers), only for a KQ off to decide that a hand that wasn't worth raising on the button in the first place was worth calling for 10 times as many chips. The inevitable Queen appeared on the flop and I was then working from a short stack. I think that I went out with that powerhouse K3 in the BB vs A4 in the SB. The flop came A42, but for some strange reason the Pokerstars magic did not work and my straight failed to appear on the river to beat his two-pair.

So, how is this FPP accumulation bad for your wealth? Well, for a start, it's a waste of time, in the literal sense. It's the kind of thing I wish I had an eight-year-old son and daughter for, because I could delegate the FPP accumulation to them -- the play is that automatic. After it's over I am (a) tired and (b) asking myself if it was worth it.

Secondly, there is no way that you can sit down in a cash game afterwards, unless you have some incredible ability to switch gears. Although I have known this intellectually for many years, it's beginning to sink in emotionally how aggressive "big stack" play in tournaments is phenomenally different from cash play. I think this might be why cash players naturally gravitate towards a more accumulative style when in tournies. It requires a style of play that is technically closer to cash games.

The mind-set that you get yourself into when you are in this "dominating" manner would get you killed in a ring game. It might work, just might work, in short-handed, against five players who are playing at too high a level for their bankroll who aren't very good. But as a general principle, I would say that if you play too many tournaments in this way, it must inevitably leak into your cash game, with wealth-afflicting effects.

Comments

[jellymillion.livejournal.com]

I've heard from several reliable sources now that the 90FPP super-sats are soft. But I rather expect they would be: they're 90FPP super-sats. And when you get through, you've got to do it again with the 900FPPs you just earned. Which are perhaps equivalent to say, the $30 or $40 you might invest in the $11+R sats.

I suppose if the play is as soft then at least at the end of it you have a useful pile of T$ (actually, I suppose they'll be W$) that may be used creatively. I wonder if W$ work in the WCOOP real-money sats?

I'm starting to find that to stop myself getting too "creative" early doors in MTTs it's good to start a STT or two to keep me sensible for the first hour. It was working last night as I played two $30+3s while I waited for the $20 Full Tilt PLO8 to warm up. A feeble 6th in one and a second in the other (should have been first but I made a misread of Biblical proportions with a 3:1 chip lead heads-up). That took care of the first hour, then I had another "donk" moment and crippled myself in the multi. Annoyingly, the play is often weak enough to recover, so I had to concentrate. Didn't work this time: A244 (suited A) turned out not to be the hoped-for powerhouse on a 943 board - two high cards to finish me off when it was taken by some genius holding 99.

90FPP

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Having just burnt in excess of 400 green ones at 15-30 (with two plays early on that really were rather poor -- tough decisions in the first few minutes can make or break a session, I think -- I'd much rather ease myself into the game, but you can't choose when the pivotal decisions will come) I played another couple of these satellites, and blew out in both of them. Perhaps I could have folded my set of nines on the river in the hold 'em (guy had QT for the straight), but in the PLO I simply never got going and my first raise after the break (with JJTT double-suited, no less) was reraised and called all-in behind me. Since I had no intention of folding to a single reraise, I'd rather thave two players against me than one. But, no good, AQ97 single-suited rolled home with a pair of Aces.

Anyway, what I was going to say was, having won the 900 FPP satellite place for some godforsaken PLO satellite round 2, I just unregister, and get the 900 FPPs put into the account. What am I building these FPPs up for? A good question. I suppose that about 20,000 of them in the bank would be nice so that I could take a serious punch at qualifying for just one chosen tournament. I would then play the tournament (assuming that I qualified)either according to Padraig or according to Birks, depending on the style of opposition.

Oh, and here's the second of the limit hands I played badly (the first one was so tedious that I'm too embarrassed to print it). I'm in MP1, with one player sitting out. I raise with AToff, get called by the button, about whom I know little. BB, a good player, also calls. Flop comes T84 two clubs (clubs are no use to me). Check from BB. I bet, Button raises. I am getting ready to three-bet it when Big Blind three-bets ahead of me.

Aaargh. This is a new one on me at 15-30. At 2-4 to 5-10 I would put this player on something like two-pair, but this could be a well-played overpair, or a cleverly played set, or a draw with J9. My principle in these situations where I don't know where I am in the slightest is to walk away before too much damage is done.

Unfortunately, a 10 came on the turn (leading to a loud expletive from me) followed by the hand being won by the big blind with 98 suited (leading to a rather sad groan). No doubt about it, the guy outplayed me. But I'll remember that one for the future. And I have no idea what the player on the button cold called me with and then raised me with on the flop -- AK I guess.

Re: Some good news

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

On the plus side, I've traded my position in the cricket to a win of £11.85 if England take it, a profit of £16 if Australia take it, and a loss of 63p if it's a draw. Now, if I just traded 30 times as high, that would make up for the poor performance at poker :-)

Game Selection Criteria and Pot Sizes

[(Anonymous)]

Peter,

I thought I would reply regarding your comments on game selection rather than tourneys which I hardly ever play. Although I now only play nl and plo, when I played limit I had a simple rule regarding average pot sizes to indicate whether I would be willing to play at a table: more than 8 big bets. It is easy to calculate that a hand that goes 3 folds, raise, folds,big blind calls, now has 2.5 big bets. Now a bet/call to the river adds another 5 big bets for a total of 7.5 big bets. Tables with pots that are continually played headsup like this are tight, and a lesser average would mean very tight. So unless you are the star player on the table and had no other choices, I think such tables are not worth playing.

Since big bet games can't be calculated like that and the blind size there is not a good judge although the amount of the average raise might be, I for some reason adopted the standard of an average pot size more than 15% of the maximum buyin on max buyin tables as are found online. I continually see in both nl and plo players playing in like a 200 max buyin game with an average pot size of $20. They might as well be playing 2/4 limit since the pots there would often be $30+ (note I play in 1K/2K max games but am just using this for an example).

I am always curious as to what standards other players use, if they are really using any at all. With all the tables available on party not to mention other sites if you maintain multiple accounts like most of us, I am particularly puzzled why players continually play in games that are little more than a weak-tight fest.

BluffTHIS!

Re: Game Selection Criteria and Pot Sizes

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

I took a quick look at the 18 games running at 15-30 on Party over a few hours this morning (i.e., late at night Friday, US time), and only one or two reached your criterion of an average of 8 big bets, and then by only a fraction.

However, you are clearly not alone, because both these tables had the longest waiting lists. Given the dynamism of online tables, obviously this means that those practising game selection were more likely to become seated at these tables, resulting in a rapid regression to the mean of something like 6 to 6.5 big bets.

My own criterion is player-based. I run Pokertracker, and look for games where two or more players are loose. This is a variable construct. Five players at 38% VPIP might equal one player at 88%. And the 88% player won't be much use if he is down to his last five big bets. But if he has more than $2000 in front of him, then deal me in.

Actually I like the set of five "sensible-loose" players better than the one calling station, although I suspect that the reward from each is roughly the same.

Seriously weak-tight tables, once common at $2-$4 during the day (think seven-stud at Binions on Thursday lunchtime in 2001...) can be profitable hit-and-run ventures, as you flit from site to site, bashing in a round of raising, stealing the blind — or raising, betting the flop, and then stealing the hand, before disappearing elsewhere. Whether they are "not worth playing" depends on your point of view. I remember a few 2-4 players who seemed to generate their entire income from this type of hit-and-run method. Boring, I admit.

These NL games with $20 pot size averages will, I fear, become more and more common. In April a couple of Flamingo dealers said that there was more action in the 2-4 limit game than in the $100 buy-in NL game. The drunken all-in on Ace-Ten fests might still occur, but their frequency will reduce.

However, the $500 buy-in $2-$5 ante games in Vegas seemed to get more activity flying, presumably because most of the players knew that sitting like a rock in a wait for the nuts was not going to be profitable.

The same applies in low-limit PLO, where there is no need to take the marginal gambles at the lower levels, because the 65%-and-above shots will appear often enough. So you can rock up. At higher levels, you have to play, making for a livelier game.

When I sit down at a game I also look at my notes. And if I have no notes on players in the game, then I do not post a blind, but just watch the game for a round. Even that gives you some sense of feel for the game.