An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

The folowing syndrome occurs in all no limit tournaments but most especially on the first day of the 10K WSOP:

Most players, even the not so good ones, play quite carefully when the blinds are small compared to the stacks. In other words it would take a pretty bad "cold deck" to get them to commit anywhere near all their chips. When you draw a table filled with opponents like these, you have very little chance of ending the day broke, or even with less than the 10,000 you started with. On the other hand, if your table is not one of those that is going to be broken up that day, your chances of accumulating something signicant is much smaller than a player who is either at a wilder table or is destined to be moved one or more times.

If you are moved to another table, the average stack size of your opponents is automatically more than 10,000. Perhaps a lot more. Furthermore, the fact that players have been eliminated tends to mean that the whole table is gambling more. Even it they weren't, tight players with 15,000 in front of them are more profitable to be facing, if you are an expert, than ones with less. If the table is in fact volatile, it feeds on itself as more players go broke and those experts lucky enough to be brought to it (or lucky enough to start with a volatile table that doesn't break up) have a big edge.

Meanwhile those top players who draw more timid players on tables not broken up, have to content themselves with growing their chips to between twenty and thirty thousand that first day, with the only consolation being that they were almost certain to survive and that the real action doesn't start until the second day anyway.

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

Is this an excuse? jk... gl on Day 2.

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

'Theory of poker' changed my life, Dave. Thanx.

Edit: If this means you only have 20-30,000 chips that's still an average stack and you're in great shape. I'm sure you know this though. It is frustrating to not be sitting much more comfortably simply based on the luck of the draw. Best of luck on day 2.

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

[ QUOTE ]
'Theory of poker' changed my life, Dave. Thanx.

[/ QUOTE ]

same with 'smal stakes hold'em'... now i know how to play limit poker.

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

an interesting point. I've seen a somewhat related phenomenon in the daily Star's $10 rebuy tourneys. If you are at a relatively tight table, where everyone doesn't automatically rebuy to double at the beginning and go a little crazy to ensure there's a lot of chips at their table to be won,your chances of going to the final table aren't very good. You will enter the second hour, end of rebuy period with a below average stack.

While you can come back from this and go deep, it is much harder and you have to get lucky a few times, as you are now entering what amounts to a deep-stacked tourney with a below avg. stack, plus when someone finally busts from this unfortunate table, they will probably be replaced with a big stack.

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

This is a very good point, David. There are so many levels of luck in tournament poker that go beyond bad beats and how many times you get dealt pocket aces.

But as with many forms of luck, it is not 100% beyond your control. There are things you can do, especially later in the day, to loosen your table up and get them in a gambly mood. Some of this is just poker strategy (you can raise a lot, show bluff re-raises, etc.) and some is more about creating a friendly, playful mood at the table. I think this is a very similar problem to playing a Stars rebuy tournament at a tight table. Some tables are lucky enough to have multiple all ins every hand and will finish the rebuy period with 100,000 chips on the table, others will finish with half that or less. But there are ways to loosen up a tight table.

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

Newsflash : getting a good table draw is a big part of the luck needed to win tournaments!

edit : Foucault makes an excellent point that you can improve your own table. I'm sure this a lot of why so many pros play LAG, it makes the rocks uncomfortable and makes them loosen up and play back badly.

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

Interesting take. This is my first World Series and one of the things I've been thinking about re: the main event is how much of an effect table draw will have on the way the tournament plays out for me. It seems the differences in approach (not style so much as approach to this specific event) would be wider in the main event than in any other tournament, making table draw more significant than normal. Especially Day 1 table draw b/c it does seem the structure is designed for a lot of chip movement/action on Day 2, which makes having chips after Day 1 so important. I like the Stars rebuy comparisons. Pros playing the main event very loose aggressive are something like the rebuy maniacs... they are making some -EV decisions early b/c of the potential reward they get from a big stack on Day 2 (the "second hour").

Also, when you try to maniac a rock table in a Stars rebuy, you usually just end up blowing through chips, which is what I imagine David is saying happens to all but the best of the LAGs in the Main Event when they are faced with a really tight table... especially in the early levels the chips they can't get enough reward for their risk if no one will gamble with them. They pick up the safe chips and get to 20K, but they can't win really big pots and get a real stack unless they catch a rare really big hand vs another really big hand situation.

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

"Newsflash : getting a good table draw is a big part of the luck needed to win tournaments!"

Yes, but my point is that part of the luck of the draw is related to whether your table will be broken up that day. If it is you are better off even if the table you move to has equally skilled opponents.

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Newsflash : getting a good table draw is a big part of the luck needed to win tournaments!"

Yes, but my point is that part of the luck of the draw is related to whether your table will be broken up that day. If it is you are better off even if the table you move to has equally skilled opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah. I glossed over this in my reading of the OP. Interesting.

David - since it seems many of us read your post and immediately drew comparisons to the online rebuys tournaments we play, I wonder how you would compare this phenomenon in the Main Event to, say, the $1000 rebuy (or any rebuy tournament where there are a lot of aggressive pros and a lot of guys on a budget hoping to get by on the minimum.)

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

David,

Would making small raises with hands you would normally call with(similar to what is discussed in NLTAP to get the table to play bigger) help in this case? Or does that strategy backfire due to the fact that in a tournament once you lose all your chips you're gone.

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

[ QUOTE ]
But as with many forms of luck, it is not 100% beyond your control. There are things you can do, especially later in the day, to loosen your table up and get them in a gambly mood.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent point, foucault. In my old home game, I used to say all the money at the table went through me. That is, people would gamble with me, while playing more conservitively with each other. Show down a big air bluff. You'll start getting action from TPTK type hands.

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

So you're basically saying there's luck in poker tournaments?

Edit: On a serious note, quite interesting point.

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

Cool, the Sklansky equivalent of a BBV post! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is a very similar problem to playing a Stars rebuy tournament at a tight table. Some tables are lucky enough to have multiple all ins every hand and will finish the rebuy period with 100,000 chips on the table, others will finish with half that or less. But there are ways to loosen up a tight table.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has been suggested that part of Negreanu's strategy of going nuts early on in a rebuy is that even if he doesn't immediately build a big stack, at the end of the rebuy period his table has a lot more chips than any other table. When he settles down and plays solid poker after the rebuy period, he generally has the best chance to win most of those chips. There is also the fact that the tables tend to remain unbroken for a longer period in a rebuy tournament.

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

DS,

Play in a manner to change the style of the passive, conservative table into a volatile table.

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

[ QUOTE ]
DS,

Play in a manner to change the style of the passive, conservative table into a volatile table.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would that be to make small raises with hands the you would normally call with? I know I already asked this but I am quite curious as to whether it is a viable strategy in a tournament setting.

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

FYI, the main event is not a rebuy.

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure this a lot of why so many pros play LAG, it makes the rocks uncomfortable and makes them loosen up and play back badly.


[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. You have to give action to get action---(and you can not be overly concerned with busting out early).

While table draw is a big part of winning a tourney, I personally am hoping to draw the table described ---- if they don't adjust (i.e. loosen up) they will be run over.

Relatively tight/conservative players (even expert ones) are seldom in the top 1% of chipholders at the end of day one, IRRESPECTIVE of their table draw, although I agree that this is even more pronounced with a conservative table.

I have to disagree with David's point about the "real action" starting on day 2. Joe Hachem made a similar statement along the lines that Day 1 is not about poker, but if you can get some chips you can start playing poker on day 2----this is completely opposite of reality in my opinion. I think day 1 is "real poker" and then it increasingly becomes a contest of catching the best starting hands.

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

[/ QUOTE ] Exactly. You have to give action to get action


[/ QUOTE ]

Don't know if I agree with that statement totally, in theory yes but reality is different.
There's just too many people in a tourney who can't help themselves from reraising/putting plays on guys who 'don't deserve' the action.

Also, it hurts rocks way more than loose players to switch tables since image built up goes back to scratch at the new table (if you aren't known from TV)

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

[ QUOTE ]

Also, it hurts rocks way more than loose players to switch tables since image built up goes back to scratch at the new table (if you aren't known from TV)


[/ QUOTE ]

The exact opposite is generally correct.

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Also, it hurts rocks way more than loose players to switch tables since image built up goes back to scratch at the new table (if you aren't known from TV)


[/ QUOTE ]

The exact opposite is generally correct.

[/ QUOTE ]


yea, you have to build a loose image, tight is the default.

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

I take it David had a dead table on day one.

-J

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

[/ QUOTE ]The exact opposite is generally correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

So when a new player come to your table and sit down how many hands does it usually need played before you establish him/her as tight or loose?
It takes way more hands to figure out someone is tight doesn't it?
(The average MTT player - not a seasoned tourney pro and not a shortstack)

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]The exact opposite is generally correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

So when a new player come to your table and sit down how many hands does it usually need played before you establish him/her as tight or loose?
It takes way more hands to figure out someone is tight doesn't it?
(The average MTT player - not a seasoned tourney pro and not a shortstack)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the idea is that its not good if people know you are tight- since you get less action.

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

It's always good for you when people don't know how you play, whether you be loose or tight.

However, loose players are generally giving up some value making some slightly -EV plays in order to establish an image so they can put the table on tilt & get paid off later. When they get moved, they lose all that value they've paid for. Rocks, OTOH can benefit from being unknown if they move to a table and happen to pick up a big hand before their nitty image is established. It's very rare/stupid for a rock to intentionally make a -EV play to advertise just how tight they are and set their opponent up for future bluffs.

p.s. this is getting off topic.

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

[/ QUOTE ]I think the idea is that its not good if people know you are tight- since you get less action.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeppers, and my point was that you like to capitalize on that image, hence it hurts you to switch tables because it takes way longer to convince a new table of your tightness than a loose player who sit down and raise it up 3 times in a round and then got his image established.

But I guess factors such as live/online, buyin, tourney structure etc decides a lot.

And with the LAG hype as of late maybe you can even say that is what's default now.

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

Hi, I believe I am necessary in this thread.

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

Well, the problem is that this is the WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP of poker, therefore only the best players in the world are competing, so it's hard to get chips easy.






Oh on a completely unrelated note:


http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/3789/tiffgu1.jpg

+

http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/2005/ttrl2.jpg

=

http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/7315/bankruptrg3.jpg

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

You forgot to throw a JPEG of an hourglass in there, UATrewqaz.

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

I experienced this first hand recently. My friend and I were in a tournament and we play at about the same level. At the dinner break we had exactly the same number of chips. Neither of us was getting cards but right after the break my friend's table broke and he was moved to a very active table that had had lots of turnover. When he got cards he won big pots. On the other hand, I played with mostly the same players all day so when I won, the pots were much smaller and it was hard to get ahead. Thanks for the advice on how to deal with this situation.

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Newsflash : getting a good table draw is a big part of the luck needed to win tournaments!"

Yes, but my point is that part of the luck of the draw is related to whether your table will be broken up that day. If it is you are better off even if the table you move to has equally skilled opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

David, if your table draw was bad, why didn't you ask for a table change? As a WSOP poker coach, I've advised many of my students that your FIRST task of day one is to evaluate your table, and if it's bad, ask the TD for a table change. You have to do this quickly before the list fills up. I'm surprised that most of you "alleged" pros don't pursue this basic strategy.

My students who follow this strategy also benefit by standing out in a crowd, i.e they are instantly recognised by the TD as special people, deserving special attention, which pays off in the long run.

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

1. You have no control over your table draw or being moved, so why worry so much about it?
2. There is no prize for most chips after the first day.
3. It's more important to know what your image is then to try to create or manufacture it (which is not to say that isn't important either).
4. Accumulation in the middle stages (depending on table) may be easier then early on, and presents a second opportunity if the early opportunities didn't present themselves or work out.

I think worrying about table draw and things like that which are out of our control can tend to put players in the wrong frame of mind, or make them press situations that don't really need to be pressed. I should clarify that this is more directed at lesser players like myself that already have enough to worry about without getting caught up in the luck of the table draw.

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

Mr. Sklansky,

Tell us about when you owned Hyde (i.e. Danny Masterson).

Buzz

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

Hi David,

Nice essay.

WHY AREN'T YOU REPRESENTING TWO PLUS TWO AND ALL OF US IN THE CHAMPIONSHIP?

nineinch

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

[ QUOTE ]
1. You have no control over your table draw or being moved, so why worry so much about it?
2. There is no prize for most chips after the first day.
3. It's more important to know what your image is then to try to create or manufacture it (which is not to say that isn't important either).
4. Accumulation in the middle stages (depending on table) may be easier then early on, and presents a second opportunity if the early opportunities didn't present themselves or work out.

I think worrying about table draw and things like that which are out of our control can tend to put players in the wrong frame of mind, or make them press situations that don't really need to be pressed. I should clarify that this is more directed at lesser players like myself that already have enough to worry about without getting caught up in the luck of the table draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really good post.

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

When I hit a table like this REBUY - I just start raising and going all-in for no apparent reason until the table loosens up. I'm not sure what the WSOP ME equivalent of this is....

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Also, it hurts rocks way more than loose players to switch tables since image built up goes back to scratch at the new table (if you aren't known from TV)


[/ QUOTE ]

The exact opposite is generally correct.

[/ QUOTE ]


yea, you have to build a loose image, tight is the default.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd venture to say that building a loose image is a lot easier than the tight one. Takes people a LOT LESS to notice taht you'er in every other pot and raising, then for them to notice that you haven't played a pot in an hour (and it takes at least an hour).

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

Isn't this the akin to standing in the slow line at the grocery store? It's not like one chooses to be in the slow line or enjoys being there, you just have to deal with it.

Naturally it is better to have more chips on day two than other people, I think we all understand that. I would think the EV from being assured of making it to day 2 either outweighs or at least offsets the lower chipstack. Now this may not apply if your only goal is to win the tournamant but I've never seen anyone win if they didn't make it to day 2 (since there have been day 2's).

Jimbo

Re: An Unfortunate Asymmetry
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Newsflash : getting a good table draw is a big part of the luck needed to win tournaments!"

Yes, but my point is that part of the luck of the draw is related to whether your table will be broken up that day. If it is you are better off even if the table you move to has equally skilled opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

David, if your table draw was bad, why didn't you ask for a table change? As a WSOP poker coach, I've advised many of my students that your FIRST task of day one is to evaluate your table, and if it's bad, ask the TD for a table change. You have to do this quickly before the list fills up. I'm surprised that most of you "alleged" pros don't pursue this basic strategy.

My students who follow this strategy also benefit by standing out in a crowd, i.e they are instantly recognised by the TD as special people, deserving special attention, which pays off in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

lmao ... "alleged" pros ... get recognised ... said to DS
oh [censored].. I better breath.

but thanks for the giggles