Grade the June Magazine

[Dr_Doctr]

I thought the article by Adam Kozak was very poor. I kept waiting for the 'advanced concepts'. What he basically says is that you want to finish first (duh) but does not analyse at all the changing value of your chips at different stages of the tournament. Saying that you should just try to make the play with the most immediate gain in chips is plainly wrong, but I can't see what else he could be saying -

'Firstly, every decision you make will be to maximize your EV and win the most amounts of chips in every situation. Second, you should have no fear in bubbling or moving up the prize ladder as you get down to the final few tables. Remember: your goal is to WIN 1st.'

The problem here of course is that maximising your EV and winning the most chips is not the same thing in tournaments like it is in a cash game - you're damn right you should be afraid of bubbling out if by playing aggressively you decrease your EV, which is nearly always the case on the bubble. This is why the big stack has such a huge advantage at this stage. I'm sure he knows this - hell I don't even play tournaments and I know it. This is why the article is disappointing imo.

He then goes off on tangent about blind battles and floating which I can't see is very relevant. Seems like he couldn't think of anything else to say.

[Foucault]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought the article by Adam Kozak was very poor. I kept waiting for the 'advanced concepts'. What he basically says is that you want to finish first (duh) but does not analyse at all the changing value of your chips at different stages of the tournament. Saying that you should just try to make the play with the most immediate gain in chips is plainly wrong, but I can't see what else he could be saying -

'Firstly, every decision you make will be to maximize your EV and win the most amounts of chips in every situation. Second, you should have no fear in bubbling or moving up the prize ladder as you get down to the final few tables. Remember: your goal is to WIN 1st.'

The problem here of course is that maximising your EV and winning the most chips is not the same thing in tournaments like it is in a cash game - you're damn right you should be afraid of bubbling out if by playing aggressively you decrease your EV, which is nearly always the case on the bubble. This is why the big stack has such a huge advantage at this stage. I'm sure he knows this - hell I don't even play tournaments and I know it. This is why the article is disappointing imo.

He then goes off on tangent about blind battles and floating which I can't see is very relevant. Seems like he couldn't think of anything else to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is a fair assessment of the article. All you're really saying here is that he didn't address one particular concept about tournament poker as it relates to the topics he did address. I guess this could have been articulated more clearly, but I read his article as a sort of rebuttal to the popular idea about trying "survive" in tournament poker, which is often used as a justification for overly tight, passive, and all-around weak play. Blind battles are good examples of instances where people's passivity can be exploited by an appropriately aggressive player.

[Sherman]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem here of course is that maximising your EV and winning the most chips is not the same thing in tournaments like it is in a cash game - you're damn right you should be afraid of bubbling out if by playing aggressively you decrease your EV, which is nearly always the case on the bubble. This is why the big stack has such a huge advantage at this stage. I'm sure he knows this - hell I don't even play tournaments and I know it. This is why the article is disappointing imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your paragraph quoted above is exactly why Adam wrote the article. Because most people "fear" bubbling out. And you are absolutely wrong (assuming you are playing within your bankroll) that you should "fear" bubbling out. In large MTTs, making it in the money is of little value. The key to making profits, as Adam's article makes very clear, is winning MTTs. To win you must get all of the chips.

Most MTT regulars advise that you should always make the play that has the greatest positive chip expectation in multitable tournaments. The only exceptions to this are at the Final Table where the payout structure dictates that survival actually has a lot of value and in multi-seat satellites where bubbling is a disaster. Otherwise, Adam's article makes it very clear that you should play to get all of the chips. Most people don't play (or think) that way as you have clearly demonstrated.

[Dr_Doctr]

When I said you should be 'afraid' of bubbling out I didn't use the word to denote an emotion - I meant that you should play more passively than usual if that increases your EV. I was using it in the sense that you should 'fear' playing passively if that decreases your EV too. If you have a dominant stack on the bubble of say a SNG it's often correct to open-shove repeatedly with any two cards. I wasn't suggesting otherwise.

In tournaments whoever finishes with all the chips doesn't win all the money. This in effect is a penalty for finishing first. You still want to finish first of course, since first wins the most money. But tournament payout structures certainly affect optimal strategy.

'Most MTT regulars advise that you should always make the play that has the greatest positive chip expectation in multitable tournaments.'

But who do the MMT regulars advise this to? This is fine advice for someone who knows nothing about how tournament structure affects optimal strategy in relation to a cash game and has decided to play a style completely different and super-passive/survival-orientated from how they play in a cash game. Playing exactly the same in a tournament as in a cash game is close enough to not make someone adjust to the tournament too badly but it's certainly not optimal. Just because some MTT regulars advise it and maybe take that approach themselves doesn't mean it's the best way to play. Besides, I honestly don't think there is too many people reading 2+2 magazine who don't know enough about the general math governing how optimal strategy for tournaments is affected by the structure of the tournament for this generic advice to be a revelation to them.

It's an interesting topic though. I read an article by Steve Badger who seems to present the same generic, misleading advice. I found this surprising as most of the articles on his website are excellect imo and I learned a lot from reading them. Here is a link

http://www.playwinningpoker.com/articles/03/06.html

The only person who seems to have gotten this right(ish - because he still doesn't present it very clearly) in print who I've read is, I hate saying it [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img], Mike Caro. Here is a link to the relevant article.

http://www.poker1.com/absolutenm/tem...0&zoneid=3

[Foucault]

[ QUOTE ]
The only person who seems to have gotten this right(ish - because he still doesn't present it very clearly) in print who I've read is, I hate saying it [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img], Mike Caro. Here is a link to the relevant article.

http://www.poker1.com/absolutenm/tem...0&zoneid=3

[/ QUOTE ]

This is one of the worst, if not the worst, discussions of tournament strategy I've ever read.

[Sherman]

[ QUOTE ]
When I said you should be 'afraid' of bubbling out I didn't use the word to denote an emotion - I meant that you should play more passively than usual if that increases your EV. I was using it in the sense that you should 'fear' playing passively if that decreases your EV too. If you have a dominant stack on the bubble of say a SNG it's often correct to open-shove repeatedly with any two cards. I wasn't suggesting otherwise.

In tournaments whoever finishes with all the chips doesn't win all the money. This in effect is a penalty for finishing first. You still want to finish first of course, since first wins the most money. But tournament payout structures certainly affect optimal strategy.

'Most MTT regulars advise that you should always make the play that has the greatest positive chip expectation in multitable tournaments.'

But who do the MMT regulars advise this to? This is fine advice for someone who knows nothing about how tournament structure affects optimal strategy in relation to a cash game and has decided to play a style completely different and super-passive/survival-orientated from how they play in a cash game. Playing exactly the same in a tournament as in a cash game is close enough to not make someone adjust to the tournament too badly but it's certainly not optimal. Just because some MTT regulars advise it and maybe take that approach themselves doesn't mean it's the best way to play. Besides, I honestly don't think there is too many people reading 2+2 magazine who don't know enough about the general math governing how optimal strategy for tournaments is affected by the structure of the tournament for this generic advice to be a revelation to them.

It's an interesting topic though. I read an article by Steve Badger who seems to present the same generic, misleading advice. I found this surprising as most of the articles on his website are excellect imo and I learned a lot from reading them. Here is a link

http://www.playwinningpoker.com/articles/03/06.html

The only person who seems to have gotten this right(ish - because he still doesn't present it very clearly) in print who I've read is, I hate saying it [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img], Mike Caro. Here is a link to the relevant article.

http://www.poker1.com/absolutenm/tem...0&zoneid=3

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok I am going to try to make this as clear as possible. You said yourself you don't play tournament poker, yet you are claiming to be a somewhat expert on the topic. Myself and Foucault (both MTT regular posters) have pointed out that your logic about playing passively on the bubble is in general wrong. Yes there are exceptions; I'll make an exhaustive list right here:

1) It is a satellite with every person recieving the same prize who gets ITM. Of course you shouldn't play to win.

2) It is at the Final Table where the prizes increase dramatically. It may be better to take a more passive approach because sneaking up the pay ladder means a lot here. Consider Joe Hachem's WSOP ME win. He didn't do much at the FT until late.

3) You are so incredibly short stacked that you have no chance of making any significant payout levels no matter what you do. Then of course you should just try to fold into as much money as possible.

Note that situation #3 very very rarely occurs. We are talking like less than 2BBs on the ITM bubble. Otherwise, you should try to double up a few times to get yourself back in contention for big prizes.

Anyhow, that's it. Those are the exceptions where one should not play to get all the chips. Otherwise, playing not to get all the chips in an MTT costs you money. Maybe this is why tournament poker is so profitable? Despite efforts to express appropriate strategy, people still hold onto to their own conceptions about what "must be right and wrong" for tournaments. Hmmm.

[Foucault]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When I said you should be 'afraid' of bubbling out I didn't use the word to denote an emotion - I meant that you should play more passively than usual if that increases your EV. I was using it in the sense that you should 'fear' playing passively if that decreases your EV too. If you have a dominant stack on the bubble of say a SNG it's often correct to open-shove repeatedly with any two cards. I wasn't suggesting otherwise.

In tournaments whoever finishes with all the chips doesn't win all the money. This in effect is a penalty for finishing first. You still want to finish first of course, since first wins the most money. But tournament payout structures certainly affect optimal strategy.

'Most MTT regulars advise that you should always make the play that has the greatest positive chip expectation in multitable tournaments.'

But who do the MMT regulars advise this to? This is fine advice for someone who knows nothing about how tournament structure affects optimal strategy in relation to a cash game and has decided to play a style completely different and super-passive/survival-orientated from how they play in a cash game. Playing exactly the same in a tournament as in a cash game is close enough to not make someone adjust to the tournament too badly but it's certainly not optimal. Just because some MTT regulars advise it and maybe take that approach themselves doesn't mean it's the best way to play. Besides, I honestly don't think there is too many people reading 2+2 magazine who don't know enough about the general math governing how optimal strategy for tournaments is affected by the structure of the tournament for this generic advice to be a revelation to them.

It's an interesting topic though. I read an article by Steve Badger who seems to present the same generic, misleading advice. I found this surprising as most of the articles on his website are excellect imo and I learned a lot from reading them. Here is a link

http://www.playwinningpoker.com/articles/03/06.html

The only person who seems to have gotten this right(ish - because he still doesn't present it very clearly) in print who I've read is, I hate saying it [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img], Mike Caro. Here is a link to the relevant article.

http://www.poker1.com/absolutenm/tem...0&zoneid=3

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok I am going to try to make this as clear as possible. You said yourself you don't play tournament poker, yet you are claiming to be a somewhat expert on the topic. Myself and Foucault (both MTT regular posters) have pointed out that your logic about playing passively on the bubble is in general wrong. Yes there are exceptions; I'll make an exhaustive list right here:

1) It is a satellite with every person recieving the same prize who gets ITM. Of course you shouldn't play to win.

2) It is at the Final Table where the prizes increase dramatically. It may be better to take a more passive approach because sneaking up the pay ladder means a lot here. Consider Joe Hachem's WSOP ME win. He didn't do much at the FT until late.

3) You are so incredibly short stacked that you have no chance of making any significant payout levels no matter what you do. Then of course you should just try to fold into as much money as possible.

Note that situation #3 very very rarely occurs. We are talking like less than 2BBs on the ITM bubble. Otherwise, you should try to double up a few times to get yourself back in contention for big prizes.

Anyhow, that's it. Those are the exceptions where one should not play to get all the chips. Otherwise, playing not to get all the chips in an MTT costs you money. Maybe this is why tournament poker is so profitable? Despite efforts to express appropriate strategy, people still hold onto to their own conceptions about what "must be right and wrong" for tournaments. Hmmm.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is kind of an extrapolation from (1), but as I mentioned in my article this month, I think it can also be correct when the payout structure offers a steep jump on the money bubble followed by a long, slow climb to the top prizes. Last year's WSOP ME payouts were a great example of this, where busting on the bubble would cost you like $17K, but after the bubble, payouts jumped by like 1K for every couple of tables that busted. This is very similar to a satellite payout.

In general, though, I of course agree with everything you're saying, Sherman.

[DerrtySlime]

I am Adam Kozak.
When i was writing this article about tournaments, i began trying to evaluate when I did the best in tournaments and what i did. I noticed that the times I went deep is when i did not play textbook, super tight style. I noticed that When i played 18-25% of pots I put myself into many more situations where the cards didn't matter and i could pretty much lean on these tight guys who would stare at their cards and make a decision. Often times, weak players enter the pot with a raise, or some limp and i would have position, look down and find like Js 4c or some garbage and fold. But then i started to raise to isolate these tight weak players who will only continue with top pair and i found out that you MUST do these things throughout the tournamewnt if you're going to put yourself in a good spot to win the tournament . This was what i was tyring top convery in my article, you MUST pick up chips once in a while when you have no cards to play with. Playing my cards was getting me NO-WHERE. Not even survival because my definition of survival is surviving until the last player. I tried my best to focus on good situatoins where i was playing IN POSITION against abc type players ,regaredless of my cards and looking for spots where they continually act weak. This was what i was trying to get through in my article because it happens so much in MTT's. Just remember that tight players only want to go broke with really good hands so if you can continue to force them to either go all the way or avoid the possibility of pain and fold, they will fold way more times than they put it on the line. People in life or on the poker table will act much more in ways that avoid pain than a chance to experience pleasure.

Also, in regards to players saying that there are times you should slide into the money, this is very rare. In certain types of tournaments for example Focault's example of the ME, yes you should slide in if you can and THEN gamble. But in pretty much every tourney online this is not the case. Often a double up when you're the short stack can be huge because then you have open push fold equity. Or you double up from a short stack and you have RE raise fold equity. By doublng up, you increase your chance of winning chips preflop, which in a situation of the bubble, good/decent open push chances will come up frequently. hope some of you got something of out of it ,later.

[Dr_Doctr]

Sherman - I never suggested playing passively in tournaments or playing passively on the bubble full-stop. This is what you seem to be attributing to me and you are putting words in my mouth if so. I don't have a 'logic about playing passively on the bubble'. I have have a logic about playing on the bubble in such a way as to maximise your EV - whether that be passively, hyper-aggressively or whateverly. My only point is that how to play cannot be decided simply by playing the same as in a cash game, though that may be close depending on the structure - I don't know. I'm no expert, as you imply, another claim you misattribute to me. The examples you give as exceptions to cash-game style play are fine and I don't want to dispute them. To see why these are exceptions or if they are exceptions in some tournaments and not in others, you need to refer to the structure of the tournament and how that affects optimal strategy for that tournaments or stages within it. That was basically my main point and I can't see anything substantial that we disagree on. My main complaint about Adam's article was that he doesn't seem to make clear that tournament structures influence correct strategy for the tournament. If that wasn't clear from my posts I apologise.

Adam, Sherman, Foucault - I think I may have been harsh in my evaluation of the article. If what Sherman is saying is true - that most or some people think you should play super-passively in tournaments by default, then recommending otherwise - something more in line with generally applicable strategy, cannot hurt. I wasn't aware that this belief was commonplace. But such a belief is just another example of not understanding that, or how, specific tournament structures affect strategy for those tournaments.