Touney Question From Jeff 76

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But I am raising this everytime and C-betting most flops. Ideally I'll hit a set, but if I don't I'll probably take it down with my flop bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you should do that with any two cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a wide range here. But not any 2.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can "probably" take it down with a flop bet, then clearly you should do this with any 2 and be profitable.

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read anything by either gordon or lindgren, but I am very surprised that a good player would endorse a "take chances in order to get a big stack early" strategy as +EV. It's something a lot of people do, but it's definitely -EV.

[/ QUOTE ]
It may be immediately -EV but if you are competent at using a big stack and the extra power that provides in a tournament, getting a big lead on your table can provide a huge increase in the expected value of your tournament. You're really going to have to defend that statement.

As far as the hand presented, I would raise almost always, because there are so many factors working in my favor (position and hand strength most notably) that I want more money in the pot.

[creedofhubris]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But I am raising this everytime and C-betting most flops. Ideally I'll hit a set, but if I don't I'll probably take it down with my flop bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you should do that with any two cards. Have you asked yourself why the CO limped first in?

[/ QUOTE ]

because he's a fish?

[creedofhubris]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So, long tourneys with 100 BB stacks approximate cash games.


[/ QUOTE ]

nope.

[/ QUOTE ]

because?

[Dot_the_Bot]

sorry. There is still a legitimate risk of ruin at every point of the tournament, even the beginning.

People that think beginning stages are like a cashgame won't necessarily go wrong with their decisions (assuming they play cashgames sensibly), but they are limited from seeing how some plays are optimal for tournament play, because of that assumption.

[Brocktoon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So, long tourneys with 100 BB stacks approximate cash games.


[/ QUOTE ]

nope.

[/ QUOTE ]

because?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the company line is that they would be the same as cash games assuming that the people in your average tournament played the same way as people in comprable cash games played.

The assumption is that most tourny players are far more apt to stack off/go all-in with inadequate holdings, even when the stacks are deep, than a typical cashgame player would be.

Therefore, you have to play differently to exploit this tendency than you would in a cashgame. You'll also be more likely to go broke in this scenario than you would be to lose a full buy-in at a cashgame due to the increased number of all-ins you will be facing and the similarly wider range of hands you wil have to call the all-ins with.

[Dot_the_Bot]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So, long tourneys with 100 BB stacks approximate cash games.


[/ QUOTE ]

nope.

[/ QUOTE ]

because?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the company line is that they would be the same as cash games assuming that the people in your average tournament played the same way as people in comprable cash games played.

The assumption is that most tourny players are far more apt to stack off/go all-in with inadequate holdings, even when the stacks are deep, than a typical cashgame player would be.

Therefore, you have to play differently to exploit this tendency than you would in a cashgame. You'll also be more likely to go broke in this scenario than you would be to lose a full buy-in at a cashgame due to the increased number of all-ins you will be facing and the similarly wider range of hands you wil have to call the all-ins with.

[/ QUOTE ]

yup.

[curious123]

[ QUOTE ]
sorry. There is still a legitimate risk of ruin at every point of the tournament, even the beginning.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should choose another term.

[Dot_the_Bot]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sorry. There is still a legitimate risk of ruin at every point of the tournament, even the beginning.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should choose another term.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im pretty bad about terms in general...my bad. Give me a better one and Ill be all for it. I guess Im saying that the larger expectancy of reaching ruin (and avoiding it), along with the fact that everyone else has that expectancy, changes the makeup of the game so dramatically that it overshadows every level (long before it ever becomes 'coinflip hell').

[curious123]

"Risk of elimination" or w/e, it's just that "risk of ruin" is already a well-defined term commonly used in gambling theory.