Tournament play and skill ? - Page 4

PantsOnFire · #31 03-13-2007, 02:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"Everybody has a ticket (like in a lottery) to win the tournament. The best skilled players may have up to ten tickets, the least have maybe a half ticket."

Ergo - the larger the tournament, the less are my odds to win it ... unaffected by the skills I have.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think what Harrington is saying is that the best players have 20 times the chance of winning as a bad player. I think that implies that skill is involved.

However, overall the picture is somewhat dimmer. Assume 1000 entrants. All are average players with one ticket. You are a pro with 10 tickets. You have ten times more of a chance of winning than anybody else. However, you have 10 tickets out of 1000 so you still only have a 1 in 100 chance of winning. But that is better than the 1 in 1000 chance of the average guy.

I really don't understand this luck opinion in tournaments. It's not a total crapshoot. Better players have a better chance of winning. And yes, even better players need some luck to actually win it all, but they need less luck than an average player. It's all relative.

Tackleberry · #32 03-14-2007, 04:32 AM

I am really impressed and delighted about the serious and objective way, facts or theories are discussed here.

Nevertheless a funny response. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Tackleberry · #33 03-14-2007, 04:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think what Harrington is saying is that the best players have 20 times the chance of winning as a bad player. I think that implies that skill is involved.

However, overall the picture is somewhat dimmer. Assume 1000 entrants. All are average players with one ticket. You are a pro with 10 tickets. You have ten times more of a chance of winning than anybody else. However, you have 10 tickets out of 1000 so you still only have a 1 in 100 chance of winning. But that is better than the 1 in 1000 chance of the average guy.

I really don't understand this luck opinion in tournaments. It's not a total crapshoot. Better players have a better chance of winning. And yes, even better players need some luck to actually win it all, but they need less luck than an average player. It's all relative.

[/ QUOTE ]

That´s exactly what I wanted to say, using the quote of Harrington! Sorry, if this was not clear at all ...

Surely it is no crapshoot, otherwise we (or at least I) wouldnt be here ... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

PhantomGoose · #34 03-14-2007, 05:51 AM

It's not a crapshoot, although it can approach one depending on structure. I think Dan H said something to the effect that a big NLHE tourney like the ME can have an expectation 7x more than the buy-in (for a good pro). That's not a crap shoot.

I think the thing with tournaments is it that "the long run" is a lot longer than with cash games because the results are far more inconsistent.

Also, I think adaptation skills are even more important in tournaments. If you do well, you'll play against all kinds of players at all kinds of speeds. You have to constantly adjust ranges based on stack sizes-

I like Harrington's Zone approach, but I've largely abandoned it as I have a better feel for the implied odds various holding will give me. Also, SNG PT has helped me map out my shortstack & HU play considerably. I know when to push Q high preflop, etc, where in many cases I'd have to guess approx ranges.

These are just small edges in the grand scheme of things, but every little bit helps.

I'm also from the accumulation school for early-tournament play. It's harder to get eliminiated with a decent stack, and for my part I my results seemed to have improved when I did this (also, I didn't waste as much time in tourneys where I was elimiated early).