EPT Monte Carlo Trip Report (3rd and Final Part)

[Ansky]

[ QUOTE ]
there's the point that by doubling up once here when you double up next against an idiot with a big stack its for that much more and etc etc there are billions of args. Everyone thinks what they think. So be it I guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many 10k events have you played? I mean, the play varies, but to say that you won't get it in w/ better than a 53/47 on avg is a mistake in general from my experience.

I have played 4 live events not including turningstone donkaments, and overall the play has been horrid in 1, fairly bad in 2 of them, and decent in 1. All of which however were significantly worse play than a standard 109 online freezeout.

[Black Aces 518]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know why this entire situation has gotten me actually angry because it just shows how bad the vast vast majority of tournament players are, and even players whom I know to be very good poker players are not understanding the concepts behind this hand at all.

There is NO SUCH THING in MTT's as giving up a +Equity spot because of the variance in order to get a higher equity spot later. Anyone that says that is just playing scared and hasn't taken a look whatsoever at the math involved in MTT's. If we get PA to think we're strong and we get his moves to be telegraphed, then that's HUGE WIN us. Those idiots that were talking about folding if he turned his hand faceup... sigh. I'm glad you all exist, and the best part about MTT's is that you all are better then average, which lets you know all the spots to hit. We had a chance to get a ton of chips as a favorite to do so. That is all we can hope for; END OF STORY. Great hand man, you went for chip accumulation when you're supposed to. Everyone else, try and learn what your goals are when you play an MTT and then rethink the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, so honest question then, if first hand of the tournament you are dealt 22. With 10k starting stacks and 25/50 blinds. Player in CO raises allin and exposes his cards before you act in the BB and shows AKs. You are a favorite, I assume you instacall right? Just want to make sure I am not misunderstanding you.
~J

[/ QUOTE ]

Did someone dump another buyin's worth of chips on the table first?

[Bonified]

[ QUOTE ]
According to your ruling here, Sklansky (Tournament Poker for Advanced Players), Brunson (Super System 2) and Phil Hellmuth are obviously making a huge error when they say the best players should pass up marginally +EV situations like the 22 v. AK one here.

Those guys clearly don't know what they're talking about . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

That's no kind of argument at all. What if I pull out three names who disagree ? Do we have to judge whether my three names are better than your three names or would we be better off trying to work it out for ourselves ?

Go and read Chen/Ankenman if you're not clear on this. I happen to agree with mastr but in my experience there's little or no point trying to convince anyone who is in the other camp.

[mastr]

meh, 4 10k events for me as well unless you meant you were only 4 live events period. Only one that's overall awful enough to make me think about not doing this was WSOP ME, and then I'd still do it for an hourly rate thing. Busto now and get the rest of the week free or start with a double stack, but that's a completely different facet of the convo entirely.

Yeah Chen/Ankenman are in agreement on this, and there was like a 3 page article in cardplayer with boatloads of math on this very thing as well (only good cardplayer article i've ever seen)

[Bonified]

I think this is the article, by Matt Matros :

http://www.cardplayer.com/author/article/all/162/4080

BTW The reason why I'm recommending reading Chen/Ankenman (and/or this Matros article) is that they explain their position, they don't just state it. If people still don't agree after that, fine. I've read all the authors cited (yes even Hellmuth, god damn that book sucked), and Cloutier besides who says much the same thing, but only Sklansky explains why and frankly I'm not convinced (I believe his "make a good bet today or a better bet tomorrow" analogy to be flawed).

[mastr]

ah yes, but in the article its QQ v AK, which EVERYONE would agree to take cuz its 57 %. No one in the world should ever pass on 57 %

Edit: he makes the arg for AKs which is 53.7 % so its same arg as 22 v AK so nvmd.

[terrellk11]

[ QUOTE ]
ah yes, but in the article its QQ v AK, which EVERYONE would agree to take cuz its 57 %. No one in the world should ever pass on 57 %

Edit: he makes the arg for AKs which is 53.7 % so its same arg as 22 v AK so nvmd.

[/ QUOTE ]

It makes sense not to pass up small advantages in the later stages of the tournament when blinds and antes are much larger in relation to the average stacks and you may not have a better opportunity. It doesn't make as much sense when you've got 200 blinds worth of stack to work with and plenty of time to pick and choose a better spot to put your cash in.

The best arguments in favor of the "wait for a better opportunity" camp are:

1. The fact that it's used and advocated by Hellmuth (yes, the book did suck like a cheap whore), Brunson and Cloutier. These are arguably the three most succesful tournament players in the history of the game with a combined total of 26 WSOP bracelets and 135 WSOP cashes. I'd be willing to bet that most of the other highly successful tournament players take the same approach.

2. The most important goal of the first day is simply surviving. You can't win a five day event on day 1. You don't need to accumulate a huge stack on day 1 because it means so very little at that point. Nothing you do on the first day is going to win the WSOP for you (or in the case of this thread, the Monte Carlo championship). The first day chip leader has never won.

Think of it this way. In Monte Carlo, Gavin finished the first day with only about 90% of an average stack and went on to win the whole event for 1.8 million euros. Chad Brown finished the first day with the chip lead at nearly five times the average stack. He finished 33rd for 23 thousand euros.

This was the point I was trying (unsuccessfully) to make earlier in this thread when I argued that Adam shouldn't be gambling in this spot. Getting the extra chips in this spot isn't going to win the event for him. However, losing 80% of his stack might very well lose it. A player with his massive skill advantage over his opponents (and if he was able to read PA in this situation that accurately, it would apply to him as well) should be able to get his money in with a much larger advantage.

Now bigjoe has made the very realistic point that making this call may have had other benefits (press, endorsements, etc.). If that was what Adam wanted, then absolutely it would sway his decision. However, if his goal was to win the tournament, picking a fight with the only other good player at his table for 80% of his chip stack with a 6% edge over his opponent holding ace high on Day 1 of a five-day event isn't, in my personal amatuer opinion, the best way to do so.

[nath]

Wow, all those posts criticizing Adam for the play saying he just got lucky... man, have any of you EVER played a live tournament? The amount of information you have available to you is so much more and detailed than you would in an online tournament, that yeah, even though his range would, absent any other information, include some one pair hands and monsters and stuff, when you have all the time you need to think about the scenario, and all the time you need to study your opponent, you can throw out certain things, and trust the instincts and intuition you've developed over hours and hours and hundreds of thousands of hands. If Adam feels good about his read, I won't be one to argue with him.

I don't really want to debate whether or not it's egotistical or arrogant of him to make the comments he made, but humility is a good thing for every poker player to recognize. We are in a very fortunate spot, and I try to keep a greater appreciation of that, being able to make the living I do because I'm in the right place at the right time.

edit: I suppose most of you that see me in tournaments online know I often do a poor job of this.

[mastr]

terrelk your post reads like something Tom McEvoy would write word for word.

[j00hndayton]

Wow, one of the most interesting trip reports/poker stories I have read in a long time. That will be a lifelong story for you. In a weird way, congrats?