X-Post from Books: Discussion about Poker Tournament Formula

[woodguy]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
Any method to build a stack early is effective no matter what the structure is. Mason was correct there. I deviate from Mason in that I think quick structures should lead us to different lines in certain cases.



Exactly. In a slow structure you've got many more options (play fast, slow, or a mix of both). In a fast structure unless you start off with a rush of premium cards the choices that give you a reasonable chance of success are more limited.

Al

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why good positional play early to build a stack is uber-important in online or fast paced live games.

You may not always get the cards, but you do always get the button.

Regards,
Woodguy

[Sherman]

This is from the part posted in the books forum:

[ QUOTE ]
Success in fast tournaments is not primarily about exploiting weak/tight players. And my book shows mathematically and in great detail why it is not primarily about playing according to the current size of your chip stack relative to the current blinds/antes. It is about making enough money during the portions of the tournament where you have the greatest control over your results to go into the crapshoot portions of a tournament with an advantage. Every fast tournament (and very many slow tournaments with large field sizes) turns into a crapshoot at a very predictable point in the tournament, which my book shows players how to predict.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't this sound a little bit like Nath's online (and maybe not online) tournament strategy? Playing lots of hands early for small pots and outplaying opponents post-flop etc. to make build a big stack. Then when the fast structure catches up to others, you have a big stack to beat them around with (or you already busted).

This really seems to make sense to me.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't this sound a little bit like Nath's online (and maybe not online) tournament strategy? Playing lots of hands early for small pots and outplaying opponents post-flop etc. to make build a big stack. Then when the fast structure catches up to others, you have a big stack to beat them around with (or you already busted).

This really seems to make sense to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure it's a bit different (no raising 74o or whatever it was from UTG) but I admit when I was reading the book I thought of Nath.

Also I should point out that fast tournaments aren't limited to online. A lot of live tournaments are very fast, especially when you take into account the difference in hands per hour that can be played live vs online. Also some online tournaments are, if not slow, at least not too fast. The book gives some specific examples of tournaments regularly held in Las Vegas as well as online to illustrate the wide range of possibilities in speed. MTTs on UB for example are relatively slow when compared to most of the examples given (the obvious exceptions being a few WSOP events which are all fairly slow, expecially the main event).

[Sherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't this sound a little bit like Nath's online (and maybe not online) tournament strategy? Playing lots of hands early for small pots and outplaying opponents post-flop etc. to make build a big stack. Then when the fast structure catches up to others, you have a big stack to beat them around with (or you already busted).

This really seems to make sense to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure it's a bit different (no raising 74o or whatever it was from UTG)

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to clarify, this is not a standard move of Nath or anyone. This was at a final table of weak players w/a very short stack in the BB and Nath w/a huge chiplead. And if I remember correctly, it was not quite a full table at the time.

[deankeaton7]

quickly: thanks for the link. there is some really thoughtful discussion there.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't this sound a little bit like Nath's online (and maybe not online) tournament strategy? Playing lots of hands early for small pots and outplaying opponents post-flop etc. to make build a big stack. Then when the fast structure catches up to others, you have a big stack to beat them around with (or you already busted).

This really seems to make sense to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure it's a bit different (no raising 74o or whatever it was from UTG)

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to clarify, this is not a standard move of Nath or anyone. This was at a final table of weak players w/a very short stack in the BB and Nath w/a huge chiplead. And if I remember correctly, it was not quite a full table at the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know. My comment was half in jest and half meant to imply that although Nath's style has some of these elements that it's unique to him. At least that's the way I perceive it.

[mornelth]

Thinking about M and stuff. M is the rough measure of the number of ORBITS you can fold and not play a hand and still stay in the tourney, right?

If your M is 30 - you're in the green zone, right?... The CORRECT answer is the good ol' favorite "it depends". If blinds are going to be doubled in the next couple of hands - your M will be 15. If blinds are going to be doubled in two orbits - then your REALISTIC (my definition) M is ... 16! Meaning, you CAN lose 2 orbits of blinds (your M drops to 28) and once the blinds double - your M gets chopped in half (2+14=16). Right so far?

Using similar extrapolation it should be clear that when you start two ALMOST EXACT SAME tournaments (starting chips, blinds, # of players, etc.) with the only difference being length of each level - then your M calculated by HOHII formula will be the same, but your REALISTIC M will be lower in the tournament with the shorter levels. This will continue to be the case throughout the tournament, so a strategy adjustment is absolutely necessary.

Let's assume you are enter Level 9 with an M of 14. Tournament structure 1 will have around 60 hands at this level, tournament structure 2 - only 30. Blinds will double after this level. In #1 you have 6 orbits in which to choose which hand to play before your M (and your FE) goes down the tubes, in #2 - only 30. I think it is OBVIOUS that you should be playing more aggressive/loose in #2 than #1 at this point. And (without reading the book) I think the point in question is - the faster the structure is - the more aggressive you should be in the early stages to accumulate a good-sized stack before everyone realizes that their M is [censored] and it's pushbot time.

Edit: Assuming all levels in #1 are 60 hands and 30 hands in #2 - your REALISTIC M in #1 is 10.5, and your REALISTIC M in #2 is 7.5 .

I do intend to buy the book at the first opportunity (when I'm done sqeezing every last drop of wizdom from NLHE-TaP).

[zoobird]

I haven't read the book yet (although I'm definitely buying it based on these two discussion threads) and I've only read parts of the other thread. I already felt that tournament speed does matter and even put together a spreadsheet to try to quantify it. Obviously all the recent posts about 'coming up with a better M' were by other people thinking about this too.

Here's my question: In the multi table turbo sngs that I play mostly ($6-$27), the structure is VERY fast. However, I feel like a big part of my skill advantage in these is that other people have no idea how to play short stack/pushbot poker. So is it safe to say that in this situation, I only need to take enough risks to accumulate enough chips to make sure I have a playable pushbot stack? In the $6+.50 and $15+1 turbos I just haven't found that my results are impacted that much by my stack size as long as I've got enough chips when the antes kick in to maintain some fold equity...so I basically just need to make sure to increase my stack from 1500 to somewhere between 2000 and 2500 over the first 30 minutes. Assuming that's 30 hands and the blinds hit me every other level, I probably lose about 400 chips to the blinds prior to that, so I would need to find a way to 'win' 900-1400 chips in the first 30 hands to have a big enough stack to pushbot effectively.

So near the beginning of those 30 hands I might just play tight hoping to get a big hand and double up, but as I get closer to the end of the 30 hands I need to start taking some risks. It almost seems as though Mason had things exactly reversed...the author's premise is correct, but you'd still probably play correctly in most situations if you use M as your only guide...just for the wrong reasons.

[A_PLUS]

Zoobird,

I think you are correct to be a little more survival oriented in these events. For one, you are close enough to the money at the start that large increases in your chip stack can't give a proportional increase to your $EV. Since players donk out left and right, the value of survival is pretty high, contrary to larger field events.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
However, I feel like a big part of my skill advantage in these is that other people have no idea how to play short stack/pushbot poker. So is it safe to say that in this situation, I only need to take enough risks to accumulate enough chips to make sure I have a playable pushbot stack? In the $6+.50 and $15+1 turbos I just haven't found that my results are impacted that much by my stack size as long as I've got enough chips when the antes kick in to maintain some fold equity...so I basically just need to make sure to increase my stack from 1500 to somewhere between 2000 and 2500 over the first 30 minutes. Assuming that's 30 hands and the blinds hit me every other level, I probably lose about 400 chips to the blinds prior to that, so I would need to find a way to 'win' 900-1400 chips in the first 30 hands to have a big enough stack to pushbot effectively.

[/ QUOTE ]

Zoobird,

Short answer is I'm not sure or possibly, as with most poker decisions, "it depends." I'm sure you've already seen A_Plus's response and you and he are more qualified to answer that question. But I'll throw out a few thoughts to consider. Obviously after reading the book you'll be in a a better position to decide how its ideas might apply to you.

The impact of tournament speed is exacerbated by field size. I assume the tournaments you're talking about (based on A_plus' comment) have small fields (30, 45, 100, 180, or ? - not sure what the possibilities on all sites are). Smaller fields would decrease the impact of speed, but obviously the even quicker blind levels in turbo tournaments offset that to some degree. The book discusses how to predict how tournaments will play out based on speed and field size and talks about what Snyder calls "crunch time." This is the point just before everyone realizes that they're short stacked and start getting desperate. Crunch time is when you need to accumulate chips if you haven't already to be able to more safely negotiate the period when everyone becomes desperate. Based on your comment this might be just before the antes kick in for the tournys you play.

Being skilled playing a short stack where you're forced to pushbot is an area that I need to work on more in my game. There will obviously be times when you become short stacked where these skills will be used. However the most perfectly executed short stack strategy carries some risk. Whenever all or most of your stack is at risk in one hand the possibility of someone waking up behind you with a real hand that holds up (or a bad hand that sucks out) always exists.

This point in the tournament is the time that Snyder describes in his book as a "crapshoot." Skillful play of a shortstack helps, but bad luck in cards vs your opponents at this stage could cripple you. One major premise of Snyder's book is to take on slightly more risk to build a chip stack early so you're better equipped to handle a few hits to your stack in the "crapshoot" stage. I suspect in your case that you'll adapt your strategy based on the tradeoffs of early risk vs your comfort with playing a short stack. Mathmatically your're better off with a bigger stack in the "crapshoot" portion of the tournament (Snyder works through why although I'm sure you already know this). However the math behind that assumes skill differential doesn't make a difference. In reality that might not be totally true. You may decide to take less risk early with the goal of building a stack that meets your size requirements for successful pushbotting. Or possibly you'll decide to take more risk early in an attempt to build an even bigger stack based on the knowledge that a bigger stack is always better, but if you fail your superior short stack play may still save the day.

My gut says that for me building as big a stack as I can with reasonable risk is the best approach. It sounds like you don't believe a stack over a certain size makes a difference when you reach the point of most people either folding or pushing. Is this something you've measured? Somewhere (possibly the original thread in the books forum) someone talked about not being comfortable and able to use a big stack so he'd play conservatively (maybe overly so) until he was short stacked. At that point he'd start playing his short stacked game since he was now in his comfort zone. I seriously doubt this applies to you, but is something to consider.

Al