Poker Qustion From Apak

[David Sklansky]

"You're an amateur but quite well versed in good poker strategy. You get to the final table of a live tournament, along with several semi-pros or pros, who seem arrogantly inclined to assume you're a fish simply -- let's assume --because they don't know you. Is it in your best EV interests to try to disabuse them by casually giving some evidence of competence, or are you better off on balance leaving them thinking you're a worse player than you actually are?"

Let's see what others have to say first.

[alphatmw]

strategy against "fish" is very straight forward. its definitely better to make them think you are a low thinking player, as analyzing their actions will become all more easy.

[lippy]

They would of played with you enough by the final table to tell whether or not you're a donk.

[sandman-54]

It seems to me that this would help you out, as stealing the antes is becoming increasingly important and your image is currently that of someone an expert would try to get involved with or take shots at. However, going all the way back to David's Fundamental Theorem of Poker, I just feel fundamentally wrong in making this claim.

...but I'm still thinking.

I hope those that play tournament poker a lot (and eventually David) could help get this thread going by answering my question: What relationship would the following things have with your answer? To be more precise, which way would each of the following elements sway your decision and by how much?

-The effective stack sizes relative to the size of the blinds and antes

-The rate at which the levels increase

-How concentrated the prize money is to the top few places

-If your image is that of one that plays too loose or one that plays too tight

[sandman-54]

[ QUOTE ]
They would of played with you enough by the final table to tell whether or not you're a donk.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's quite possible in this instance that some of them have never played at the same table as you.

[Ryanb9]

IMO, A list of the pro's and con's of each would be a good way to get it started. Feel free to add (or subtract w/reason) to the list if you want. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Pro's of proving competence (and losing "fish" image):
-Less likly players will "make moves" on you
-Your bets having more "respect" behind them
-Gain of popularity in "pro player" community
-Perhaps gaining "pro" friends which would greatly boost your EV in your poker future
-Making a "name" for yourself and gaining respect in the poker community as a general


Con's of proving competence (and maintaining "fish" image):
-Players will make less mistakes against you then they normally would agaisnt a bad player
-Being unknown or marked as a "bad player" is a great mask because you are actually a well balanced player
-Trying to prove your competence as a poker player may come off as rude, and even give you a "x on your back"
-You could be under pressure to prove how good you are, thus stearing you away from your A-game



Sandman's questions:

-The effective stack sizes relative to the size of the blinds and antes

-Deepstacked gives your opponents more time to figure you out. Proving yourself to be "good" would give them a head-start in figuring out how you play.
-Having a bad player image with short stacks and big blinds would make you a target for blind stealing
-


-How concentrated the prize money is to the top few places

-
-
-

-If your image is that of one that plays too loose or one that plays too tight

-If your best game (b/c of this table) is very loose or very tight, a "fish" image would diguise the fact that you are playing this way for a reason. It could also make the other players think you are incapable of switching gears.
-
-

More reasons welcome! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Xhad]

I disagree with almost that entire list. We're talking about this tournament only, not long term. Also I don't necessarily agree that you will have less "moves" made on you because they'll know that you know how to fold; imo the WORST table image you can project against aggro players is that of someone who is worth bluffing against, particularly at the final table of a tournament where it's going to be correct to fold to pressure often.

I want them to think I'm a fish, and I don't really think it's that close. I have played live against players that are relatively close to me in skill level who think I'm a complete maniac (partly because I've cultivated that image on purpose in cash games).

-It allows you to bluff in situations where it's almost impossible that you have a legitimate hand; they think "Well he plays badly so he could have hit that card" and fold things they shouldn't
-They make -EV calls thinking they can make more money on later streets than they really can. They may also incorrectly pass on gambles because "I'll get him later"
-Losing some pots to you is that much more likely to put them on tilt (if stacks are still deep enough that it matters)

Of course even this is probably more argument than is necessary. If your opponents are good enough to be pros, they are (on balance) more likely to correctly use any information that they are given. With that in mind, why would you give them information on purpose? It's not like you're giving them misinformation (to do that you'd have to start playing badly!), so unmasking yourself is at best neutral, unless you can demonstrate that they will misuse the information they are given.

EDIT:

[ QUOTE ]
Having a bad player image with short stacks and big blinds would make you a target for blind stealing

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF? I don't want to steal a bad player's big blind on the bubble; he might be stupid enough to call!

[blackize]

It seems to me that a lot of this depends on how big the stacks are in relation to the blinds. With average stacks from 10-30BBs I'd want them to think I'm a loose passive fish so that my steals get respect and they don't mess with my blinds or put moves on me because they think I'll call.

[Ryanb9]

[ QUOTE ]

I want them to think I'm a fish, and I don't really think it's that close.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying I disagree [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] But the best way to argue a side is to first argue as the opposing side. (credit - Mrs. Anderson... Highschool history teacher lol)

[creedofhubris]

If you are interested in a chop, you definitely want to display competence, because you'll get a better split.