3SP: A new NLHE format that requires skill, not recklessness.

[Requin]

[ QUOTE ]
But putting your entire tourney on the line by going all-in for 15,000 into a pot that's only 1,250, and has more than 3 callers, when the blinds are 100/200 isn't skillful... it's idiotic.

It's easy to say that a good player will eventually get the chips... and in a cash game it's true. But in an MTT without a rebuy, all it takes is being out-drawn one time by an all-iniot to ruin your entire day.


[/ QUOTE ]
Are you're saying bad players make bad (read: -ev) overbet shoves early on, and your style prevents that?

[Vorlin]

[ QUOTE ]
TL, DR.

But anyway, it's the decent luck factor that keeps the donks (=producers) playing. If the luck factor is reduced to much, then the amount of donks will fade, since they'll win even more rarely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point... and this is the kind of response that helps constructively form an idea like this one into something useful, if that's possible.

So any adjustments would need to allow enough luck to keep the masses interested too. Perhaps a structure that worked up to all-in's by level 5 instead of level 18? This would allow a short time to get situated...

Or maybe 5SP instead of 3SP? Allowing for larger moves but still not making it all or nothing, for a time.

Not sure where a good balance could be... and if only 20% of the field was made up of Kamikazes then NL from the first hand is fine. It's only when 1/3 to 1/2 of the field is suicidal that it gets out of hand.

[Vraket]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TL, DR.

But anyway, it's the decent luck factor that keeps the donks (=producers) playing. If the luck factor is reduced to much, then the amount of donks will fade, since they'll win even more rarely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point... and this is the kind of response that helps constructively form an idea like this one into something useful, if that's possible.

So any adjustments would need to allow enough luck to keep the masses interested too. Perhaps a structure that worked up to all-in's by level 5 instead of level 18? This would allow a short time to get situated...

Or maybe 5SP instead of 3SP? Allowing for larger moves but still not making it all or nothing, for a time.

Not sure where a good balance could be... and if only 20% of the field was made up of Kamikazes then NL from the first hand is fine. It's only when 1/3 to 1/2 of the field is suicidal that it gets out of hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or just letting NL holdem be...NL holdem (TL DR @ Ur response)?

[Rusty Nails]

Stop playing freerolls?

[Vorlin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But putting your entire tourney on the line by going all-in for 15,000 into a pot that's only 1,250, and has more than 3 callers, when the blinds are 100/200 isn't skillful... it's idiotic.

It's easy to say that a good player will eventually get the chips... and in a cash game it's true. But in an MTT without a rebuy, all it takes is being out-drawn one time by an all-iniot to ruin your entire day.


[/ QUOTE ]
Are you're saying bad players make bad (read: -ev) overbet shoves early on, and your style prevents that?

[/ QUOTE ]

What it prevents is being forced to go all in or nothing all the time. What it prevents is calling someone down when they have nothing and then having your entire day ruined by one flop that came down on the 30% side of your 70% favorable situation, that you correctly called him on.

We all loose pots when the flop goes the other way. That's no big deal.. but being forced to put your entire day on the line every single time you simply try to play a pot is what's going to cause some people to leave the game...

... but it won't be the donks who leave.

[Mingdu]

So the good players leave and the donks saty?

Seriously, that is my only hope

[tedtodd]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks, never heard of "PushBotting" but, if I understand the idea, it's an attempt to get all the chips in anytime you're +EV.

That's great for a cash game but when you're trying to make the final table of a 1500+ person event you can't shove every time you're +EV beacause the game is one of probability, not certainty. The bets have to be in proportion to the reward and limit risk... the RRR.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry if I misunderstood the original post, but pushbotting isn't for cash games. It's strictly for mid to end game tournament strategy in which you or other stacks are short. <10BB's or so.

I don't believe pushing early in tournaments when very deepstacked is +EV at all.

[kindling]

"Kill Phil" advocates exactly the strategy you're complaining about, and for exactly the reason you're complaining about it. It levels the playing field a little, and forces a more skilled player into a decision for all their chips, which they don't like doing if they think they're +EV in the tourney.

Even the authors of the book commented that although it works for the less skilled player (and can be adjusted as your skills increase), they don't particularly like what the game becomes. I don't recall if they provided an alternative tournament format that would be better for the skilled player.

No matter what strategy you follow, to make the final table of a 1000+ field, you're going to have to get lucky a few times. Maybe it's worth it to gamble it up earlier, and start up the next one if you come out behind.

I think you just need to find tourney formats and structure that work for you, and give you the kind of game you want to play.

And Good Luck with your format, it might be interesting to play, and would be fun to give it a try. It seems that it's got something in common with the spread limit games that are talked about in the Feb magazine. I hadn't seen this format discussed before, as I think it's used in live ring games, not online tourneys. If you haven't seen it, maybe it's worth a read.

http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/c...eyvis0207.html

[Vorlin]

I have to run here in a few but thanks for the lively discussion! A couple of points:

All in or nothing is a good strategy for a novice but only if the ratio of novices to players is 1:4 or less. More than that, it turns into bingo.

Regarding pushboting: Mid tourney and later anything goes! To me, that's when NLHE really comes into it's own. It's only the abuse of going all in as it happens in the first third of an MTT that drives me nuts. After the first 4-5 levels, things settle in quite nicely.

RE: Not playing freerolls... I wish that were a viable option but, for now, it's not. Maybe soon though...

To me, the whole point of this isn't to replace NLHE MTT's but to offer a side-by-side alternative... particularly in freeroll and low buy in events. I'm only advocating this format adjustment in the first 1/3 to 1/2 of the MTT... the final half should stay just as it is. Mid tourney is where good judgement is rewarded most, and all-ins become an offensive weapon. In the later stages all-ins are a survival tool as the blinds keep escalating... and so becomes a defensive, as well as offensive weapon.

Larger buy in events probably see far fewer maniacs... and having a few is fine. It's only when every tourney you enter seems to be over run by them that it gets discouraging.

And I'll pull up that February article on spread limit now so I can read it later, thanks.

Thanks guys, off to watch a movie with my kids. They're in from across the country so I'm going to go enjoy the time with them.

Vorlin

[DVaut1]

A few things:

1) The OP's post probably belongs in BBV, for obvious reasons. Yes, it's true, OP isn't bemoaning 1 or 2 beats, but he's essentially bemoaning a collection of beats. This is merely a discussion of variance that really has nothing to do with MTT strategy. I suppose OP's invention of a new MTT format to disguise a long-winded bad beat rant was creative, so perhaps that deserves some credit; but again, from my vantage point, this looks BBV-ish.

2) OP: I think you're displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of expected value and other basic gambling and probability concepts. The notion that PF all-in maniacs aren't exploitable is ridiculous, ESPECIALLY in the situations you cite!

Recall one of your examples: "putting your entire tourney on the line by going all-in for 15,000 into a pot that's only 1,250...when the blinds are 100/200 isn't skillful". If there really are tournaments where players with SEVENTY FIVE TIMES the big blind are pushing all-in regularly into tiny pots PF, please let me know of these tournaments. I'd wager these are some of the most profitable tournaments for good players if they really do exist.

Some of the tournaments that sort of resemble this (where a good number of mediocre/bad players are deep stacked and the blinds are small) are tournaments like the Stars $10r, which are some of the most profitable tournaments on the internet for good players.

Even if we suppose PF all-in maniacs aren't exploitable, then anyone who refuses to become a PF all-in maniac is the actual unskilled donkey, contrary to what the OP claims.

Under no circumstances can both "beating maniacs is impossible" and "maniacs don't have skill" be true, since it's inherently contradictory. Again, I think the the reason you, the OP, believes both of these statements to be true is because of a fundamental misunderstanding of EV and basic zero-sum game strategies.

Put differently, if 'good' players can't figure out how to beat PF all-in maniacs, then those PF all-in maniacs are not playing badly -- they're playing optimally. I realize other posters have gently tried to inform the OP of this by citing Kill Phil and what not, in an attempt to demonstrate that using the all-in move is exactly what novice and unskilled post-flop players should be doing given their relative skill disadvantage, which of course is met with "but I don't want to have to go all-in the time!" by the OP -- to which the response should be "no [censored] sherlock, that's the point".

OP, if you truly dislike variance as much as it seems, I think you should just abandon poker now and save yourself some headaches. The presence of bad players, especially LAGtardy maniacs, makes the game extremely profitable for good players, regardless of how much you dislike gambling/variance/unpredictable situations.