Question about Harrington's books...

[Deadpool_AZ]

I just finished my first read through Vol 1. Seemed like a great book; it's already helped my tournament play. One question I have is this: in tournament play are the pot odds the most important consideration?

Mr. Harrington often talks about making bets where you want to entice a person to make a statistical mistake by calling, but implying that you actually want that call.

While I understand how this works well over time and makes perfect sense in cash games, it seems in tournaments, I don't just want the draws to make a small mistake by calling--I want them to make a big mistake by calling. In fact, I often don't really want them to call at all. For example, by offering someone, 3 - 1 odds on their flush draw, the odds are so close that they might be making a small mistake by calling, but their small mistake could cost me enough of my stack to put my tournament at risk.

I seem to remember reading one book (I have so many I can't remember which it was in) that if your opponent is on a draw and you think he may call a bet even though the pot odds aren't right, you should decline to value bet, accept the danger of the free card, then reevaluate on the turn.

I think the gist of it was that if the danger card hits on the turn, you can more easily get away from the hand, and if it doesn't, your opponent may be less likely to call with only one card to come. You may not be getting full value, but you are protecting your stack.

Can anyone discuss this a bit?

Thanks!

[jeffnc]

I agree with you in the sense that, although the book is very good, Harrington at times gets a little obsessed with pot-odds correct decision making. As you point out, pot odds do not tell the whole story in tournaments or SnGs. One reason is that unlike cash games, chip value does not equal profit value.

[4CardStraight]

Failing to bet because while we have a hand that has value, we would rather see more cards before we put more money in, is not the way to maximize your ROI in tournaments. I also question Harringtons approach of making it "thinly" wrong... If our opponents will call a bet with improper odds, then my best play is to "BET AS MUCH AS I CAN GET A CALL FROM".

I want my money going into the pot with an edge in tournaments. If My opponent and I can both agree to go all in and I have a 55% edge, I should take it everytime. Trying to play a game of patience where I only put my money in the pot where theres lots of cards on the board allows me to make easier decisions, but it also allows my opponents to be able to play nearly perfect. They fold when their draws come in and make me pay for value to show down my good hand when the draw does come in. Or perhaps they bluff when the draw comes in and make me fold a winner! Value betting avoids those. We make our opponents pay for their draws because our hands have largely more equity than theirs do, and because we can fire again on the turn when it doesnt bring in the draw.

Yes you end up losing more chips by betting and getting wrongly called then having a lucky draw come in, but you will have a higher expectation of value. Maximizing our EV with each decision is the proper way to maximize our tournament ROI. Minimizing our losses each hand DOES NOT, i repeat, DOES NOT maximize our ROI in said tournaments. we just bust out later, but still before the cash.

Take the flips with an edge. Press your small edges. Bet as much as they will call(wrongly) when you think they have a draw and you have a made hand... thats my thinking, and it jives with neither OP or Harrington (to some extent).

Certainly harrington plays far better than I, I'm just here for sake of discussion and improvement.

[Sir Folds A Lot]

In my home game circuit, and local B&M, this theory of getting the odds stacked so it would be a mistake to call is useless. 90% of the players I see don't factor pot odds, and will play Ocho Cinco because that's their favorite hand cause they beat grandma with it at the Easter home game. Maybe it's my area, but it's a real donkville in the central valley of California.
I think you must really consider what kind of player you're up against if you want to apply this theory.

[Deadpool_AZ]

Thanks for the responses. 4CS, that's kind of what I meant by wanting the opponent to make a big mistake rather than a small one. I want to bet as much as I can above the point where his pot odds are wrong. I want his pot odds to be WAY wrong, but still have him consider calling...sometimes. Sometimes, I'd really just rather him throw his draw away depending on the tournament situation. Hmm...

SirFold, although there is sometimes one player at the table playing ATC, the pot odds would still apply wouldn't they? Just because your opponent isn't aware of the pot odds, that doesn't invalidate them completely I don't think. Working the pot odds is basically the same thing that casinos do in every other game to ensure that over time, they'll be winners...big winners. I think. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Flip-Flop]

To the OP:

As long as you understand how important is to properly bet your hands and don`t fall for that "protecting your stack by giving a free turn to a draw" nonsense you`ll be fine.

So...if you agree that you must bet your hands the only question is how much to bet.
First ask yourself what do you try to achieve with the bet.

If you are nervous about putting big portion of your stack at risk when you are 65% favorite then betting the flop in a way that your opponent will make a small mistake if he calls ( just like Harrington advises ) makes sense no?
Because bet you MUST ( if you like money ).

On the other hand, maybe you are so nervous about draws that you just want your opponent to fold ( like you mentioned in your post ).
In that case putting your opponent all-in ( picking up some fold equity by putting him on a hard decision and forcing him to make a BIG mistake if he calls ) makes sense no?
Well...not really.
First, you can never be 100% sure that he is on a flush draw and even if you knew ( for the sake of the argument lets say he shows you his cards )there are still way too many players that would call a shove with a FD at any stage of the tournament.
So "forcing your opponent to make a big mistake or fold" is very read dependent and much more complicated that it seems and you are making a bigger risk by betting much more then it`s needed to make the mathematically correct bet/move when "protecting your stack" was the idea in the first place.

My advise is to just follow what Harrington teaches you because if he doesn`t know his shiat then I dont know who does. [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[Deadpool_AZ]

Good points. Thanks. Won my 2nd tourney in 3 days trying to follow Harrington's advice. Granted they are just free (BBP) tourneys at pokerpages.com, but the play often seems decent.

I'm going to start digging into HoH2.

Thanks for the input guys.

[Greg Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
In my home game circuit, and local B&M, this theory of getting the odds stacked so it would be a mistake to call is useless. 90% of the players I see don't factor pot odds, and will play Ocho Cinco because that's their favorite hand cause they beat grandma with it at the Easter home game. Maybe it's my area, but it's a real donkville in the central valley of California.
I think you must really consider what kind of player you're up against if you want to apply this theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, no. That's even better than having them correctly fold.

[Dalek]

I always think you should bet as much as your opponent will likely call. If your a 60% favourite to win and you check you earn 60% of 0. If you bet $100 and your opponent calls you earn $120. If you bet $1000 and your opponent calls you earn $1200.

[Un4m.gl]

[ QUOTE ]
I always think you should bet as much as your opponent will likely call. If your a 60% favourite to win and you check you earn 60% of 0. If you bet $100 and your opponent calls you earn $60. If you bet $1000 and your opponent calls you earn $600.

[/ QUOTE ]
FYP