Tournament play and skill ?

[mr_npiv]

I'm a relatively succesful cash game player, and more than adept at dealing with the variance that comes with poker. In a ring game, as long as you keep making the "good" decisions, it doesnt harm you.

In tournament play, this doesnt seem to hold out. I am convinced that skill is a factor, but there is no time frame to deal with variance... In fact the added dimension of raising blinds gives an edge to those who catch some good cards early on.

I just watched the PPT in Foxwoods, and saw more than 10 shortstacks go out, when they where 70%+ favourites.

So whats the catch ? Do you just keep playing tournaments to balance out ? It really seems to me that tourneys are much more luck oriented. Refering back to the foxwoods PPT, Juanada and biggler went all in with PP to overcards. And Juanda won the "race" to a thunderous applause. Kinda made me a little embarassed as the big proponent in the skill vs luck debacle.

So before I get flamed.
1) this isnt meant to be a my game is better than yours thread.
2) Im a ring game player, and these are my honest questions on tournament play, from watching and limited experience.

Thanks,

[PantsOnFire]

Here is what I consider to be tournament skill:

1. Survival. In a ring game, you will put all your chips in when you are a 55% favourite. In a tournament, a good player will not do this, especially when the blinds are low early on. If you pay attention to the good tourney players, you will realize that early on it is a rare event where all their chips are in the pot. A good tourney player has quoted that you cannot win a tourney early on but you sure can lose it.

2. Rising blinds. When the blinds start to rise, you need to become more active and aggressive. The skill is knowing when your stack relative to the blinds is a concern and will dictate your desparation level. You also have to know against whom and when to start becoming more loose and aggressive.

3. Adapting to being at a new table and adapting to other players who also becoming desparate. Some players become desparate too soon and thus their hand range is wider. Some wait too long and thus their hand range is smaller. A good player can quickly assess what other players are thinking in this regard and exploit it.

4. Shortstack play. You are generally very desparate with a shortstack. Unlike ring play, you are now at risk of exiting the game. You cannot wait for good hands. You need to pick a spot, open the pot all-in with any decent hand and hope for the best. This is definitely where luck will play a factor.

5. Playing a big stack. When you have more chips than everybody else, you are a threat to knock anyone out in a given hand. It is a skill to use that threat to steal and bully and generally preserve or grow your big stack.

That's just a few concepts off the top of my head that differentiate ring and tourney play. If you are interested in exploring tourneys I would read Dan Harrington's books.

[SplawnDarts]

An excellent post, POF.

[Shroomy]

Bottom line is that a tournament is similar to a session or a buy-in in a cash game, you just have to wait a bit longer before the next session or buy-in.

Yes there are a bunch of skills that exist in a tournament that don't exist in a cash game (and obviously vice versa) but, luck is certainly a big factor for a single tournament, but look over many many tournaments and it works out.

[blankoblanco]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you just keep playing tournaments to balance out ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, yeah. But, I think it's fair to say that, due to top-heavy structures and the abundance of race situations, MTT variance is practically always greater than the variance in the equivalent number of hands played in cash games. In theory, if you could play infinity tournaments, I guess you'd see every situation the amount of times you were supposed to based on your skill level, and variance could basically cancel out. But I don't believe a person could physically play enough MTTs in his or her lifetime to bring the variance as low as it would be in the equivalent number of cash game hands.

[mertzo]

Is there anywhere on this forum a graph from a MTT-grinder with a large sample? That would be really interesting to see.

[THAY3R]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is what I consider to be tournament skill:

1. Survival. In a ring game, you will put all your chips in when you are a 55% favourite. In a tournament, a good player will not do this, especially when the blinds are low early on. If you pay attention to the good tourney players, you will realize that early on it is a rare event where all their chips are in the pot. A good tourney player has quoted that you cannot win a tourney early on but you sure can lose it.


[/ QUOTE ]

This I completely disagree with, but everything else you said is good. You should be willing to get your money in with any kind of edge except for the rare bubble/weird final table situations.


OP, the skill comes in the ability to not be in situations where you have to rely on luck. Your point about the short stacks is a great example. Sure it's unlucky that they lost when they were 70% favorites, but if he had more chips he wouldn't have been out.

If you're short stacked and get knocked out of a tourney, don't say to yourself "Well, I just got unlucky, nothing I could do." Instead think about all the spots where you might have missed where you could have gained more chips, whether it be from stealing, restealing, or just playing better fundamental poker. The more chips you have in the tourney, the less luck is a factor.

[jlocdog]

PantsonFire,

#3 is a very good point that gets primarily overlooked all together. Sure in a cash game you can switch tables if you choose. Online it is very easy and live you may have to wait till a seat opens up. But the decision is YOURS and you do it primarily to get into a favorable position or atleast out of a nonfavorable one and into a better one.

In a tournament, you do not have this luxury. Sometimes they force you into a bad table where chips stacks dominate yours and/or the competition at the new table is much tougher then your previous one. Also now you have to gain a new repoire with your table in terms of reads, image, ect...all while doing it on the fly as blinds escalate and average stacks diminish. As is the norm in tournaments stacks are usually between 10-50BB where ring games have 100-500BB. so now you need to quickly adapt to your new surroundings while playing shorter stacks with more dead money in the pot (because of antes) all while making sound decisions and recreating everything you worked so hard to achieve at your last table. Once you accomplish this......you move again [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] .

[THAY3R]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there anywhere on this forum a graph from a MTT-grinder with a large sample? That would be really interesting to see.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is a graph of my 20/180's on Sharkscope. I don't play them much, only during challenges and TLB races, but I've played in a decent amount of them.

[GoodOlKevin]

This post is really interesting to me, as this exact thought has been crossing my mind for a while now. I study the game as much as anyone, and am pretty frustrated in the fact that I have the best hand with all my money in at least 60% of the time, but don't have much to show for it. I totally agree on the aspect of survival, but I believe that if I'm in a hand with someone whos very active and i hold QQ, I need to reraise that player (all my chips if need be). So where's the happy medium? when he shows AK, Was that the right spot with blinds 30/60, not 200/400? Very interested in opinions, as I'm of firm belief that even though i'm a good player, I HAVE to be doing something wrong........Thanks in advance