Comments on Andrew Brokos' Tournament Articles?

[Foucault]

Hi all. I want to keep contributing regularly to 2+2 magazine, and I'll probably continue to focus on tournament stuff because that's where I'm strongest and where Dynasty has indicated the magazine needs articles. So I'm curious to hear any and all feedback on my first two articles:

"The Last Bet" from the April issue: http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/c...rokos0407.html

"Attacking and Defending Dead Money in Tournament Poker" from the March issue: http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/i...rokos0307.html

I've been sort of assuming that the people who will get the most from these are those of you who are strong regulars in ring games, enjoy the occasional tournament, and want to get better at them (basically the audience at whom Sklansky seemed to be aiming TPFAP). So if this describes you, were these articles helpful? Too basic? Too advanced? Anything you'd like to see in a future issue? Questions? Criticisms? Let me have it.

Thanks,
Andrew Brokos

[BigAlK]

Foucault,

I play tournaments exclusively although at a lower level than you. I found the latest article ("The Last Bet") to be very helpful. Some new, some not, but all of it helpful. Hope to see lots more from you in future magazines.

Al

[Foucault]

[ QUOTE ]
Foucault,

I play tournaments exclusively although at a lower level than you. I found the latest article ("The Last Bet") to be very helpful. Some new, some not, but all of it helpful. Hope to see lots more from you in future magazines.

Al

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, Al. If you'd be willing, I'm interested to know what stakes you win at now, what was new to you, and what wasn't. Perhaps you could PM me if you don't want to post publicly?

[dfan]

Andrew, I thought both of your tournament articles were excellent. Very clearly written, to the point, and helpful. This if from a decent experienced tournament player (but not an all-star yet).

[Foucault]

Bump for comments on "Hidden Costs in Tournament Poker": http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/c...rokos0507.html

[Sherman]

Andrew, I thought the article this week was top notch for both cash game players who are looking to try MTTs and regular MTT players. It touches on a couple of critically important points that I really haven't seen addressed much elsewhere:

1) Think ahead when you make a raise. Look at the stack sizes behind you and determine what you will do if a particular player makes a particular action.

2) Put yourself in your opponents shoes. A player raising 20% of his stack PF, is (assuming he is decent) essentially committing his/her entire stack with this hand. This drastically changes hand ranges.

Well done.

[CityFan]

I found the article interesting, but I'm not sure about some of the reasoning where you seem to claim short-stacked players will be playing tighter hands. It seems to contradict what I've been "taught" elsewhere.

In particular:

[ QUOTE ]
What all this boils down to is that a player with 1000 chips is less likely to fold after raising to 150 than is a player with 5000 chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, agreed.

[ QUOTE ]
Since he is going to felt a larger percentage of the hands he is raising, the player with the shorter stack needs to be raising a tighter, stronger range in the first place

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm... I'm not sure. Suppose the blinds are 25/50, so this is a 3bb raise. If we believe Dan Harrington for example, then this player would have an M of 13 and be in the Yellow Zone. Harrington recommends raising with a slightly LOOSER range than normal, because of the need to play hands and accumulate chips to keep up with the blinds.

I agree that the short-stack is more likely to go to the felt after raising, but does that necessarily mean his opening range will be tighter?

Perhaps the difference in opinion is because Harrington is teaching a conservative style, whereas you assume that strong tournament players are in fact very aggressive. Different styles need different adjustments for short-stacked play.

Yes/no?

[Foucault]

CityFan,

You make a good point, and I may have been somewhat incorrect to characterize a Yellow Zone player's range as "tighter." What I actually meant was that his range will be on balance stronger, and as you point out, he is more likely to felt the hands he is playing. So although a player with 1000 chips at the 25/50 level may be playing more hands from early position than a player with 5000 chips (at least if he is following Harrington's guidelines), he will also have more high card hands and fewer suited connectors in his range. In other words, he'll have shifted his focus to hands with greater showdown value rather than those that offer good implied odds, and he will be more willing to show them down, which makes him more dangerous to reraise.

Thanks for the very good question,
Andrew

[Albert Silver]

I'm low on the poker ladder, however I found the article "The Last Bet" to be accessible and very enlightening. Keep up the good work! :-)

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]
Bump for comments on "Hidden Costs in Tournament Poker": http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/c...rokos0507.html

[/ QUOTE ]

I loved the article and hated the title. Isn't this an article about being pot committed? "pot committed" should have been part of the title.