MTT Bad Beats: More Likely Given or Not Received?

[KipBond]

In a MTT, is it more likely that the winner A) gave a relatively high # of bad beats, or B) received a relatively low # of bad beats? And why?

Is this different in a STT?

[Bantam222]

i don't think you can answer this question with just those options. its one of those "it depends" situations.

In a deapstack tourny, many pros will say they never had to put their entire tourney at risk on one hand on their way to the final table. They can chip away and gather easy chips. You could argue you just have to advoid getting unlucky or coolered in this this tourny to win.

In faster structures you are forced to take marginal +ev flips in order to advoid being blinded off...in this tourny you must get lucky to win.

[AaronBrown]

Let's consider the extremes. A hypothetical perfect poker player would never benefit from a bad beat, because she would always have the best of it. She would only lose from bad beats. A hypothetical worst-possible poker player could only win from a bad beat.

The better the player, the more likely to be a net loser from bad beats. On the other hand, the more a player wins from bad beats, the more likely he is to win a tournament.

If the tournament lasted long enough, the most skillful player would win, and would be virtually certain to be a net loser from bad beats. In a short tournament, the winner is more likely to be lucky, and therefore likely to be a net winner from bad beats.

[bacats32]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's consider the extremes. A hypothetical perfect poker player would never benefit from a bad beat, because she would always have the best of it. She would only lose from bad beats. A hypothetical worst-possible poker player could only win from a bad beat.

The better the player, the more likely to be a net loser from bad beats. On the other hand, the more a player wins from bad beats, the more likely he is to win a tournament.

If the tournament lasted long enough, the most skillful player would win, and would be virtually certain to be a net loser from bad beats. In a short tournament, the winner is more likely to be lucky, and therefore likely to be a net winner from bad beats.

[/ QUOTE ]


so what you are saying is because I am consistantly losing even though I get my money in with the best of it. I am a good player who suffers from bad beats. I am starting to lose confidence. I am just above break even tourney player but I seem to suffer extremely from bad beats. Or as you could find in BBV, set vs. set 2 out of 3 hands, me having the small end of it.

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
A hypothetical perfect poker player would never benefit from a bad beat, because she would always have the best of it.

[/ QUOTE ]Does "hypothetical perfect poker player" mean someone who always makes the correct play, but may make "mistakes" in the ToP sense since he/she is working with incomplete information, or someone who can magically see everyone's hole cards?

I ask because if it is the first then it is certainly possible for a "perfect" player to incur bad beats. For instance, he/she could hold KK in the SB, raise into the BB and the BB could push with a range that includes JJ+, AJ+. If villain actually holds AA but our perfect player catches a K, he would both be playing perfectly and laying a bad beat.

If you mean "perfect" in the magical, I-see-hole-cards way, well then we aren't really talking about poker, so does it matter?

Now certainly the good player would be suffering from bad luck when he/she makes the correct play of getting in with the worst of it with KK against AA, and then having good luck when he/she sucks out, but this just underlies the notion that it takes a lot of luck to win tournaments, and luck comes in more varieties than winning coin flips and sucking out.

[AaronBrown]

In the extreme, I mean a perfect poker player who always does the correct thing if he could see everyone's hole cards. I don't mean a cheater, I mean someone so good at reading people and situations, that he never pushes with KK when someone else holds AA.

I agree that in the extreme, it's not poker anymore. I just did it that way to make the logic clear. A highly skilled poker player is usually going to get her money in with the best of it, due to her skill in reading people and situations, and her knowledge of the odds. Yes, she'll sometimes push with KK against AA and catch a K; but a bad player will push or call a push when he is a big underdog a lot more than a good player; so he'll have a lot more chance to profit from delivering bad beats. A good player will push or call a push when she is a big favorite a lot more than a bad player; sho she'll have a lot more chance to lose from getting bad beats. Her skill won't help her win more often in these situations, the net profit or loss from bad beats depends only on how often you get in a bad beat situation as a favorite or an underdog; and luck.

If a bad player wins a tournament, it must be because luck overcame skill, so he's likely to have delivered some bad beats. If a good player wins a tournament, it's probably a combination of luck and skill. Not all the luck needs to be avoiding bad beats and inflicting them on others; it could be having some 45% chances pay off and not losing on 55% chances. So there's less reason to assume she was a beneficiary of net bad beat profits.