Ben Thornton
07-30-2004, 12:11 PM
Too many times lately I see players who can't seem to find a moderate speed to play at. Any high pocket pair is all-in or anything less is an immediate fold. Gone, it seems, is the ability to play any hand with a certain amount of moderation.
Some would chalk this up to a difference in play style, but I don't believe that is the case. I think that too many players are being caught up in the highlighted and copy-edited world of televised poker. All you see are the big hands, the all-ins and the bluffs. Why? Because watching real poker---the grueling, touchy-feely dance of checks and bets just doesnt make great TV.
In a tournament atmosphere, you just can't afford to continously place your stack on the line. Even if you are getting 4-1 odds everytime you do, that only means that you can double up about 8 times before your odds run out. In order to increase your chances over the long run, you have to learn how to bet, fold, and check to control the tempo of the table.
Why do you think aggressive players seem to hold the reigns at the table? Because they have learned that by betting they can control most situations. Their play tends to be one-sided though, and their successes are often short-lived. Weak-tight players do well for an amount of time, but eventually the blinds become daunting. They have lost too many stolen pots, or worse, gotten outdrawn by a more aggresive player. The problem with both styles is their tendency to rely on the all-in bet. The aggressive player uses the all-in bet to steal those chips from weak-tight players who don't want to jeopardize their chances. While the weak-tight players use the all-in bet when they have caught a seemingly great hand. This either leads to a small, uncontested pot or a "bad" beat on most occassions.
Think of all-in bets from a more fatalistic approach. The board is going to come up the same no matter how you bet it. If the board is going to come up in your opponents favor, even if you have A-A, there is little you can do about it. Thats not quite as likely a scenario than if you had 10-10 or maybe even K-Q. Playing to gain information from your opponents is the difference between losing alot of your tournament chips and gaining alot of your opponents. In most cases, just looking at the flop can change the odds of a hand for both players dramatically. So why would you want to risk your tournament stake without this information? Most of the time you wouldn't.
"Betting when you have the best of it", is the star which poker players use to navigate their ship of chips, but betting it all when you have the best of it is not always the right thing to do. Learn when those times are and when they aren't and you will soon find yourself at deeper tables in tournaments.
Some would chalk this up to a difference in play style, but I don't believe that is the case. I think that too many players are being caught up in the highlighted and copy-edited world of televised poker. All you see are the big hands, the all-ins and the bluffs. Why? Because watching real poker---the grueling, touchy-feely dance of checks and bets just doesnt make great TV.
In a tournament atmosphere, you just can't afford to continously place your stack on the line. Even if you are getting 4-1 odds everytime you do, that only means that you can double up about 8 times before your odds run out. In order to increase your chances over the long run, you have to learn how to bet, fold, and check to control the tempo of the table.
Why do you think aggressive players seem to hold the reigns at the table? Because they have learned that by betting they can control most situations. Their play tends to be one-sided though, and their successes are often short-lived. Weak-tight players do well for an amount of time, but eventually the blinds become daunting. They have lost too many stolen pots, or worse, gotten outdrawn by a more aggresive player. The problem with both styles is their tendency to rely on the all-in bet. The aggressive player uses the all-in bet to steal those chips from weak-tight players who don't want to jeopardize their chances. While the weak-tight players use the all-in bet when they have caught a seemingly great hand. This either leads to a small, uncontested pot or a "bad" beat on most occassions.
Think of all-in bets from a more fatalistic approach. The board is going to come up the same no matter how you bet it. If the board is going to come up in your opponents favor, even if you have A-A, there is little you can do about it. Thats not quite as likely a scenario than if you had 10-10 or maybe even K-Q. Playing to gain information from your opponents is the difference between losing alot of your tournament chips and gaining alot of your opponents. In most cases, just looking at the flop can change the odds of a hand for both players dramatically. So why would you want to risk your tournament stake without this information? Most of the time you wouldn't.
"Betting when you have the best of it", is the star which poker players use to navigate their ship of chips, but betting it all when you have the best of it is not always the right thing to do. Learn when those times are and when they aren't and you will soon find yourself at deeper tables in tournaments.