LinusKS
09-07-2004, 08:06 PM
The title of the post is "A big tournament advantage: Stupidity."
The rest is by Tom Weiderman:
I know the subject line sounds like sour grapes, but actually I'm being
quite serious, as you will see. Now obviously being a smart player helps
with tournament success in many ways. I'm not trying to tell you that the
only way to win tournaments is to be stupid - far from it - smarter players
will win in the long run. But what I will show you is that there are quite
common situations where your opponents knowing you aren't too bright can
greatly work to your advantage. Because of these advantages the "long run"
required for smarter players to assure a win can become even longer. Some
of these ideas apply to ring games as well, but even the concepts that apply
to both venues have a greater effect in tournaments. It's even possible
that a player can be stupid enough to take advantage of it, and at the same
time stumble upon a correct strategy for everything else (this is most often
true of "naturally aggressive" players), making him/her a winning tournament
player.
Situation #1: High low split
----------------------------
Suppose you are involved in a three-way hand in a tournament game involving
high-low split (either Omaha-8 or Stud-8). You figure that you and another
player have low draws, while the third player has a high hand. In such
situations, if the pot is not too big, it is frequently correct to throw
away your low draw if the opponent plays his, since you only stand to get
half the pot if you get there (or in some cases, 1/4 of it), you (typically)
have at best a 30-35% chance of getting there, and even if you get there,
you have to beat the other low draw's hand (which you'll do something like
half the time you both get there). Now obviously much of this depends upon
how smooth you are drawing, the dead cards out, how rough your opponent is
likely to draw, and so on, but nevertheless it can be a pretty bad spot at
times. Tournament situations (with % payouts) make this even worse, because
when two opponents get involved, you gain tournament equity by just
watching. Getting involved discards this equity, which means you
essentially have to pay an even greater price than you would in a cash game.
Okay, now here's where stupidity comes in. In such a situation, it is
typically a game of chicken. If both players are smart, then the first
player can get involved, locking out the second person (and hoping that the
second person doesn't "up the ante" of the chicken game by raising and
starting a whipsaw with the high hand). But if one of the two low draws has
no clue about what I describe above (and the other low draw knows he has no
clue), then the smarter of the two players has to just concede and fold.
It's like playing chicken against someone who is trying to commit suicide.
Situation #2: Super satellites
------------------------------
There are 9 players left in a super satellite, and 8 players get seats. You
are sitting two spots to the right of an idiot, and both of you have
medium-sized stacks. There is one short stack to your right, who can't
cover his blinds the next round. You have the button.
Now at a table full of smart players, no one gets involved against anyone
but the short stack, and even then people would rather have someone else try
to bust him. When this is the case, play is usually quite trivial: Everyone
folds to some late position player (usually the button, because people in
earlier positions typically worry that someone behind them with aces who has
them out-chipped will decide to go for it), who stacks off and takes the
blinds. He has to do this to keep pace, because when it is his turn with
the blinds, he has to surrender them. If he doesn't take his share and the
short stack survives a round or two, then HE becomes the short stack. First
one to get his money in wins the dead money.
But when you have the button, Mr. IQ-of-a-belt-buckle is in the big blind,
and he doesn't like to surrender his blind so easily. Once again, you are
forced to back off and not try to steal, especially if he has you
outchipped, and this greatly helps his cause and hurts yours.
General Comments
----------------
The general idea here is that in poker there are frequently situations where
"mutually-assured destruction" situations arise. These take place in cash
games as well as in tournaments, but the effects are amplified in
tournaments because of the tournament equity premium one has to pay to be
the "third man in". When a smart player is aware that he and a stupid
player are in the roles of the mutually-assured destructees, he is at a huge
disadvantage. If the idiot also happens to be loose and aggressive, the
problem is made that much worse, as the damage can be greater. The smart
player may then find himself having to play very tight and passively to
avoid these sorts of situations. This reduces his chances of moving up the
pay scale, but increases his chances of cashing overall such that his ev is
still higher than the dummy who is more likely to win it all but is much
less likely to cash.
Now of course the best of both worlds would be a person who is actually
intelligent but has fostered a persona of being dim-witted. I think this
would be hard to do, because eventually his actions will give him away, but
it might be possible to pull off for awhile.
Finally, I'd like to reiterate that these advantages associated with idiocy
are not sufficient to turn this person into a winning tournament player, but
if this person is already aggressive (a very important quality), fearless,
and has a little bit of card sense, this added edge can close the gap with
the strong players quite a bit, making overall tournament ev for good
players not as high as one might think.
Tom Weideman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://groups.google.ca/groups?q=g:thl3269635678d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=BA1E15D6.219F2%25zwishi%40attbi.com&rnum= 1
The rest is by Tom Weiderman:
I know the subject line sounds like sour grapes, but actually I'm being
quite serious, as you will see. Now obviously being a smart player helps
with tournament success in many ways. I'm not trying to tell you that the
only way to win tournaments is to be stupid - far from it - smarter players
will win in the long run. But what I will show you is that there are quite
common situations where your opponents knowing you aren't too bright can
greatly work to your advantage. Because of these advantages the "long run"
required for smarter players to assure a win can become even longer. Some
of these ideas apply to ring games as well, but even the concepts that apply
to both venues have a greater effect in tournaments. It's even possible
that a player can be stupid enough to take advantage of it, and at the same
time stumble upon a correct strategy for everything else (this is most often
true of "naturally aggressive" players), making him/her a winning tournament
player.
Situation #1: High low split
----------------------------
Suppose you are involved in a three-way hand in a tournament game involving
high-low split (either Omaha-8 or Stud-8). You figure that you and another
player have low draws, while the third player has a high hand. In such
situations, if the pot is not too big, it is frequently correct to throw
away your low draw if the opponent plays his, since you only stand to get
half the pot if you get there (or in some cases, 1/4 of it), you (typically)
have at best a 30-35% chance of getting there, and even if you get there,
you have to beat the other low draw's hand (which you'll do something like
half the time you both get there). Now obviously much of this depends upon
how smooth you are drawing, the dead cards out, how rough your opponent is
likely to draw, and so on, but nevertheless it can be a pretty bad spot at
times. Tournament situations (with % payouts) make this even worse, because
when two opponents get involved, you gain tournament equity by just
watching. Getting involved discards this equity, which means you
essentially have to pay an even greater price than you would in a cash game.
Okay, now here's where stupidity comes in. In such a situation, it is
typically a game of chicken. If both players are smart, then the first
player can get involved, locking out the second person (and hoping that the
second person doesn't "up the ante" of the chicken game by raising and
starting a whipsaw with the high hand). But if one of the two low draws has
no clue about what I describe above (and the other low draw knows he has no
clue), then the smarter of the two players has to just concede and fold.
It's like playing chicken against someone who is trying to commit suicide.
Situation #2: Super satellites
------------------------------
There are 9 players left in a super satellite, and 8 players get seats. You
are sitting two spots to the right of an idiot, and both of you have
medium-sized stacks. There is one short stack to your right, who can't
cover his blinds the next round. You have the button.
Now at a table full of smart players, no one gets involved against anyone
but the short stack, and even then people would rather have someone else try
to bust him. When this is the case, play is usually quite trivial: Everyone
folds to some late position player (usually the button, because people in
earlier positions typically worry that someone behind them with aces who has
them out-chipped will decide to go for it), who stacks off and takes the
blinds. He has to do this to keep pace, because when it is his turn with
the blinds, he has to surrender them. If he doesn't take his share and the
short stack survives a round or two, then HE becomes the short stack. First
one to get his money in wins the dead money.
But when you have the button, Mr. IQ-of-a-belt-buckle is in the big blind,
and he doesn't like to surrender his blind so easily. Once again, you are
forced to back off and not try to steal, especially if he has you
outchipped, and this greatly helps his cause and hurts yours.
General Comments
----------------
The general idea here is that in poker there are frequently situations where
"mutually-assured destruction" situations arise. These take place in cash
games as well as in tournaments, but the effects are amplified in
tournaments because of the tournament equity premium one has to pay to be
the "third man in". When a smart player is aware that he and a stupid
player are in the roles of the mutually-assured destructees, he is at a huge
disadvantage. If the idiot also happens to be loose and aggressive, the
problem is made that much worse, as the damage can be greater. The smart
player may then find himself having to play very tight and passively to
avoid these sorts of situations. This reduces his chances of moving up the
pay scale, but increases his chances of cashing overall such that his ev is
still higher than the dummy who is more likely to win it all but is much
less likely to cash.
Now of course the best of both worlds would be a person who is actually
intelligent but has fostered a persona of being dim-witted. I think this
would be hard to do, because eventually his actions will give him away, but
it might be possible to pull off for awhile.
Finally, I'd like to reiterate that these advantages associated with idiocy
are not sufficient to turn this person into a winning tournament player, but
if this person is already aggressive (a very important quality), fearless,
and has a little bit of card sense, this added edge can close the gap with
the strong players quite a bit, making overall tournament ev for good
players not as high as one might think.
Tom Weideman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://groups.google.ca/groups?q=g:thl3269635678d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=BA1E15D6.219F2%25zwishi%40attbi.com&rnum= 1