Sklansky vs. Phillips

[TheGrifter]

Paul Phillips Said:
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I never looked at the specific hand, I was only addressing the theoretical issues. I saw my name being wielded in a thread that also contained those all-too-common, impossible-to-vanquish mistaken arguments:

* survival has some kind of intrinsic value EARLY that justifies giving up appreciable edge (false)
* chips accumulated EARLY are not worth very much because there is so far yet to go (false)

There are lots of matters regarding tournament poker that are still under serious debate but I don't think these are among them. If you don't treat a tournament like a cash game in the early going then you are giving up too much.

[/ QUOTE ]

David Sklansky Said:


[ QUOTE ]

You don't make a play based on whether or not it has a positive EV. You make it if the alternatives have a lower EV. (An exception can occur on close decisons if bankroll is a factor.) Thus you may be right to make a negative EV play or pass up a positive one.

If you are much better than most of the field early in a tournament, you should pass up slightly positive EV plays if you have a significant chance of going broke when you make it. Unless you are concerned about hourly rate or there is a juicy side game awaiting. How far you take this concept depends on your edge over the field. Basically if it is a go broke or double up situation, you pass up on the bet if you believe your chances of doubling your stack by folding and playing on is higher than your chances of doubling up by gambling. In the example given, something like the top five percent of the field, skillwise, should fold.


[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone was quick to jump on me for suggesting exactly the same position that Sklansky suggests. Discuss.

[Bernas]

Paul is not playing to finish in the money. He is playing to win the tournament.

Sklansky states that "early in a tournament, you should pass up slightly positive EV plays if you have a significant chance of going broke when you make it."

How many players can say they are significantly better than the rest of the field?

[TheGrifter]

[ QUOTE ]
Paul is not playing to finish in the money. He is playing to win the tournament.

Sklansky states that "early in a tournament, you should pass up slightly positive EV plays if you have a significant chance of going broke when you make it."

How many players can say they are significantly better than the rest of the field?

[/ QUOTE ]

In a low buy in online tournament, many.

[Bernas]

True, but is that what Paul is talking about here? Where did this quote come from? What thread?

[TheGrifter]

[ QUOTE ]
True, but is that what Paul is talking about here? Where did this quote come from? What thread?

[/ QUOTE ]

His quote isn't referencing a specific hand, but rather general theory.

[fnord_too]

I've thought a lot about Paul's position based on his posts in that thread. Here are two facts that are very germane to his argument (he stated or implied them, but not much attention was given to them).

1. Bankroll is not an issue. Cashing or not cashing the tournament will not affect his ability to take advantage of future +EV situations.

2. There are ample other games going on. Busting out of the tournament will not affect the availability of +EV situations.

I am not sure I 100% agree with the "take any edge, no matter how small" given these two conceits, but my main line of attack against it would be that it does not take the tournament fee into account. This would only be a factor where the thinnest of edges was taken, and even then it's a pretty weak argument.

Basically, given indifference to the opportunity of the tournament and freedom from bankroll constraints, I'm convinced Paul's philosophy is unassailable.

I don't follow that philosophy myself, however, as I always seek to maximize EV (in terms of cashing) for the tournament I am in. Even if I have a greater EV opportunity elsewhere, I will try to maximize my tournament EV even if it means passing on low but positive chip EV opportunities.

Sklansky's position and Pau's position are not in opposition. Sklansky predicates his passing on slight EV situations on assumptions that are not true for the case of Mr. Phillips. Specifically, Sklansky makes an exception to the pass up small edges rule if there are other opportunities awaiting, and this is the exception that Paul Phillips exercizes.

[fnurt]

The point that should be emphasized is that Sklansky says only the TOP FIVE PERCENT of the field should pass on the relatively small edge he discusses. Even if you accept that there are situations where a pro should play more conservatively to avoid big gambles, the concept gets way way overdone, and that is the real problem.

If your only goal in a tournament was to double up once, then you'd be perfectly justified in passing up a close gamble in hopes of getting a better one later. But since you need to double up many, many times to win the tournament, every +EV play you pass up in the early going hurts you, because it means your stack grows that much less with each successive double up.

To make up a statistic, I would say that around 90% of the players who ought to be folding certain favorable situations, based upon their skill versus the field, are good enough to already identify these situations, without having to post on 2+2 and ask. Heck, we have people here that have been playing online tournaments for a month and already repeat mantras like "I don't want to bet all my chips on a slight edge." We are teaching these people bad habits!

[TheGrifter]

The thing is, I don't disagree with you that it gets way overdone. However, I think people have fallen into a sort of docile acceptance that the early part of a tourney is the mirror image of a cash game, and that's just not true. ESPECIALLY not in online tournament structures. If nothing else, just knowing that your opponents play differently early in a tournament as opposed to a cash game makes it different.

Again, I strongly believe that in 95% of situations I would make the exact same play in a tournament early as I would in a cash game. But to suggest it's invariably the same isn't quite correct.

[gergery]

I don’t really see those two quotes as being in conflict. I think they’re both saying, “Early in tourneys you need to play situations where you have an edge, even if it’s a small edge”.

Sklansky is then adding on to that, if your edge is very tiny and you think there’s a good chance you’ll find a better edge soon, then you can pass on that. And I don’t think Paul would disagree with that in practice (tho I am even more sure he’ll correct me if he does).

It seems like an equivalent scenario would be a cash game where your rich, drunken opponent has gone all in 3x in a row to massively overbet the pot. The 4th time, he accidentally flashes his 22 at you when you hold AKs. You are a 46.77 to 46.60 favorite. So you should call. But then you realize you left your wallet at home and no one will loan you money if you lose. So wait hand or three and you can get in as a bigger favorite in a minute.

--Greg

The only place there I suppose there might be a disagreement would be in defining tiny vs. very small edge. Maybe Sklansky would fold a known 50.5% to 49.5 edge but draws the line and will call a 52% to 48% edge. Whereas Paul would take any proposition where he is a 50+% favorite. But then the disagreement is over an extremely narrow range, and in practice you can never be certain about exactly what your edge is anyway.

[gergery]

An interesting variation on this question is how your confidence in the accuracy of your prediction affects your decision.

Let’s say you are highly confident you have a 51% edge (maybe you can very accurately put your opponent on a medium PP when you have JTs)

But in a second scenario you think you have an edge after weighting all the scenarios, but you’re not sure. (Maybe you have 88 and you figure your opponent has either a lower or higher pair plus higher suited cards, and let’s say you’ve calculated your edge at 51% over his entire range. So you think you have a slight edge, but aren’t entirely sure).

So how would your confidence in the assessment of your edge effect your decision, in terms of very practical situation specific decision? (And if you want a greater overlay, how much greater?)

--Greg

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky is then adding on to that, if your edge is very tiny and you think there’s a good chance you’ll find a better edge soon, then you can pass on that. And I don’t think Paul would disagree with that in practice (tho I am even more sure he’ll correct me if he does).


[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Greg,
I think that Paul has said that he would take a "true coin flip" (a situation where You are in the SB, and Paul is in the BB, it is folded to you, and you push in the dark, and he calls in the dark) in a non-rebuy tourney. It has to do with the fact that his time has some value to him greater than the edge that he's potentially giving up by taking a true 50% shot at doubling on hand 1 of a tourney.
At least this is what I percieve it to mean...i could be wrong.

-SossMan