How much of an advantage does an expert have in a NLHE tournament?

[SineNomine]

Sklansky vs. Harrington

Harrington says (p 12 Harrington on Hold’em) that in a seven card stud tournament a $1000 entry fee is worth about $2000. Meaning that the expert expects to make about $2000 in prize money for every $1000 dollars he invests in entry fees. He suggests that the value is about the same for Omaha and razz. He says that for NL hold’em however the same $1000 is worth $4000 or $5000, and in huge events like WSOP perhaps $7000 or $8000. He makes this argument based on the availability of information to the players and the ability of the expert to control pot odds. He agrees with Brunson that NL Hold’em is the “Cadillac of Poker.”

Sklansky (p 140 Tournament Poker for Advanced Players) argues that NL hold’em has an “Achilles heel”; meaning that a not very skilled player, who is willing to play aggressively pre-flop with frequent all-ins, can do much better than he has a right to against expert opposition. He makes this point just after describing his “system” that allows, he argues, even a novice to play competitively if not advantageously against an expert. He suggests that this makes NL hold’em a poor choice to determine the World Champion and that a tournament consisting of a combination of limit games would be better.

Who is right? Or, are they both right and I am just not fully understanding what they are saying?

[a500lbgorilla]

Play pot limit instead. Take away Sklansky's preflop allin system.

-'rilla

[Mike Gallo]

Or, are they both right and I am just not fully understanding what they are saying?

Yes.

Sklansky suggests that by going all in against an expert novice players will neutralize the experts advantage.

[Robk]

the statements would be inconsistent if all the novices used sklanskys system. but none do.

[EZE]

Honestly,

I have been reading and using David Sklanskys theorys and techniques in my NL Holdem Satellites at Foxwoods and practice 4/8,10/20 games. I have read both books, and I like Harringtons ideas, but honestly, I trully believe Sklansky's take on it is right. What you term Expert is relative, is it the number of tournaments he-she plays, how long he she plays, the years of experience? The ability to know all Group 1-8 hands like the back of head and math skills to calculate odds, pot odds, implied and reverse implied odds at any time, quickly to make a decision and stick with it. ( Yes I do know all the Groups, and how to play from early, middle and late positions, which has helped my game tremendously.)

But to say putting in 1G to make 4-5G as an expert, is silly. I put out a few "Pro's" at WSOP in Vegas last year, and so was put out by a newcomer on a bad-beat, but those are the nuts!

So basically it comes down to this, your skill, plus how well and how quickly you read your opponents, plus bluffing, semi-bluffs, check raises and deception play into the fact of whether you are going to turn that 1G into 4-5G or leave as broke as a joke.

EZE
"Mr Pittsburgh"

[ACW]

Well Dan Harrington should have a pretty good idea of how much his $1000 buys him in a tournament.

Looking at those making the final table at the WPT events I can believe his number. It seems that several players have made over 10% of the final tables.

[SineNomine]

[ QUOTE ]
The ability to know all Group 1-8 hands like the back of head and math skills to calculate odds, pot odds, implied and reverse implied odds at any time, quickly to make a decision and stick with it. ( Yes I do know all the Groups, and how to play from early, middle and late positions, which has helped my game tremendously.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the reply. What adjustments do you make to the hand groups when playing no limit? Sklansky says that the groups are for limit and would be substantially diffferent for NL.

[pzhon]

There is no contradiction.

First, the weaker players do not use Sklansky's system. They could improve their play in many ways; adopting Sklansky's sytem is just a particularly simple one, but not the most effective. They could do much better by learning to play at an expert level.

Second, even if each weaker player were to do "much better than he has a right to do" by adopting a preflop system, the experts would still have an advantage. It would be reduced, of course, but we are talking about someone getting back 70% rather than 50% of their entry fee. The extra 30% would still go to the stronger players.

Third, there are many more weak players than experts. I don't know Harrington, but my guess is that he wouldn't call many players experts. For every expert, there may be a few decent players who make back a bit more than their entry fees, and dozens of poor players who expect to win back less than half of what they put in.

So, even if the weaker players were to use Sklansky's system, the experts may still win a lot. However, the weaker players don't use Sklansky's system.

[TStoneMBD]

i think the number goes as high as 30% ROI. harrigton may be a good player, but his success in WSOP history is mainly due to luck.

[Iceman]

[ QUOTE ]
Or, are they both right and I am just not fully understanding what they are saying?

Yes.

Sklansky suggests that by going all in against an expert novice players will neutralize the experts advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would reduce the experts' advantage, not neutralize it. For a novice who doesn't know how to play at all, the System is better than just guessing what to do, but it's easily countered by anyone who is aware of it and knows how to adjust to it.

[Iceman]

[ QUOTE ]
i think the number goes as high as 30% ROI. harrigton may be a good player, but his success in WSOP history is mainly due to luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

30% ROI is possible in Party SNGs where the blinds rise very rapidly. In a deep money no-limit tournament 100% ROI is probably possible for the best players - maybe even 200% under optimal conditions. But 600-700% is totally impossible - Harrington's own results are biased by a few huge finishes that result from great luck as well as from his own expert play. That would imply that much of the field are drawing dead, which the last few WSOPs show is not the case. With the advent of online play, and the much increased availability of live no-limit games as compared to even five years ago, there are a lot more people who can play tournaments and deep money no-limit. Ten years ago, few people had a lot of deep money no-limit experience, allowing the pros who did to have a very large advantage over them, but that is no longer the case. The WSOP field is not people off the street or out of the Party NL $25 game; many of the amateurs are people who won their seats in satellites or supersatellites, online or offline, and who are strong tournament players in their own right. Many of the pros who make lots of final tables enter absolutely everything, and not all events have fields in the hundreds - any decent player who plays dozens of tournaments per year will make at least some final tables.

[PokerFink]

[ QUOTE ]
Harrington's own results are biased by a few huge finishes that result from great luck as well as from his own expert play. That would imply that much of the field are drawing dead, which the last few WSOPs show is not the case...

many of the amateurs are people who won their seats in satellites or supersatellites, online or offline, and who are strong tournament players in their own right.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the last couple WSOP Championships have shown the opposite, that a LARGE percentage of players are drawing basically dead, in that they could play 100 times and never make any significant money. They might cash a couple times out of 100, but only for 10-15K, which doesn't really have an effect on the $25 million prize pool. Therefore, a pro's expected return could be very, very high.

To call Chris Moneymaker or especially Raymer "dead money" as they are called on the TV broadcasts is ludacris. Raymer, as all 2+2ers know, is a very skilled player. And unless my knowledge is way off, Moneymaker is one of the the better Stars tournament players. While many of the internet qualifiers are the best tournament players on their respective sites, and therefore have a solid chance of cashing and maybe even making the final table, there are tons of players who have literally no chance of surviving 40 hours of play to cash, let alone six full days to make the final table.

Finally, saying Harrington's finishes are based on luck and not skill is ridiculous. Sure, luck plays a part, but every single WSOP champion has benefitted from extreme luck somewhere in the tournament, probably more than once. Stu Ungar spiked an inside straight draw on the turn against Brunson's twopair to beat him heads up. Moneymaker spiked an ace to beat Ivy and take a huge chiplead into the final table. Jesus miracled a nine on the river to beat TJ Cloutier. The list goes on for every winner. So don't say Harrington is just lucky. Sorry to hijack the thread there, but I had to say that.

[K C]

There's a lot of luck in the WSOP of course. That's the case in every tournament. But you have to be both good and lucky to win one of these. Perhaps not the best, but that's what poker is - combination of luck and skill.

Those kind of returns that Harrington suggests are pretty outrageous as everyone has commented. You can get this perhaps on the short term, but you won't be able to sustain it.

KC
kingcobrapoker.com

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

Those kind of returns that Harrington suggests are pretty outrageous as everyone has commented. You can get this perhaps on the short term, but you won't be able to sustain it.


[/ QUOTE ]
That has been stated many times. Can you give any objective evidence to back up the assertion that a top expert player can't average a 700% ROI on large live MTTs analogous to the WSOP?

I'd like to see statistics like the average stack size for top players after day 1, day 2, etc. including those who busted out. Failing that, I'd like to see data about how the top players from each year performed in subsequent years. This data should be available, so why not use it if it supports your claims?

What do you think Raymer's theoretical ROI was in the Foxwoods tournaments he played in each week before winning the WSOP main event? That is much smaller, and I believe the concentration of prize money at the top may have been lower, making it harder for an expert to win. Nevertheless, I believe his actual ROI over dozens of tournaments was remarkably high.

[murfnyc]

[quote
In a deep money no-limit tournament 100% ROI is probably possible for the best players - maybe even 200% under optimal conditions. But 600-700% is totally impossible -

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a few years ago, when the majority of players in big buy-in tournaments were above-average players, I probably would have agreed with you. But let's try and make some assumptions about today's tournaments.

In a big buy-in event with 1,500 players, I would believe that about half would be poor players and expect to only get back about 50% of the buy-in over time. Let's say another 300 expect to get back about 75% of their buy-in. That leaves 450 players to share 900 buy-ins. I then think it is fair to assume that the top players of the remaining 400 could make 5x-6x their buy-ins.

This, of course, is all guesswork, but just trying to prove that the numbers could work.

[Iceman]

You assume that some of the best 450 have a much higher EV than others, which is definitely not the case. Once the blinds rise to even a moderate level, there isn't much difference in skill between a world class player and a pretty good player.

No-limit fields are tougher top to bottom than they used to be rather than easier - there may be more fish, but there are also a lot more strong players, and the quality of the average player is definitely higher.