A Theory about STEPS tournaments

[Tom Bayes]

I had never played a STEPS tournament before today. I went home early from work sick and decided I was well enough to play poker /images/graemlins/laugh.gif. In my light-headed state, I signed up for my first STEP 1 tournament.

I go about 2 orbits not playing a hand outside the blinds. I finally get my first hand worth raising, go to make a standard raise, and realize that I have inadvertently signed up for a LIMIT SNG. Doh! I thought all the min-raising was just sucky opponents.

Anyways, after shifting back to limit (I'm equally if not more comfortable with limit than no-limit), I qualify for STEP 2.

So here's my half-assed theory that I'd like some feedback from those who play a lot of STEPS.

Assume you are a decent but not top-notch player, i.e. you have read the standard books, read 2+2, and can beat fish but know you aren't in the league of the ZeeJustins and Gigabets of the world. Also assume you are roughly equal in ability at limit and no-limit holdem.

My theory is that this player should choose limit at any STEP where they feel they are an above-average player and no-limit for any STEP where they feel they are below-average. My rationale is that in a quickly structured single-table tourney, no-limit is a better choice if you feel the others can outplay you because you have the power of the big-bet (and the fallback of dumb luck).

What do you STEPpers think? Am I ridiculous?

[spentrent]

My theory is this: if you are choosing between STEP 1 and a $10+1 SNG, play the $10+1 (likewise for STEPS 2 and 3). You're a long shot to get to STEP 5, but if you do, you're an even longer shot to finish ITM.

Of course this theory doesn't apply if your goal is to have fun rather than earn a living. Hence the subversive evil that is the STEPS game -- this is why it's probably very +EV for the sharks.

[Tom Bayes]

Heh, I realize that starting at STEP 1 is just for entertainment and isn't advisable with the idea of making a long-term profit. STEPS is really just a cash cow for the top caliber SNG specialists who buy-in at STEP 5.

I guess what I meant with my rambling OP is that I'd choose no-limit over limit if I was in a situation where the other player(s) were superior to me (and vice-versa if they were inferior).

For instance, if I was going to play HU everyday for a few months with a world class player, they'd whip me over the long-term no matter whether we playing limit or NL. However, if I was to face a WCP one time in a heads-up freezeout, I'd certainly choose no-limit over limit.

[The Yugoslavian]

Ummm, for the low STEPS I'd imagine that it doesn't much matter b/c you're better than average (given your assumption). Once you're up to level 4 I think it's best to just sit down at a table with the fewest known sharks -- hell, if the game is Pai Gow and you've never played you're probably still better off at that table if it's shark free.

Yugoslav

[Runner Runner]

Your theory makes no sense. You think you would have a better shot in a no limit sng against top class oppostion then you would in a limit sng. That's ridiculous.

Think about it in terms of making mistakes. You can make some pretty big mistakes in no limit, or be induced into making big mistakes that will cost you your tournament life. A limit SNG would even the playing field, you will make less big mistakes and you will be outplayed less because there is less play too it, and more luck. There are less decisions to make, you don't have to worry about how much to bet, just whether to bet.

If I were to sit down at a poker table with the very best players knowing I was taking the worst of it I would want to talk them into playing dice, my second choice would be limit holdem.

So for the Step tournaments I would want to play NL up to Step 3 maybe, then at any level where I was below average I would prefer limit.

[adanthar]

The Step difficulty levels are somewhere around here:

2 tables are much easier than one tables, period

2 tables: NL 5 > Lim 5-3 > NL2 > NL3 > NL 4 > Lim 1-2 > NL 1

1 tables: NL 5 > Lim 5 > NL 4 > Lim 4-1 > NL 3 > NL 2 > NL1

The limit structure really sucks in general but if you have a freeroll, have no reads on anyone and feel like flipping lots of coins, you may want to buy into them just because the field is so much softer.

Of course, you'd better get very lucky if you do.

[ilya]

You really think the 1 table NL3s are harder than the NL2s? I mean, there are 50% more next-step freerolls to be won in the former.....are the players really more than 50% better?

[Benholio]

[ QUOTE ]
2 tables: NL 5 > Lim 5-3 > NL2 > NL3 > NL 4 > Lim 1-2 > NL 1

[/ QUOTE ]

You are saying that Step 2 is harder than 3, which is harder than 4? I'm not arguing (haven't played them much), just suprised that this might be the case.

If this is true, you should always be buying in at 3 or 4 huh?

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
You really think the 1 table NL3s are harder than the NL2s? I mean, there are 50% more next-step freerolls to be won in the former.....are the players really more than 50% better?

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh, I dunno, it's kinda approximate. I do feel a difference, though - Step 2's full of lucky Step 1 winners and 3's got a lot of direct buyins. But I see your point.

[ QUOTE ]
If this is true, you should always be buying in at 3 or 4 huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. 1's so easy that I can make it to 2 around 50% (I think my long term ROI is within 5%) so I get 2 for about half off. 2 is pretty hard thanks to the structure and better players, but I still expect to place slightly more than my share - it probably only costs me about $80-90 to get a Step 3 freeroll nowadays, assuming no mental errors.

If time was an issue, it would be more complicated, though.

[Tom Bayes]

Maybe so, sometimes my posts get silly when I'm at home sick on cold medicine.

The idea behind taking NL against the expert is the chance of winning the tourney very quickly-of course, you can lose very quickly as well. And you are in trouble (no matter the game) at a table of sharks.

It's a moot point anyway-I don't see any limit STEP 5's running.