How often should a good player win?

[FirstClash]

Okay, I have a question here that's been poking at me for a couple days now.

I had made a post a couple days ago about whether or not it's correct to go all in with AA up against 3 other all-ins when I can slide into the money by folding, or take a 40% or so chance of getting knocked out of the tournament in 5th place.

If I played a hundred games where such a senario came up, I would place about 60 of them by calling.

It seems that quite often when I'm in a single table tournament I am faced with some decision of whether or not to call an all-in with reasonable calling cards by someone with more chips than me or with enough chips to basically wipe me out when I lose the hand. If I were to take every one of those all-in bets when I have the best hand pre-flop, I don't think I'll win very many tournaments.

If I don't count entry fees, I have to take 3rd 50% of the time just to break even, if I never win or take 2nd. Or I have to take 2nd 1 out of 3 tries or take first 1 out of 5 tries. Because of entry fees, you have to do a little better than that.

Now when you combine that if you can take 1st some of the time, 2nd some of the time and 3rd some of the time, you don't have to place quite 50% of the time to break even. I'm not sure, but I think it's about 40% of the time once you include entry fees.

But if everyone at the table is even, ability wise, I will only place about 30% of the time.

But lets say someone like Sklansky is at a $10 table. He should outclass the other players by a landslide. How often should a pro win a 10 person single table tournament against $10 players? And if the answer is 80% or 90% of the time, is he calling those all-ins when it threatens a substancial amount of his stack?

I'm trying to find a gage where I can measure my progress to figure out when I make it from bad to descent to good to very good, etc.

[ColdestCall]

First, this post is a little too disjointed for me to answer directly, but I do think I can tell you a couple of things which will be very helpful.

1. Jesus ain't winning a STT 90% of the time. Or 80 for that matter.

2. You should start at page 56 of the threads and work your way back to page 1, reading every single post of every single thread along the way, along with jumping to some other threads that you will be directed to along the way. When you have done this, you will see that I am not being a smart ass by saying this (I hope), and you will have answered your own question and improved your game dramatically.

3. If you are unwilling to do number 2 (which would be a mistake), start keeping track of your STT results. You should be looking to get in the money about 35-40% of the time at this level, with about the same number of 1st and 3rd place finishes, and fewer seconds. If you can manage this, you will be a winning player at this level.

4. See #2.

Good luck!

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]

1. Jesus ain't winning a STT 90% of the time. Or 80 for that matter.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know... If Jesus knew how all the cards would fall, then I think you could make an argument for 80% - 90% ITM. But, I digress...

Nice reply, CC. Right on ...

-Gryph

[FirstClash]

He meant Jesus the pro-poker player, right?

[ColdestCall]

I hope you are kidding, but, no, I meant the big JC.

[FirstClash]

#3 answers my question, I think... #2 is true too. I do need to spend more time reading the forums... I want to finish reading the Theory of Poker, by Sklansky first... I'm somewhere in the middle of chapter 12 so I have a ways to go.

I've kept track of my last 9, $5 + $0.50 tournaments... I took 1st once, 2nd once, and 3rd twice. The other 5 I bombed out.

I tried practicing the principles I learned in the first 11 chapters of the Theory of Poker in play money and lost consistantly... I thought what I read meant to fold less and take the odds, which went against what I had believed to be how I win when I win. Chapter 12, hit me right between the eyes and put me back to realizing that I had been playing more properly before by usually folding against semi-bluffs when I don't have the best hand, and occasionally semi-bluffing back when I have decent draws.

I want to also understand how risk managment plays into single table tournaments. Statistics tells me that if I make to many risky bets, I'm going to bust. So, along my journey I hope to figure out how to determine the risk factor and how much risk is safe.

I'm glad someone finally responded... I know it's a vague question that I asked and was starting to think that maybe no one knew the answer. But at least I can set a goal to win 1st 2 times, 2nd 1 time, and 3rd 2 times out of say 12 games. Since that should be achievable based on #3.

I actually took first once in a free roll with 1800 players; it was my 6th or 7th time playing in them. So, I think I can play well some of the time... Other times I make a fatal error and lose. Are their any other ways to rate your ability? Any poker IQ tests?

[ColdestCall]

1. Play money games are a complete waste of time for learning anything except how the buttons work. They will tell you ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about how to play real money games.

2. #2 in my first reply is way, way, way more important than number 3. Do yourself and your bankroll a big favor, and TRUST ME ON THIS! Theory of Poker is a good book. However, if you are going to play the STT's put it down immediately and read these forums in the manner I advised. Further, and I know this will be tough, do this reading (and finish Theory for that matter) BEFORE you play even ONE MORE tournament. Your Poker life will change for the better, I promise.

[FirstClash]

I will do what you said. I'm kind of fondly attached to my bankroll. And, I won't hurt myself by waiting to play until after I do the reading. I really do appreciate your advice.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
If I were to take every one of those all-in bets when I have the best hand pre-flop, I don't think I'll win very many tournaments.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you call all-in bets when you have the best hand, you'll win a lot of tournaments.

[MrMon]

I have no idea how a pro would do in STTs, but they're so small, I also think they would be a waste of time to them. However, we do have some pretty successful people here, so let's use them. Heck, use me. I'm no where near as good as some of these guys, but at 20-25% long term in the $20 at Paradise, I think that's reasonable. For me, I'm ITM 38-40% of the time, the present cold streak excepted. Distribution (1-2-3-4)looks something like 17%-11%-10%-6%. 4th is my lowest place, except for 10th. 2-3 looks like 6-7 as well. I happen to think that's a pretty good ratio, and obtainable by most good players. I think the trick is to realize when 3rd is more realistic than 1st, and just go for the ITM rather than the win. With a little luck, that sort of manuever can also get you 1st, as just surviving until the overagressive types blow themselves up and you get a great hand can pay really well.

[willie24]

read sklansky's "tournament poker for advanced players" for a good foundation. it is geared towards multi-table tournaments but it clearly shows the most important general concepts to understand for all tournaments.

[ QUOTE ]
Statistics tells me that if I make to many risky bets, I'm going to bust. So, along my journey I hope to figure out how to determine the risk factor and how much risk is safe.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is very wrong. taking no risks is the most risky of all! this is because you will eventually be forced allin by the blinds with a small stack and a random hand. taking good risks when you get the chance will delay the moment when you are forced to take a bad risk.

[microbet]

Could Sklansky win 80-90% of the time if everyone but him had to play with the cards face up?

No. Maybe if he was playing against 9 5-year olds that had to keep their cards face up.

If you believe in that stuff I suppose you'd say Jesus could win 70-80% of the time, but 90%? I'd have to see better miracles than water into wine or giving sight to the blind before I'd go that far.

[excuse me if these jokes have already been used - I don't have time to read all the responses now]

[FirstClash]

I don't mean never take risks... every hand has risks... But you can make a lot of money on less risky plays... For example:
Let's say every time I get AA,AK and KK, I go all in... I will be called some of the time, I will get knocked out some of the time... But If I instead play the hands to just get more money in the pot rather than my entire stack, I can better recognize when a bad flop comes and I can save the rest of my stack when I get outdrawn. Raising by 10 or 20% of my stack is safer than going all in and I can still bank on it when I can safely call someone's pushing all-in post flop, especially if I limped in under the gun. Isn't that correct? By using deceptive play you make money when then guy with KK thinks he has an over pair and pushes all in. At this point you are a huge favorit with AA because there are only 2 cards left to come for him to beat you with another K.
I never said you can remove all risk or play with no risk. I'm talking about limiting the risks you do take to reasonable risk.

[KenProspero]

Hmmmmmmm, Jesus would probably hit the flop every single time (and give all his winnings to the poor). But your point is, of course, taken.

[willie24]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't mean never take risks... every hand has risks... But you can make a lot of money on less risky plays... For example:
Let's say every time I get AA,AK and KK, I go all in... I will be called some of the time, I will get knocked out some of the time... But If I instead play the hands to just get more money in the pot rather than my entire stack, I can better recognize when a bad flop comes and I can save the rest of my stack when I get outdrawn. Raising by 10 or 20% of my stack is safer than going all in and I can still bank on it when I can safely call someone's pushing all-in post flop, especially if I limped in under the gun. Isn't that correct? By using deceptive play you make money when then guy with KK thinks he has an over pair and pushes all in. At this point you are a huge favorit with AA because there are only 2 cards left to come for him to beat you with another K.
I never said you can remove all risk or play with no risk. I'm talking about limiting the risks you do take to reasonable risk.

[/ QUOTE ]

when you push with any hand that is the favorite (this includes A5 vs. KQ, 22 vs. AK etc as well as AA vs JTs), it is ALWAYS safer (although sometimes less profitable chipswise) than raising "to get money in the pot." this is because you will fold out your opponent and take preflop pot without confrontation the majority of the time.

there are not enough times in any SNG when it is right to fold AA on any street, to make "saving your whole stack with AA" a big enough deal to warrant raising less preflop.

trapping KK postflop is a bad reason to limp with AA. there is a 100% chance that KK will call your allin preflop anyway. trapping 99 into raising preflop so you can reraise allin is a pretty good reason to limp UTG with AA sometimes.

When you go allin with the best hand, you are forcing another player to GIVE YOU MONEY in order to have a chance to draw out on you. if you just limp or raise small, you are making it easier for them to take YOUR WHOLE STACK postflop.

Deception is VERY overrated in SNGs- ideally you would prefer to win every pot without a showdown (accomplished by big value raises early), and when you do have to showdown, you want to have pot odds for what it costs you (when the blinds/stack ratio increases you need much less of a hand to have a good pot-odds vs. no-showdown-equity ratio.) if you focus on that, and play correctly with regard to those 2 things, there is a 100% that you will beat low buyin SNGs.

[willie24]

Said another way:

I guarantee that it is possible to beat low buyin SNGs using the following simple strategy:

-never call (unless your call puts you allin)
-every bet/raise you make must be All-In

if you don't believe me, and especially if you are not a winning player, try it for a week. it will help your game a lot.

[FirstClash]

Maybe you misunderstood me... cause I just won another SNG $5+0.50... took first place... and never took an all-in bet that would put me out... Not saying I didn't push when necessary, but I won most of my chips by using deceptive play and taking the pot down fast when I have the hand. I don't let people bully me by going all-in all the time. When the pots are small and stacks are even there's not much point in risking all-ins so early in the tournament. I can play poker and win lots of smaller pots and build up some momentum. When the blinds start going bigger I can push harder because I have more chips than other people. I like my chips. I don't give them away. If your on the draw, you're not getting a free card at all. Sometimes I push hard, sometimes I push less. It all depends what I want to do.

[FirstClash]

Okay, I've kept track of my last 10 games... I gave up trying to read all the posts on here... I'm only half-way through Theory of Poker...

But here's my last 10 games:
1stx2
2ndx1
3rdx2
the other 5 games I didn't place.

So far I'm beating the 35-40% requirement but I'm on target with winning 1st and 3rd twice as often as 2nd. I do know that 10 is a very small sample size, but it's all I have to go on at the moment.

[1C5]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, I've kept track of my last 10 games... I gave up trying to read all the posts on here... I'm only half-way through Theory of Poker...

But here's my last 10 games:
1stx2
2ndx1
3rdx2
the other 5 games I didn't place.

So far I'm beating the 35-40% requirement but I'm on target with winning 1st and 3rd twice as often as 2nd. I do know that 10 is a very small sample size, but it's all I have to go on at the moment.

[/ QUOTE ]


Hahaha, wow, 10 sample size is impressive. Forget 1000....10 is where it is at!!! Keep up the good work! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[FirstClash]

Well, I really want to see where I'm at after about 30 or so... you can't get meaningful info with less than 30. But I'm at least off to a good start.

[ColdestCall]

"Okay, I've kept track of my last 10 games... I gave up trying to read all the posts on here... I'm only half-way through Theory of Poker..."

Hahahahah...You can lead a horse to water....

There are a lot of things I could take issue with, but, frankly, I give up. Hopefully for your sake you are already good enough to beat the games you are playing, but you are currently playing with a little knowledge and a lot of desire to play, which is a recipe for BR disaster.

Good luck anyway.

[FirstClash]

Well, I'm not going to stop reading... I read some everyday, on twoplustwo and in books. I spend more time reading than I do playing. Yesterday I only played 1 game. And I'm not sure I'm going to play today. I told myself I can win this one and I did. It wasn't easy. I can't wait to read the section on Heads up... I find heads up to be very stressful and seem to win primarily on luck at that point. Getting to 3rd and 2nd seem to be fairly easy most of the time.

I don't play a lot. I'm afraid to play because I'm afraid I might fail. But when I play and win, it boosts my confidence a lot. But not enough to make me go out and play another tournament immediatly. I don't consider myself an addict. I see poker as a means to an end. Not a passion.

I can see why you might think I'm a recipe for BR disaster. But I'm not jumping into ring games and betting my stack. I'm sticking to low risk, low payout sng table tournaments. It's good practice I think, cheap experience, and a place to work on plugging holes in my game.

I tried drinking the water but couldn't swallow some of it... seems like there's a lot of pollution in it. I will filter which threads I read by topic and who responds to them.

Thanks for the good luck, btw. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[FirstClash]

I've done an analysis of your #3. And this is what I've come up with...

Let's say you win 1st and 3rd twice as often as you win 2nd in $10+1 singles.

Let's also say you place 40% of the time.

You said if you can do these two things you can make money.

Here's the math I come up with when I apply those figures.

1st = $39 net x 2 = $78
2nd = $19 net
3rd = $9 net x 2 = $18

For a total of $115

This represents 40% of the times you play. So the number of games it takes to play to place 5 times is:

5/40 = x/100

Solving for x you get 12.5 games.

out of 12.5 games you lost 7.5 times representing the other 60%...

7.5 * -11 net = -$82.50

$115 won - $82.50 lost is a net profit of $32.50.

$32.50 / 12.5 games is an average winnings of $2.60 per game.

This is not winning money. This is playing for free. lol.

Whereas I'm currently placing 60% now on my last 10 games, with a 55% over-all average.

This would make make me about $8 per game... Still not a lot of money.

Just seems to me that there are enough people out there making money off SNG table tournaments that their win ratio has to be better than 40% in the long run. 40% is about break even.

For this to be a profitable senario, I would want to be winning 60-70% of the time minimum.

So why does everyone keep saying that these numbers are impossible?

[illab]

[ QUOTE ]

This would make make me about $8 per game... Still not a lot of money.


[/ QUOTE ]
If you're playing in $10+$1 SNGs, then $8 is a ton of money. I'd venture to say with its hard to do much better than that. If you are making more than $4 a game at the $10+$1 than I'm almost positive it would be more profitable to move up to higher buyins than figure out how to beat them for 60-70%.

[FirstClash]

$8 is only if you win about 60% of the time or better. Not if you win 40% of the time... People are saying you can't get to 60%. If that's true, I won't be able to maintain or improve my current stats. And I would come back down to winning a little over $2/game.

The other thing is I'm not playing $10+1... I did the calculation on a $10+1 because that's what he mentioned in his post.

Maybe $5+0.50 are easier than $10+1... But even so, I'm currently averaging $4/game which is twice what I'd expect from winning 40% of the time in a $10+1.

If $10+1's are that much harder, then there's no point in my moving up to that level yet.

[willie24]

There is little if any difference between the difficulty of the $5 and $10 games that I have played.

If you can beat $5+.50s for $4 per game, you should without question move immediately to the $100s

[FirstClash]

I take it you play the 100's and you want my money. lol