Passing up small edges early (revisted yet again)

[woodguy]

Hello All,

We all know the debate between the "survialists" and the "accumulators" when it comes to small edes early in a tourney.

I fall solidly on the "accumulator" side of that equation, espcially in regards to online tourneys with 15min-20 min levels.

To quickly re-cap:
The accumulators say you cannot pass up any edge as you have to accumulate chips to win.

The survivalist say you should pass up these edges because you will get a greater edge later, and you may go broke chasing the small edge.

The survialist often quote DS from TPFAP when stating their case.

I was re-reading TPFAP again this weekend, and I came accross the oft quoted part of the book about passing up early edges (p19-20)

I have added bold in the key parts (and I wanted to feel like Doyle Brunson)

[ QUOTE ]
But there is another reason to eschew close gambles even early on. This reason has nothing to do with the prize structure, and in fact is something you should be aware of even if the tournament paid only one winner. What I am speaking of involves the presumption that you are one of the best players in the tournament. That being the case, you should avoid close gambles, especially for large portions of your chips.


[/ QUOTE ]

So, you should pass up slight edges ONLY if you are the best player there. I can safely assume I am never the best player in the tourney, so I will not pass up these edges.

I don't know any poster that can confidently say they are the best players in any tourney, online or live.

The ones that probably come closest also happen to be the ones who need no convincing to take every edge offered (hmmmm....may be a corelation there)

After quoting DS to back up their reason for weak-tight play early, the "survivalist" then usually ends the conversation.

But to make this matter clear, DS brings it up again on page 25

[ QUOTE ]
Thus, it is quite common to see a player who is notorious for his looseness in normal games playing significantly tighter when he has a small or moderate tack in a poker tournament. Ironically, these players are probably making a mistake. Only the very best players should be avoiding slightly positive gamles to allow their bigger edges time to accumulate. The typical tournament player should not ever turn down any situation with the smallest of edges. You could even argue that he should gamble in situations where he has slightly the worst of it. But that is not the way the vast majority of mediocre tournament players operate.


[/ QUOTE ]

So, we cannot forget who DS is talking about when he mentions passing up small edges.

Its not us.

Regards,
Woodguy

[fnord_too]

Just to add a little fuel to the fire, either Sklansky or Mason sais in one essay that you should accept more varriance early in a tournament to lessen varriance later.

Personally, I think in cases of very small edges, the margin of error of for assumptions and at the table calculations will be greater than the edge (or lack there of!) in the situation. I will typically gamble early for a lot of reasons (but time does not allow me to really go into them all right now). Later, the situations become pretty extreme due to the blind sizes and payout structure, so decisions get easier (for me) later in tournaments.

[IgorSmiles]

A quick question about this. Let's say that you knowingly put all your money in as a 53%/47% favorite four times in the first hour of a tourny. What are the odds you will see the second hour? I'm not saying you should fold as a favorite, but it makes me wonder then, is tournament poker any better than shooting dice?

[suited_ace]

Well, first of all, I don't think Sklansky wrote this with online tournaments in mind. Avoiding close gambles early on with t10k is very different from doing the same thing with t1.5k.

Secondly, I don't think his point should be taken so literally. It is an utopic situation to remind ring game players of the adaptations they need to bring into their play.

If you don't take it literally, the concept can be used for live play. Online play is a whole different ball game.

[jackdaniels]

Good point woodguy. A few days ago there was a poster asking about calling a push on the first hand of the WSOP and what holding's you'd have to have in order to do so. While non of the options was AA (on which there is plenty of discussion already - as to whether you should fold it pre-flop on the first hand to an all in bet), my thinking then, and now, (if you are holding KK) is that unless you feel your opponent has AA, you HAVE TO CALL. To fold one would have to be -
1. VERY good in tournament play (one of the best)
2. Not really interested in winning, but rather "staying alive" as long as possible.

There simply aren't any hands aside from AA that you are worried about and taking a chance early (first hand) is MUCH better than taking it later.

My advice - take any edge you can get early (and often) - if you bust, play another tourney. If you win, you are MUCH more likely to make some real cash at the final table. Now I don't recommend playing a LAG game, but if you are fairly certain you have the best of it and it is early enough in the tourney - go ahead and gamble it up. You will get the chip edge you need to weather the inevitable bad beats that will follow.

[hurlyburly]

I'm a survivalist working hard to find out how to be an accumulator. Some questions/thoughts for you:

What classifies "one of the best players"? I think you're a better player than I am, and I see myself as a top 10% player in most games (but rarely do I feel like the best player at my table, until proven otherwise). I interpreted Sklansky's statement to mean that we should split the tourny into 2 pieces (in the money, out of the money). Making it into the money is our first goal (when the "real" tournament begins), so IMO top 10% is one of the best players.

Next question, what constitutes a "small edge"? In the early stages of a rebuy tourny, how happy are you when you've got AA and 4 people all-in ahead of you (VERY f'in happy)? You're usually going to be about 37-54% to win the hand, which is higher than everyone else, but on average you are going to lose that hand more often than you win it, so calling that all-in becomes a "small-edge" (FFS CALL here people, this is not THAT post again). The chips you pull back from that 1 hand are only significant for a short time before you need to win more, so every pot you win is a "small edge" for the overall tournament until you are holding a significant portion of the chips in play.

Does OESD+flush draw w/a medium suited connector = small edge or laydown to a big raise? I tend to play these like the nuts but I also take down others who think that way on a regular basis, so it sure seems like a perspective thing.

Re-reading TPAFP this weekend had me doing a lot of thinking about this.

I'm learning to stop thinking that I need to win with every premium hand and toss all the marginals and judge each hand entirely on odds and merits. It's a lot more math than I'm used to, and I'm putting more money into pots on the turn and river in a way that feels Omaha-esque, which definitely takes getting used to. My average hands/played jumped from 11-13% to about 19% and I'm winning more big pots (while as a %/played, losing more often). Showing down more hands has a disastrous effect on the image though, and finding a solid mix is crucial to avoid getting run out early on every draw. I'm still trying to find that mix. After a year of practicing ways to take down pots with no showdowns by pushing the draw, it's VERY difficult to wait for it, then strike when I hit hard enough to make up for the misses while still getting the call.

Anyway, great post, I'm sure it got everyone thinking.

[IgorSmiles]

[ QUOTE ]
2. Not really interested in winning, but rather "staying alive" as long as possible.


[/ QUOTE ]

I hear this arguement all the time and I dont buy it. Every player is interested in winning and the only way to win a tournament is to stay alive as long as possible, or in fact, to stay alive until the very end.

[jackdaniels]

You are absolutely right - you have to survive till the end to make money. If you want to make the real money though (spots 1-3), you need to:

1. Get cards
2. Get lucky (most winners got lucky at least once as an underdog is what I hear)
3. Play GOOD poker.

Not necessarily in that order.

Now, if you get some good cards early on and have the chance to capitalize on someone elses reckless play - giving up that positive EV, waiting for a "better spot" is counter productive - you are unlikely to be THAT much more of a favorite anytime down the road, and will be facing a much more precarious position (as it always is the longer you have been playing and closer you get to the money).

Taking risks, when you have the best of it, EARLY in a tournament - is the best chance a good (read, top 10%) player has to win, unless the deck hits him/her in the face.

[hurlyburly]

I don't know, that early "bubble" time (20-25% left) has always been my best accumulation period. Every final table I've ever made I'd been on the shortstack (bottom 20%) and made the money in the top 30. I go back to the old SnG adage that you can lose a tourny in the early levels, but you can never win one there.

You are spot on with the 3 requirements though.

[jackdaniels]

Yes, accumulating chips is best done early bubble stage and after the antes have been introduced (thanks eMarkM!). However, if you reach this stage with below average chips, even 1 bad steal (or bad beat) can put you out. Often, if you play good poker, this is the normal situation you face - you don't always get KK and have a player willing to push it all in pre-flop... Now, if you get a great opportunity to double up/accumulate a lot of chips early on, it is much easier to play good poker and take advantage of the low stacks later. Getting to the blind stealing phase with an above average chip stack and a tight image does wonders for winning a tourney.

To stress a point - I am not advocating getting it all in there with pocket fours vs. AK every chance you get. What I am saying is unless you are a top player (say top 1%), you should not pass +EV situations early in an MTT - there simply may not be a better time later on and more importantly, even if you DO get a better spot later on, any bad beat and you don't have enough chips to recover.

[woodguy]

[ QUOTE ]
Every player is interested in winning and the only way to win a tournament is to stay alive as long as possible, or in fact, to stay alive until the very end.


[/ QUOTE ]

True.

An important aspect to staying alive is keeping your stack growing ahead of the blinds.

Escalating blinds demand that chip accumulation is the most important way to stay alive.


We have all done well in tourneys without having a big stack for the whole tourney.

We have all also done well when we have had a large stack.

Aquiring chips so that when you are in a pot with an opponent whom you can bust, but he can't bust you, is a great edge for any player.

We all know how much easier it is to aquire chips with a larger stack.

It stands to reason then, that the earlier we get the bigger stack, the easier it is to grow your stack, the longer you stay alive.


I am not tyring to tell you how to grow your stack. I am looking forward to Lloyd's thread on that subject.

I am saying that surviving in a tourney is much easier with a larger stack, and the best way to that larger stack is to exploit every edge that you find.

*note* I am at work and I know this isn't great, but I wanted to respond. Hopefully someone more eloqent that I can help.

Regards,
Woodguy

[MLG]

[ QUOTE ]
Every player is interested in winning and the only way to win a tournament is to stay alive as long as possible, or in fact, to stay alive until the very end.

[/ QUOTE ]


Said another way, the only way to win a tournament is to acquire every single chip. Hanging around and surviving without growing your stack appreciably doesnt increase your chances of winning at all.

[woodguy]

Wow. Good response.

[ QUOTE ]
What classifies "one of the best players"?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is tough to quantify. Online there is such a vast pool of good players (and thankfully a much larger pool of fish) that I don't think I could ever consider myself the best.
I do not know how others would quantify that.


[ QUOTE ]
Next question, what constitutes a "small edge"?


[/ QUOTE ]

Grey Raymer and Paul Phillips have both stated that they would not give up a 55%-45% early. Other #'s that get thrown around are 60%-40%.

This subject is best addressed by talking about putting your opponent on a range of hands and knowing what your edge is against that range.

After you have figured your range, an important part of your edge is usually folding equity. This is the reason that most players will always much rather be the raiser than the caller.

If you believe that you hand is ahead of your opponents range, and you can put him to the question with a bet or raise that is all the edge I usually need to make a move.

This subject is best discected in a thread of its own as it is vast.


[ QUOTE ]
Showing down more hands has a disastrous effect on the image though, and finding a solid mix is crucial to avoid getting run out early on every draw.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.
Picking your spots is always important, and position plays an important part on which hands I select, or whether or not to chase a draw (as well as pot odds of course)

Showing down weak hands does change your image, but then you have to exploit that image.
When I was learning my way around MTT's I would watch Che play and one of the most important things I learned was changing gears.
He would pound on his opponents until they started playing back, then slow down until he showed a good hand or two, then start pounding again until he was slowed down again...etc. etc.

What ever your image is, you can exploit it.

Man, there is a lot here to discuss, and I'm really not the guy to be leading the discussion.

Regards,
Woodguy

[JaBlue]

So on the first hand you would accept a 51-49 situation getting, say, 2.1:1?

[woodguy]

[ QUOTE ]
So on the first hand you would accept a 51-49 situation getting, say, 2.1:1?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

It can make for some early exits, but when I win, no one else on the table can bust me.

That's power.

Regards,
Woodguy

[MLG]

do you mean 1.1:1? 2.1:1 is easy. The real question is would you take 40-60 getting 2.1:1.

[JaBlue]

Would your answer be the same if you had driven three hours to the casino?

[JaBlue]

Yeah, I meant 1.1:1.

[Absolution]

I agree now, but I used to be a surivalist. As someone else pointed out, online this is probably true for even the best player in the tournament. The blinds just move too fast relative to your stack to be waiting around for monsters. At low-stakes where your volatility is huge there can be no excuse for waiting. You need to start building right away to survive the beats your going to take.

It would probably be educational for people to start posting some hands demonstrating this. I have done that in the past. I have found this comes up a lot with hands like AK before the flop and strong draws on the flop (e.g. pair and a flush draw, overs and flush draw, gutshot and a flush draw, etc...). Maybe people are confusing LAG with pushing small edges.

[woodguy]

[ QUOTE ]
Would your answer be the same if you had driven three hours to the casino?


[/ QUOTE ]

Dunno, never driven 3 hours to play. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Seriously, the three best casinos for poker in Edmonton are all within a 15 minute drive.

Another good question is how juicy are the side games?

I also saw that you reposted to MLG saying 1.1-1 not 2.1.

In that case it depends if I'm the aggressor.

I'd would bet it, not sure if I would call it.

Regards,
Woodguy

[Pat Southern]

[ QUOTE ]
do you mean 1.1:1? 2.1:1 is easy. The real question is would you take 40-60 getting 2.1:1.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd much rather take 40% on a 2.1-1 call than getting 1.1-1 on a 51% call. I'll take a 40% chance to triple up anyday.

[SoBeDude]

Also it says for MOST of your chips. you really shouldn't be playing for MOST of your chips early in a tourney, unless u have a really big hand.

Things to do early in a tourney:
1. Play aggressively
2. Gamble
3. Push small edges

playing this way early-on is important IMO. It allows you to establish image and control over the table when the price is cheap.

I also show all my big hands that aren't shown down so they get an image in their minds I'm playing big hands. Then later on, when the price gets expensive, I can steal more.

It also makes my opponents play predictibly against me. Once they know I'm willing to gamble and I'm playing big hands, my opponents really only play back at me with monsters. Easy to know where I am in the hand that way.

-Scott

[hurlyburly]

Good point about the LAG. I've fallen into the trap plenty of times when confusing a decent accumulator with a LAG. I've since adjusted by not playing back at them unless I have position on them or am within 5 of the nuts (preferably both).

The funny thing is, you can use the same strategy for both types of players. Accumulators tend to pounce when you show weakness, and LAGs pounce with what they perceive is strength, so it's much easier to slowplay hands that usually need to show strength to win. There is no fold equity, so it's never a question of "if" anyone's going to raise, it mostly comes down to how broad I need to set the gap.

[Lloyd]

[ QUOTE ]
A quick question about this. Let's say that you knowingly put all your money in as a 53%/47% favorite four times in the first hour of a tourny. What are the odds you will see the second hour? I'm not saying you should fold as a favorite, but it makes me wonder then, is tournament poker any better than shooting dice?

[/ QUOTE ]
It all comes down to stack sizes. Obviously, if you're battling an equal stack size each time, you stand a good chance to get knocked out. But if you double up on the first "coin flip", and face somebody with a stack around the starting size on the second, the worst you are is back to starting stack size if you lose.

[hurlyburly]

Well thanks for bringing up such a hot topic!

Can't argue with Raymer and Phillips, results speak and they have em. I am not there yet tho, and can't make that style work often enough to be +$EV. I don't think any single style or gameplan is ever going to be the answer, it is obvious that a combination of tactics and strategy is what separates the winners from the "break even" players.

I'm dying to find a way to recognize early how I need to adjust to decide whether to go for early accumulation or bubble aggression to get to the final table. I've been following the cards, but sometimes they lie.

Thanks for the response about image, that's a good one. I'll post a hand from the other night that I suspect ruined me for the night in another thread as an example.

[docknet]

Hmmm...

I neglected to point out in that poll thread the DS says not to call an allin bet early in the MTT because it is most likely the allin player has AA.

[docknet]

[ QUOTE ]
I hear this arguement all the time and I dont buy it. Every player is interested in winning and the only way to win a tournament is to stay alive as long as possible, or in fact, to stay alive until the very end.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here. Here. Survival does not entail not playing your premium hands; it simply means staying out of huge gambles while the crazies knock themselved out of the tourny.

[woodguy]

[ QUOTE ]
it simply means staying out of huge gambles while the crazies knock themselved out of the tourny.


[/ QUOTE ]

You want the crazies money.
Since they are crazy, you can put them on a wider range of hands than a normal opponent and take some gambles with them.
With the crazies chips in your stack early you can accumulate more chips easier.

If there is easy money on the table, why would you want to sit back and let others get it?

Regards,
Woodguy

[jackdaniels]

There are 2 parts to this post - the first I disagree with and the second I do agree with.

I disagree with taking HUGE gambles early on (and by this I mean, low percentage gambles for most/all of my chips). I want to take HIGH percentage gambles for a lot/all of my chips early on - best done against crazies (this is the part I agree with), as no sane player is going to give you the high edge we are talking about for so many chips.

[IgorSmiles]

We were talking about small edges. Meaning getting your money in on a slight advantage coin flip or as a dog with slightly favorable calling odds. Obviously, if some knucklehead wants to go all in with 2nd pair and you have an overpair...well, we dont need much discussion on that.

[jackdaniels]

Yes, yes, I understand what you are saying. Example: You have QQ, you make your standard raise pre flop and get a push from the guy you just saw push the last 4 hands pre flop that he was involved in - showing a medium PP (88-JJ)or AK every time - lets say he won 2 and lost 2 - giving him the same amount of chips as you (to keep it simple). Should you call this? It is early, you do have lots of chips left - and you may be a big dog (he MAY have AA/KK this time). You may have a small edge (it could be AK) or you may be a 4 to 1 favourite. So, what do you do? What I am saying is that based on this players previous behaviour, I am willing to take the chance of being a small favourite (for all my chips vs. AK), even the chance of being a big dog (AA/KK) for the likelyhood that he is doing this with a medium PP again. This is the scenario I am describing - where you have a known crazy who is willing to gamble early on. The edge here may be small (AK) or big (PP<QQ) - but I think here is the place you want to gamble - because the LIKELYHOOD of you being way ahead outweighs the risk of you being behind (AA/KK) and compensates for any coin flip you may encounter (AK). This is what I meant when I said "high" percentage gambles - since we never know FOR SURE what the other player has till the cards get flipped over, a high precentage gamble entails putting your opponent on a range of hands and willingly risking him being ahead knowing that most likely, he is behind.

[thefranchise]

it seems to me that it really comes down to your skill set.

a survivalist needs to be able to rely on extreme discipline with regards to playing premium hands in position and laying down hands like ak to all in re-raises by bigger stacks. not everyone can raise for 20% of their stack and then lay down ak to a re-raise all in. most accumulators can't avoid the gamble. there is very little margin for error for the surv. b/c he doesn't have the extra chips to sacrifice. however, the tight table image and aggressive play with big hands will help reinforce the strong hands he is playing and reinforce the high percentage of pots he wins. the aggressive play with strong hands is an important note. the survivalist needs to avoid being out drawn and needs to win medium sized pots along the way before the turn. this doesn't mean the survivalist doesn't extract value out of monsters or steal in position when necessary. it just means that he does that less frequently. the survivalist must have the ability to maintain this discipline for the duration of a very long tourney. however, he has to make fewer decisions per hand.

the accumulator must be able to rely on perception. Discipline is less important because he is playing the man and not the cards quite as much. he can only accumulate if he can make multiple decisions per hand based on the information given. he also needs to be able to adjust constantly to the perception he is presenting. all in, accumulating is just much riskier.

[Pulplife]

No matter what "side" of the fence you fall on, I believe the key is to incorporate both ideas. I think woodguy hit the nail on the head when he stated, "I would watch Che play and one of the most important things I learned was changing gears".

I do not claim to have perfected this idea, but that's the goal. I think that if you are TOO far to the right (accumulator) or TOO far left (survialist), you fall into a predictable game. The last thing you want is to ALWAYS play one way or the other.

So whether you are an "accumulator" or a "survialist" is maybe less important than being an unpredictable "solid" poker player.

Pulp /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[sthief09]

I have a question... is it more appealing or less appealing to take a small edge post-bubble or early on?

for example, you have a 15 BB stack. somehow the pot is offering you 2:1 and it's guaranteed to be headsup. you have 76s and your opponent tells you he's not paired so you're 2:3 to win it. should you be more apt to take this with 120 people left where 60 cash, or with 50 people left where 60 cash? and why?

[woodguy]

Both are equal.

$EV and Chip EV do not diverge until the payouts change per placing, which is usually only the final table.

Regards,
Woodguy

[sthief09]

so would you rather take that situation with 10 left, 5 left, or 100 left? or does it depend on relative stack size?

[woodguy]

If he can't bust me, I take it.

I may pass with 5 left.

If I was far behind the chip leaders I would take it with 5 left.

Same applies to 10 left.

With 100 left I would take it regardless.

Regards,
Woodguy

[MLG]

great question. I would always take the gamble early in a tournament. After the money I think I'm calling more times than not, but there are situations where I'd pass. If I had a small stack I'd always take it. If I had a big stack and the gamble was a small-smallish portion of my stack I would always take it. If losing the gamble would move me from a situation where I had enough chips to steal to one where I didn't, I might pass. Pass, how delightfully British of me.

[MLG]

I don't think its quite that cut and dry, there are situations I'd pass up.

[HoldingFolding]

Off topic, but a consideration for me at least: enjoyment - the luxuriating in the power factor. I hate cringing in the corner with less than 10BBs waiting for any sort of hand that I know is going to be called by Mr. Megastack. I relish stealing the blinds with 42s, knowing that even if someone plays back at me it's not going to impact my tournament significantly.

[woodguy]

True.

At the time sfthief09 posted I was just about to put 28 day aged Alberta AAA ribeye steaks on the barbeque (avec Montreal steak spice dry rub) and 1lb lobster tails in to steam for a late valentine's dinner. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Wanted to respond, but had to be brief.

The variables are too nuanced to really put down in a post, but cut and dried that's what I would do.

Regards,
Woodguy

[sthief09]

drool

[woodguy]

[ QUOTE ]
Off topic, but a consideration for me at least: enjoyment - the luxuriating in the power factor. I hate cringing in the corner with less than 10BBs waiting for any sort of hand that I know is going to be called by Mr. Megastack. I relish stealing the blinds with 42s, knowing that even if someone plays back at me it's not going to impact my tournament significantly.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree entirely.

That is exactly what this post is about.

My experience is that having more chips early is so condusive to building the stack that I really can't go back to the ultra tight play I used before.

I seem to be running more hot and cold since I adopted this philosophy, but the greater amount of final tables more than makes up for the extra "bust out" tourneys in terms of $$$.

Chips=Power=$$$

Regards,
Woodguy

[woodguy]

I ate as much as I could and the thought of the meal still makes me hungry. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Regards,
Woodguy

[woodguy]

[ QUOTE ]
If losing the gamble would move me from a situation where I had enough chips to steal to one where I didn't, I might pass.


[/ QUOTE ]

Great point.

Regards,
Woodguy

[suited_ace]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a question... is it more appealing or less appealing to take a small edge post-bubble or early on?

for example, you have a 15 BB stack. somehow the pot is offering you 2:1 and it's guaranteed to be headsup. you have 76s and your opponent tells you he's not paired so you're 2:3 to win it. should you be more apt to take this with 120 people left where 60 cash, or with 50 people left where 60 cash? and why?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm equally apt to take this pre or post bubble, but I don't feel that bad when I lose it if I'm already ITM.

[jackdaniels]

Yes, great point.

[Whitey]

I think this is player dependant.

You say you need chips early to build a big stack,not everyone needs this.

Personally I don't mind being around the average during the early and middle stages,as long as I stay ahead of the blinds I'm happy.

I would rather push 1 small edge that propels me into a strong position rather than 3 or 4 in the hope I can dominate my opponents.

People need to do what there good at,but mix it up when necessary.

[Che]

[ QUOTE ]
When I was learning my way around MTT's I would watch Che play

[/ QUOTE ]

No wonder you aren't one of the best MTTer's around, woodguy - you don't pick your role models very well! /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

But, I do see that you're using past tense, so I guess there's still hope for you. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Che]

Nice thread, woodguy, and I would say that even if you hadn't said nice things about me. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Nonetheless, I disagree with some of your analysis.

[ QUOTE ]
So, you should pass up slight edges ONLY if you are the best player there. I can safely assume I am never the best player in the tourney, so I will not pass up these edges.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the DS quote says "one of the best" not "THE best."

Except for occasional shots at tourneys that you know are out of your league, you should always be "one of the best" or you're playing at the wrong level.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know any poster that can confidently say they are the best players in any tourney, online or live.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose there are only a handful of people in the world who could say with confidence that they were the best player in a given online tourney with 500+ players, but there are certainly posters in this forum who are "one of the best" in any online tourney they play in regardless of buyin. I'll use MLG as my example even though there are others around (I don't want to upset anyone by leaving them off of a suppposedly comprehensive list /images/graemlins/wink.gif).

[ QUOTE ]
So, we cannot forget who DS is talking about when he mentions passing up small edges.

Its not us.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, we should not forget who he is talking about, but if he isn't talking about us relative to the specific tournament we are currently playing, we should forget about making money in that tournament and realize that we are engaging in a hobby, not a profitable endeavor.

Later,
Che

[MLG]

you are too kind Che. I do think I'm one of the best in any tourney I enter online (if I didnt think that way I wouldnt enter), and part of what makes me one of the best is my willingness to take any edge I can find early because as the blinds get proportionately bigger my ability to find edges will be reduced.

[woodguy]

[ QUOTE ]
No wonder you aren't one of the best MTTer's around, woodguy - you don't pick your role models very well!

But, I do see that you're using past tense, so I guess there's still hope for you.


[/ QUOTE ]

Heh.

When I first tried tourneys I couldn't really grasp how to steal until I watched you.

That was worth reading 3 books IMHO.

Regards,
Woodguy

[woodguy]

[ QUOTE ]
No, the DS quote says "one of the best" not "THE best."

Except for occasional shots at tourneys that you know are out of your league, you should always be "one of the best" or you're playing at the wrong level.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just re-read it and you are right.

This brings us to quantifing if I'm one of the best.

I would always classifiy myself as one of the best in a tourney given that it wasn't a tourney full of world class players like the WPT, WSOP, or even the online championships that Stars had last year.

I just don't see myself being good enough to afford to give up the early edges in a tourney that will be done in 3-7 hours.

Couple that with the increased opportunity to accumulate more chips if I have a larger stack, and for me its a no-brainer.

[ QUOTE ]
No, we should not forget who he is talking about, but if he isn't talking about us relative to the specific tournament we are currently playing, we should forget about making money in that tournament and realize that we are engaging in a hobby, not a profitable endeavor.


[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, but I still have to say that although I am a profitable player (albeit a hobbist (2-3 nights of tourneys a week), not a pro), it would be the height of hubris for myself and 99% of the posters to consider themselves above taking an edge.

As a cavet, I really think all of the debate stems from what we all consider "a slight edge", and the ability to exploit these edges.

Good food for thought Che, especially the emphasis on game selection.

Regards,
Woodguy

[Absolution]

I was going to say. I think even if you are good, the crazy blinds in most online tournaments force you to take these edges regardless.

[Lloyd]

[ QUOTE ]
I was going to say. I think even if you are good, the crazy blinds in most online tournaments force you to take these edges regardless.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not just online tourneys. Most live tournies have structures that are even faster than standard online tournies. A fast structure clearly requires that you take advantage of every small edge you get.

[webiggy]

This is a teriffic thread.

Has anybody yet discussed the issue of discretion being the better part of valour. I agree, it's important to push small edges. In fact, I often find myself stealing pots with a lousy and a worse flop. Judicious aggression is important, but I sure as hell ain't gonna sacrifice my entire stack unless I have the best of it. Where I see NL players getting in trouble is when they push all in on a steal thinking that putting their entire stack at risk will scare players away. What these players fail to see is that a much more modest raise will have the same, if not a better effect and is less risky.

Now, having said that, I love to hammer pots early, and more importantly, I love hitting monster hands with marginal holdings (mid pairs and gapped connectors) because the when you hit the nuts, they're so well hidden. It's especially important to take advantage of these opportunities anytime the table texture allows.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
Next question, what constitutes a "small edge"? In the early stages of a rebuy tourny

[/ QUOTE ]

Rebuy tourney, you take all edges you can, however small. A small edge is getting very close to even odds on your chips.


[ QUOTE ]
how happy are you when you've got AA and 4 people all-in ahead of you (VERY f'in happy)? You're usually going to be about 37-54% to win the hand, which is higher than everyone else, but on average you are going to lose that hand more often than you win it, so calling that all-in becomes a "small-edge" (FFS CALL here people, this is not THAT post again).

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not a small edge. You don't just consider your chances of winning the hand, you consider the payoff also. Being 50/50 to win getting 3 or 4-1 odds on your chips is a big edge. Being 50/50 getting just a fraction over even money on your chips is a small edge.

[ QUOTE ]
Does OESD+flush draw w/a medium suited connector = small edge or laydown to a big raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on the pot odds you are getting. You appear to only consider the risk, and ignore the reward.

But you'd rather play this hand by putting in the last big raise to get allin.

One common misapplication of the survival concept I see people making is that they commit chips early in the hand, preflop and on the flop, only to then fold later in the hand when the pot odds say they should be committing the rest of their chips. This is not how the survival concept works. It is not surviving. It is not conserving chips. It is leaking them. The exact opposite of survival. The correct application of the survival concept in a tournament is to get out early, or follow through and play the hand how it was meant to be played. Congruency.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
do you mean 1.1:1? 2.1:1 is easy. The real question is would you take 40-60 getting 2.1:1.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would. But then I'd gamble early if I was 3-2 dog getting 3-2 pot odds. I think it's important for psychological reasons.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
for example, you have a 15 BB stack. somehow the pot is offering you 2:1 and it's guaranteed to be headsup. you have 76s and your opponent tells you he's not paired so you're 2:3 to win it. should you be more apt to take this with 120 people left where 60 cash, or with 50 people left where 60 cash? and why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Take it in both situations. I'd be more apt to pass at the final table near the big money.

When the gamble is close near the big money, it depends on the change in payouts, my stack position, others stack position, the difference winning/losing those chips would make to my chances of moving up multiple places, how the others are playing, whether they are gambling or waiting for me to bust out. etc. When the gamble isn't close, I take the pot odds regardless.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a teriffic thread.

Has anybody yet discussed the issue of discretion being the better part of valour.

[/ QUOTE ]

Early in the hand before you enter the pot, I agree that prudence is often best when the choice is close. Preflop, there can be grey areas like that, where you may take the higher risk in a cash game but fold in a tournament. However, once the decision has been taken to play the hand, I think you need to follow through and play committally, making the same action exactly as you would if it were a cash game in the same situation.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
This brings us to quantifing if I'm one of the best.

I would always classifiy myself as one of the best in a tourney given that it wasn't a tourney full of world class players like the WPT, WSOP, or even the online championships that Stars had last year.

I just don't see myself being good enough to afford to give up the early edges in a tourney that will be done in 3-7 hours.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also consider that being one of the best players does not mean that it is in your best interests to avoid those close gambles early. You can still take them. There is a view that the willingness to take those close gambles is the thing that gives you an edge over the field. The top heavy payout structure, psychological aspect, and value of my time make me inclined to agree with that viewpoint. I want a big stack early. I don't want to be hanging on playing a small one only to bust on the bubble playing rags. Of course, sometimes it ends up that way, but it won't be because I've been avoiding good gambling situations just to survive.

[Stipe_fan]

Very interesting post.

I see that some of the top MTT players are responding. Maybe someone, WOODGUY, should pm maybe ten or so of the best perceived MTT players and ask them about small EV situations early in the tournament, compile the messages and post them on this thread since most of us have this one marked. It would be very interesting to hear what they have to say.

When I see a LAG on my table, I want to wait and catch a hand and double up. But, 9 times out of 10 some other LAG or a TAG swoops down and now I have no chance of getting chips from him. I play a conservative style early and then open it up later but this seems limit my stack. Once you have tagged your players, you must start to make moves on them, IMMEDIATELY. The other smart players see them play recklessly and take advantage with marginal hands that usually have the LAGs dominated or a smallish edge.

I have come to this realization after playing so tight that I am limited with my options due to my dimunitive stack.
Conventional wisdom states you play tight early, blah blah blah. Well, another theory is if everybody is playing tight, you play loose and vice versa. Well, we all know playing with a big stack later is a huge advantage, why not take the chances versus players that are loose, or playing so tight you can blow them off a hand??

I don't post often enough. I read 2+2 at least an hour a day. Also, I don't know all the top players.
Woodguy, if you are willing to pm other top tournament players and get their input would be great. I suggest PMing Donbuttons, emarkm, MLG, Lloyd, Davidross etc. (I have never seen Che play but the respect he garners on this thread precedes him).

Thanks for listening,

Stipe

[woodguy]

Hey Stipe Fan,

Most of the posters you mentioned replied in this thread.

This question seems to be evolving and it is the question that is at the core of most of the posts. So the way I am getting more information on this subject is by reading the responses to the other posts.

FWIW one poster who you didn't mention, but has very, very solid advice is John G, who posted in this thread.

Regards,
Woodguy

[Stipe_fan]

Thanks Woodguy,

I knew I should not have mentioned names since I don't know their online names. I knew I would miss somebody.

I will go back into my reading mode again....lol.

Stipe

[sloth469]

Hello all,

I love this thread. I'm a Loose Aggressive player to get a stack, then once I have it I try and tighten a bit while taking calculated risks. One of the big problems with pushing these edges is the increase in variance. My ITM% has fallen significantly since I adapted this style, but my ROI has increased dramatically. Now when I make the money I'm poised to go deep, I'm not limping past the bubble; I'm a force taking down several small pots and taking advantage of those trying to sneak up a pay grade or 2.

You will make more busting in 9th once than you will sneaking past the bubble 10 times. It does however get frustrating when for a week straight you can't catch a break playing the same game that won big last month.

How do you deal with the swings? I try and remember the big scores and then I come here to read and usually find validation for the play I've made that got me bust. So just curious.

Thank you all.

-sloth

P.S. Anyone catch the WPT last night w/ David folding AK preflop? I guess he doesn't agree with us as he certainly had pot odds there, eh?

[sloth469]

I posed the question to David about coming over the top w/ AK in the WPT forum if anyone is interested in keeping an eye out for his reply.

[Che]

[ QUOTE ]
One common misapplication of the survival concept I see people making is that they commit chips early in the hand, preflop and on the flop, only to then fold later in the hand when the pot odds say they should be committing the rest of their chips. This is not how the survival concept works. It is not surviving. It is not conserving chips. It is leaking them. The exact opposite of survival. The correct application of the survival concept in a tournament is to get out early, or follow through and play the hand how it was meant to be played. Congruency.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very well said, JohnG.

That's going in my file...

Later,
Che

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
Very interesting post.

I see that some of the top MTT players are responding. Maybe someone, WOODGUY, should pm maybe ten or so of the best perceived MTT players and ask them about small EV situations early in the tournament, compile the messages and post them on this thread since most of us have this one marked. It would be very interesting to hear what they have to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there's any need. There are a tonne of excellent discussions about this in the archives of 2+2 going back 6 years. Try looking for the threads that fossilman posted on. Maybe Paul Phillips has posted something in the wpt forum archives also.

You could also try a google groups search of rgp. Lots of excellent discussions there on the subject. Some names to search out that may have taken part- Jerrod Ankhenman, Mike Mclain, Tom Weideman, Bill Chen, Paul Phillips, Gary Carson, Jon Cooke, and Sklansky may also have taken part, amongst other excellent posters I can't remember off the top of my head. Most of those discussions are from a number of years ago. A couple of excellent threads I remember within the last 2 years were ones Paul Phillips contributed a lot to.

One thing I have noticed about close gambles early in a tourney is that a lot of people make a lot of mistakes in recognising whether they have one or not. They gamble in situations where it isn't really close. So I don't think people should expand their energy asking questions about whether it is correct to take close gambles or avoid them. Instead, they should focus their energy in exploring the subject of what actually is a close gamble/small ev situation/close sitituation to be played strongly. After all, one of the skills that gives an edge over the field is being able to recognise when you have a close gamble or close situation to be played strongly.

For example, I play to accumulate chips, but there have been plenty of situations early in a tourney where I have faced a call for all my chips preflop and folded a hand like AK or QQ, the classic coin flip hands.

Also, all discussions I have seen on close gambles have concerned calling allins when you are only a little ahead/behind but getting reasonable odds. There is also a different type of close situation that I don't see mentioned that often. An example being when you face an allin call where you are likely either buried or your opponent is buried, and it's close in terms of which it is. This is another close gamble where you are even money to be a long way behind or an equal amount in front. Survival minded players will fold because they may easily be buried and bust out. Those playing to get a stack will call because they may easily have the opponent buried and double through.

[Che]

Stipe fan-

[ QUOTE ]
if you are willing to pm other top tournament players and get their input would be great.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is a link to a post I made in a thread that discusses this topic that also includes a link to another thread on the topic with commentary from some decent players (Raymer, Phillips):

not again! (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=tourn&Number=1093531&F orum=f9&Words=phillips%20raymer&Searchpage=0&Limit =25&Main=1088457&Search=true&where=bodysub&Name=51 03&daterange=1&newerval=&newertype=w&olderval=1&ol dertype=m&bodyprev=#Post1093531)

I'm linking you into my post in the middle of the thread, not because my reply is the best or anything like that, but because that is the reply that has the link to the second thread. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Hope this helps,
Che

PS- Don't go back to lurking. Keep posting. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[woodguy]

I've been looking for that thread but the erratic search function here kept vexing me. (yes, I said vexing /images/graemlins/blush.gif)

Great thread, as well as the thread in the other link.

What ever happened to fnurt?

He always had very good stuff to say, and I learned lots from him.

Regards,
Woodguy

[MLG]

good question. He made a great post in this thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=tv&Number=1203799&fpar t=&PHPSESSID=) and he really hasnt been around since.

[hurlyburly]

Thanks for the link, that's a great thread. Of course he hasn't posted, you told him to retire at the top of his game...

That also sheds a lot more light on his AK laydown.