Are some games just not worth it?

I have started laying in a regular game at a bar each week. It is a very loose tournament structure. The blinds go up when people bust out instead of on a time basis. There are usually two or three maniacs at each table, and there are usually two table with 6-8 people per table.

I've been playing hold'em about a year, and I know I don't think I totally suck because I used to play at another game with time structured blinds and better players (like ones that might actually fold a hand occassionally and not go over the top of any raise regardless of what they have). At this game I regularly came out ahead over the course of a month (ahead period, I never had to re-invest my initial buy-in, but there would be bad weeks here and there).

I went to this new game while my other game was on hiatus for the summer, but these guys are killing me. Unless I get primo cards that hold up at every point of the board, I just can't beat them. No betting or raising ever seems to work. There will always be one player who sticks around with a J8 off-suit or a 10 3 of diamonds to suck out on my trip queens. You get the point.

Is this game just not worth playing? I know in the long haul I should beat them, but with the tournament structure, and the high concentration of maniacs it seems like even if I consistently outplay one of them there is always another who gets lucky against me. It irks me to think I cn't beat them, but I'm about ready to give up. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[SheridanCat]

Against players like this you will win, in the long run. However, the tournament structure doesn't really favor the long run. The speed and uncertainty of the blind increases cause more short term variance and tends to narrow the gap between luck and skill.

I wouldn't bother playing this game, myself.

Regards,

T

[beekeeper]

Hi Sneaks. I agree with Sheridancat--I think I'd avoid this game if I had other options.

I have been playing in a similar game for a while and have come to the conclusion that (1) it's not profitable for me, and (2) the format tips too much in the direction of luck and away from skill to make it enjoyable for me. I'm just not a gambler.

My solution has been to start a home game and invite the players I've become friends with, but also establish a format that favors my game! /images/graemlins/wink.gif If I still lose, I think I'll just have to loosen up and have fun.

Good luck, H

[Macedon]

I would agree with the two responders. Table selection is very important in Hold Em. If you are uncomfortable with the players at this tournament, take your money else where. Find a table (on-line or in your own home) that you can consistently beat.

If that is not an option, play super tight in the beginning of the tournament; let all the wackos bust each other (or others) out. And then get hyper-aggressive later in the tournament. This should do the trick.

[AKQJ10]

It sounds like a high expected value*, high-variance scenario. You'll certainly win more than your share of tournaments by waiting on premium hands and getting action on them. But you'll feel like banging your head into a wall more often. It's your decision as to whether you enjoy that kind of poker.

I agree with SheridanCat that this kind of structure really makes the tournament less of a test of skill. However, if you can think of the "long run" of many hundreds of tournaments in your lifetime, go ahead and take a shot.

And don't get discouraged if you go a while without beating a tournament like this. You may be playing fine and just getting walloped by variance. (I think I'm facing the same at Pacific $4 sit-and-gos; although I make some mistakes that I recognize as such, so many opponents seem to have no clue about pot size that I'm forced to conclude I'm just running bad right now.)

*Unless the rake is very high (say 20% or more, educated guess). Then you may just be paying a high price for a relative crapshoot.

[TaoTe]

My idea for you is different.

Okay, I think getting live experience is great. Maybe you don't play online (who here doesn't? *don't answer that*), but I was just discussing with a friend that I prefer online play over live play. Most games around town are tournaments in NLHE. NL is a fine game and I truly enjoy it, but I often don't enjoy tournaments. Why? A fixed starting time and the fact that I'll have to continue to play and until bust or win.

Here's my suggestion for your problem. It doesn't seem you enjoy the game, like you don't have any fun. If the game around town has a few of my good friends playing in it, I'm there. Playing live has a huge social side to it and that's what attracts me more than winning money. Fun. So, don't play in that game if it isn't any fun. The long term be damned. There is more to poker than money.

[AKQJ10]

Good point, TaoTe. Your true "expected value" from poker isn't just expected cash value. This point needs to be reinforced more often on here.

[Student]

I'm in the strange position of actually pointing towards NL HE tournament play as my final objective. A beginner at poker, I thought I could just learn how to play NL HE, and then move on to tournaments. Easier said then done!

Along the way I've learned way to much about limit HE, which was never my intention. But tournaments are as different than NL HE as limit HE is to NL HE! To assume you can just pick up your expert NL HE ring play and apply it to tournaments, without paying some sort of price, is naive.

It shouldn't be very hard for you to pick up what knowledge you'll need to play tournaments, given your expert status with NL HE. But first make the decision you want to take this on, and then do what you have to do to learn skilled tournament play, before blowing a bunch more money. There's always "Harrington on Hold'em," now in 2 volumes adding up to nearly 900 pages and $60 at the bookstore. And they are all about NL HE tournaments!

Dave

[pzhon]

It sounds really profitable to play in a game like that. I don't understand why people are saying that you should look for another game. If you want to improve your game and make a little money, you should practice beating bad players.

Don't get upset when people call you with garbage. Value bet relentlessly.

It is a mistake to wait for premium hands when people are playing garbage. Normally, AT is not a good hand, but it is if people are playing A2 and T5.

Don't expect to win every time. It's not chess.

Learn that winning a pot 1/2 of the time when you put in 1/4 of the money is great, and winning a tournament 1/5 of the time against 14 opponents is great.

[SheridanCat]

[ QUOTE ]
It sounds really profitable to play in a game like that. I don't understand why people are saying that you should look for another game. If you want to improve your game and make a little money, you should practice beating bad players.


[/ QUOTE ]

I gave the advice I gave because the structure he describes levels the playing field far too much. Of course, if this is the only game to be found, play on and have fun. However, my guess is that you can't win enough to make this worthwhile. Tournaments are already high variance, and this just increases it.

I agree that playing conservatively might conserve chips, but you'll be hopelessly shortstacked very quickly. But having to play aggressively early on just increases the "badness" of this game.

Regards,

T

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
I gave the advice I gave because the structure he describes levels the playing field far too much. Of course, if this is the only game to be found, play on and have fun. However, my guess is that you can't win enough to make this worthwhile. Tournaments are already high variance, and this just increases it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an important point, but it still doesn't change the fact that this is probably a high-EV as well as high-variance situation. There are other considerations too, namely, if you play 100 times and finish net negative by quite a bit, are you going to get discouraged and give up poker? If so, then don't play them -- play something else that's lower variance. Is playing this +EV, high-variance situation keeping you out of a more +EV ring game, sit-and-go, or MTT? Or one that's roughly equal EV but lower variance (which ring games or S&Gs will usually be)?

Also, the rake in some small tournaments can be outrageous, although I got the impression the OP was talking about a home tournament. I often play the $1+0 rake Pacific nightly tournaments with 5-minute rounds. It's a crapshoot, and if I don't get a decent hand by round 3 I'm probably dead (because people will call if I push with 4xBB), but it's fun and certainly must be +EV. I'm not so sure about their $1+$0.50 MTTs with 5-minute rounds, though.

All of these are valid considerations, and I would even say that if the OP isn't used to taking high-variance gambles with the best of it, he should just stay away until gaining more experience. But of course even a total crapshoot where you have the best of it is a good gamble, if you can afford it and no better gambles are around.

[SheridanCat]

[ QUOTE ]
That's an important point, but it still doesn't change the fact that this is probably a high-EV as well as high-variance situation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Right, gotcha. This is an important distinction. I still hate the structure. I'm going to play with this over the weekend to see if I can see how this is a +EV situation.

Regards,

T

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

That's an important point, but it still doesn't change the fact that this is probably a high-EV as well as high-variance situation.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't agree that this is high variance. People often say SNGs are high variance, but they are not. The variance is significantly lower than in many other forms of poker. The variance of the tournament does not greatly depend on how people play each hand.

Large downswings can happen due to luck, but they can also happen because you are not playing well. If you identify flaws in your opponents' games, that doesn't mean you are making the proper adjustments. If you try to bluff a calling station, you are getting outplayed. If you fold a mediocre hand once again to a maniac's raise, you are getting outplayed.

Against 14 weak players, even with rapid blind increases, I think I would expect to win about 3/15 of the time. 80% of the time I would not win, but this is much safer than playing against decent opponents.