Pokerstars NLHE Tourneys, are they really worth it?

[TheBaptist]

I have lurked here for quite some time and know that quite a few of you participate in the various tourneys held at PokerStars. I value your opinions and would like to pose a question. Are the No Limit Holdem tourneys really worth it?

I have played quite a few and have cashed several times. I won't bore y'all with my specific records because I know they aren't extensive enough to be statistically significant. However, my experience has led me to beleive that these tourneys are a bit more difficult than thier live counterparts.

I have noticed a great deal of horrendous play in these events. That, combined with the large field and rapidly escalating blind structure seems to create a variance that is difficult to overcome. At the same time, there exists a group of players who consistently do quite well. If any of you are among those ranks, I'd sure appreciate some advice.

Question 1: I'll use the $20+2 NLHE tourney as an example. The average field seems to be about 200 players, creating a $4,000 prize pool of which 30% or $1200 goes to first, creating a break-even point at winning approximately 1 in 54 events. Is anyone here achieving those numbers?

Question 2: At least one, and often two double-up/bust-out situations seem to arise within the first half-hour (2 levels of blinds) at nearly every table. My experience shows this to be the rule rather than the exception. Those of you who play these tournaments will likely agree that this happens with some "unconventional" hands. Furthermore, my results are subtantially better when I get hit with the deck early and am able to get my stack up to about 2.5-3 times the original T1500. This allows me to isolate small stacks who go all-in on pure desparation with Ax offsuit. Here's the question: Does it make sense to gamble aggressively in the early stages of the tourney? This is contrary to my typical "survival" mode in the early stage of a tourney, but it seems like it might have some merit here. Opinions?

Question 3: Online poker, by nature, strips away much of the opportuntiy to "play the man" rather than the cards. Patterns do arise with some players, but you'll never get a solid physical tell on an opponent. Combine this with the fact that, prior to the final few tables, there seems to be no ammount one can bet to get two overcards to fold when you have top pair, and it seems possible that you have a situation that might be exploitable by something like Mr. Sklansy's "system." Have any of you tried this, and with what sort of results?

Thank you for taking the time to read this rather long-winded post. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

[cferejohn]

First of all, I would not call the blind structure on pokerstars multi-table NL tournies particularly "rapidly escalating". 15 minute rounds and lots of levels with 1500 chips to start with is a lot slower than any low-buy-in live tournament I've even been to. Realize that 15 minute online levels is equivalent to at *least* 1/2 hour levels live, and most live tournaments I've been to have a) fewer starting chips and b) more rapidly escalating levels.

"Question 1: I'll use the $20+2 NLHE tourney as an example. The average field seems to be about 200 players, creating a $4,000 prize pool of which 30% or $1200 goes to first, creating a break-even point at winning approximately 1 in 54 events. Is anyone here achieving those numbers?"

1. That's not really right, as it assumes when you don't win, you don't finish in the money at all.

"Question 2: At least one, and often two double-up/bust-out situations seem to arise within the first half-hour (2 levels of blinds) at nearly every table. My experience shows this to be the rule rather than the exception. Those of you who play these tournaments will likely agree that this happens with some "unconventional" hands. Furthermore, my results are subtantially better when I get hit with the deck early and am able to get my stack up to about 2.5-3 times the original T1500. This allows me to isolate small stacks who go all-in on pure desparation with Ax offsuit. Here's the question: Does it make sense to gamble aggressively in the early stages of the tourney? This is contrary to my typical "survival" mode in the early stage of a tourney, but it seems like it might have some merit here. Opinions?"

2. I really think this is a matter of style. If you want to try and double up immediately so you can either have a good shot immediately or get out and play a ring game or another tournament or something, that's defensible, and pretty easy to do by getting all in in situations were you feel you have something like a 50/50 shot (pair vs. overcards ideally). Assuming you are an above average player (i.e. you can outplay most opponents after the flop), I think this slightly hurts your chances of getting to the money overall, but greatly decreases the amount of time you spend in your average non-money finish, which has value as well. Obviously the lower the buy-in for the tournament, the more sense this makes. If you play the $50 or $100 tournaments, you will notice a lot less of this marginal behavior (not to say none).

Personally, I play pretty conservatively and try to avoid putting all my chips in the middle in early rounds without AA or KK (not to say never, but rarely). Sometimes this leads to the irritating situation of being blinded away (just winning a few small pots) for 45 minutes, then going all in in desparation and placing out of the money. On the other hand, sometimes patience pays off and you manage to double up a couple times getting much better than a 50/50 shot by the time all your chips are in the middle.

"Question 3: Online poker, by nature, strips away much of the opportuntiy to "play the man" rather than the cards. Patterns do arise with some players, but you'll never get a solid physical tell on an opponent. Combine this with the fact that, prior to the final few tables, there seems to be no ammount one can bet to get two overcards to fold when you have top pair, and it seems possible that you have a situation that might be exploitable by something like Mr. Sklansy's "system." Have any of you tried this, and with what sort of results?"

I have definitely seen players who play very close to the "system", especially starting at about level 3 or so. They tend to fold or go all-in, and are often caught going all in with pretty marginal holdings (often worse than what Sklansky recommends). I'm not sure how exploitable it is on the whole, but it does have the advantage (as stated above) of either doubling you up early or busting you out early.