Ciaffone's new tournament NLHE article

[Miah]

http://www.cardplayer.com/?sec=afeature&art_id=12505

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
The differences between no-limit tournament play and no-limit cash play come from the widely different ratios in the typical setting for each game. In a tournament, a player most frequently has from five to 40 times the amount of the big blind. In a cash game, he most frequently has 40 to 100 times the big blind. These differences have a profound impact on strategy. But once you specify a set blind structure and stack size, at least 95 percent of these differences between tournament and money play go out the window.

[/ QUOTE ]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I am of the opinion that when the odds or poker logic say you are supposed to put all of your money into the pot, the money goes in, even if it is a tournament. If you look at how the top players play in a tournament, you see that they run considerable risks to get the money. Some people think that unless the pot odds are extraordinarily favorable in a tournament, you should avoid a confrontation and stay alive. For example, I do not buy this stuff that says if you are getting 4-to-1 pot odds in a situation in which you are only a 2-to-1 or 3-to-1 underdog, you are supposed to muck your hand in a tournament. That’s ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I certainly see the advantage of getting your money in when the odds are there, I also see the merits of avoiding loosing all of your chips.

I found the first few paragraphs of the article to slightly conflict with some of my principles of tournament play (for instance I probably wouldn't put all my money in on a 3-1 draw with 4-1 pot odds) but as a whole I found the advice to be sound. Being as I’m very new to tournaments my critique is nearly worthless. What do you guys think?

[Copernicus]

Doesnt say anything new, thats for sure. As far as getting 4/1 for a 3/1 shot for all the chips,if youve managed to get yourself into that position, I think it goes back to how good are you compared to the rest of the tourney. If you are average or below, its a no brainer, take the EV edge. Of course the best answer is dont get into that situation in the first place.

Even if you are the best in the tourney, Id find 4/1 for a 2/1 shot way to big an overlay to pass up. I'm going to flush out 66% of the time, but have a big stack early 33% of the time. I'm comfortable enough leveraging that big stack into an even bigger lead often to more than make up for the smaller edge I'd have playing it safe.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

In general, I don't like to CALL bets with draws in tournaments. I also would be reluctant to call a big bet with a 3-1 draw, even if I had 4-1 pot odds, because 75% of the time I'll miss and lose all those chips. Draws aren't as worthwhile in tournaments in all games, not just NLHE. However, I will sometimes semi-bluff with a draw in a tournament, as I have a chance to win without a fight, as Ciaffone was talking about.

al

[Greg (FossilMan)]

While there are exceptions (as there always are), Ciaffone is essentially right. If the overlay is sufficiently large, you simply cannot pass it up just because all your chips are at risk. People frequently do so, and some of them have pretty good track records, but even so they would do better if they weren't so risk-adverse.

If you're going to avoid all high risk spots, then you're going to end up blinding/anteing yourself down to too small of a stack while waiting for the low risk opportunity. They generally won't come along often enough to limit yourself to just those spots.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[fnurt]

Rarely can the odds be calculated this precisely, but let's assume that they can. Say you have an average stack of 2000 chips and are in a 3-1 situation offering 4-1 pot odds; i.e. you'll either lose 2000 or gain 8000. So 75% of the time you have 0 and 25% of the time you have 10000. (That's an EV of 2500, so clearly you've gained EV by taking the risk.)

The real question is, if you don't take this risk, and you avoid similarly risky situations down the road, what is your probability of growing your stack from 2000 to 10000? Is it really more than 25%? It's impossible to answer exactly, but I get the sense that a lot of people are overestimating their own chances to do so. Or does Bob Ciaffone really not understand that he has an edge over the field?

Never forget that part of your edge as a good player is the ability to recognize favorable situations and take advantage of them. If you'd pass up a 60-40 chance to take all of someone's chips, because it means risking your own stack, how confident are you that if you wait it out you'll have a 70-30 chance to take all their chips later? And if you think you will, is that realistic?