Are you better off never being dealt AA/KK/QQ ever???

[PuppetMaster]

What I am going to say deals specifically with NL single table tournaments, 5 and 10 dollars. First off, does anoyne consistently win money form these games? In my opinion it is imposible. It is imposible because you can not stop the action form being brought to you. Example, you raise pre flop with KK, someone calls you all-in. You call and they have 78o. Now 66% of the time you win, but the other 33% of the time you lose. You can not stop people form going all in on you and you cant fold hands you know are superior to theirs.
My question, low limit No Limit Tounrmaments a waste of time. There is so much luck involved it is incredible.
Can someone consistently win at a game where the Best Hand AA only stand up 66% of the time 78s??

[Rickfish]

It is more like 77% or 78% if you have Ace of his suit. You are obviously steaming after some bads beats. If you can get these top pairs often enough you will clean up. I just wish I could get them more often.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

In the small one table tourneys, "it depends."

On paradise the vig on the $5 tourney is a buck, but it's also a buck on the $10 ones. So there, I surely wouldn't play the $5 one at all, 20% vig is too high. Now on stars and other sites, the $5 ones have a 50c vig. Better to play with the smaller vig.

Despite the vig, I have been successful at all levels of one table tourneys I've played in. When I first started online, I didn't have a big bankroll, so I played lots of $10 tourneys. They ARE frustrating, for reasons like you mentioned, but they are quite beatable, I assure you. You'll see lots of wild plays, just today someone made a big raise with 65s, then called my all-in with AK. That was at a $22 tournament (multi-table). The smallest ones aren't the only ones where people make one stupid play after another. Even at the paradise $55 tourneys, I still see at least one mega-fish every time. In the $33 two table I played a couple days ago at stars, three people were out in the first ten hands, all from making stupid plays. So the limit is not the determining factor. You'll get lots of bad beats at all limits. A few weeks ago I got knocked out of a $109 no limit tournament by a completely moronic play by my opponent with K3. They will probably go down SLIGHTLY as you increase in limits, but the internet brings poker to so many people that the number of terrible players is skyrocketing. Good for us. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

al

[maplepig]

Every poker game has a lot of luck factor. It's poker, not a Macdonald job. Any game could be unbeatable if all players are equally good. Single table tournament has the lowest variance if you are a decent player, but that still doesn't guarantee you a winner in the short run. Wait until you have 200 games. If you still lose, then you have a lot of homework to do.

[Greg (FossilMan)]

Please. Don't be such a crybaby.

Sorry, you don't deserve harsh treatment any more than a lot of other posters, but I just get so tired of posts like these from people claiming it must be impossible to beat low limit games (cash games, tourneys, whatever) BECAUSE the players are so bad. Posts like these saying you can't stop them from sucking out, and there are so many of them, one of them is eventually going to get you.

It's just a bunch of sour grapes whining.

If you want to claim that the players in these $5 tourneys have improved to the point where nobody can make a profit in view of the rake, fine. At least that point is defensible. But it is so clearly ridiculous to say that a game is unbeatable because the opposition plays so bad.

I am happy to say that I don't see too many of these posts here on 2+2, at least in the forums I visit. Especially compared to RGP, where there are many such posts every day.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[fnurt]

Thing is, you have a pretty good deal because you can enter an unlimited amount of these online tournament, and if someone gets the lucky suckout, you can just enter another one. In the long run you'll definitely come out ahead of these bad players so it's no big deal. It would be a lot worse if say, you drove 2 hours to Foxwoods for a tournament, some fish got lucky on you, and all you can do is drive 2 hours home and wait for next week's tournament...

[Al_Capone_Junior]

"Please. Don't be such a crybaby."

Wait... Wait... more emphasis........ Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease.

"...players in these $5 tourneys have improved to the point where nobody can make a profit..."

Oh NO! Now I'm going to have to play the bigger ones just so I can find good players to make a profit off of.

"I am happy to say that I don't see too many of these posts here on 2+2, at least in the forums I visit. "

If you want the whine AND the cheese, try the internet forum.

al

[DoctorJ]

Couldn't agree more, Greg...

One of the best things about 2+2 is that even the occasional "bad beat" stories are usually couched in the terms of "Was there anything I could have done differently to prevent this?", which is exactly the question you should be asking yourself when you take a beat. If it's really just a bad beat, great - add it to your recurring field of good decisions and move on. But sometimes, and I know I've been guilty of this, we allow these "bad beats" to happen by attempting to get too tricky with players with whom we should just play in a more straightforward manner.

And, to the original poster, I've played the $5/$10 tourneys on PokerStars nearly daily for the last 3 months as I've been unable to visit my normal B&M because of a pregnant wife. I've accumulated about 250 1/2-table sit'n'go tourneys, and finish in the money about 48% of the time, with a far higher % of 1st/2nd than 3rd/4th and am accumulating valuable satellite/final table experience every time.

I;ve had 2 different streaks of 10+ tourneys in a row without a money finish, but it's all about the long run - also had a streak where I've cashed in 13 of 15. That's the whole point of these tourneys - lots of volatility, but great opportunities for profit (albeit small $$$!).

I can definitely say that these tourneys have clearly NOT improved to the point where you can't beat the rake, and that's on PokerStars, which supposedly has the best cadre of players...

Doctor J

[PuppetMaster]

My point was that low limit tournaments matter more on luck than they do on skill. Here's the problem with the pairs. If 70% of the time you win the hand, the other 30% you are eliminated. When you win the hand, that doesnt mean you will place in the money for the tournament. The status quote is to place in the money 50% of the time. That is 30% elimination right off of the bat.
The truth is that IT IS harder to beat bad players because you are NOT playing them based on skill.
Now, I know you can profit from the over time. But for the low stakes is it worth your time?

[DoctorJ]

No intent to flame here (a la RGP), but there's some serious flaws in this logic:

"If 70% of the time you win the hand, the other 30% you are eliminated."

You're looking at this the wrong way. 70% of the tourneys in which you are given an opportunity to double up with a 70/30 advantage, you do so, and are in a much better chip position. This is advantageous for a host of reasons, not the least of which is that if you're put in another 70/30 advantageous position, if you do happen to lose, YOU'RE NOT OUT OF THE TOURNAMENT, you're just back where you started (if the other player has an average stack to your 2X average stack).


"The truth is that IT IS harder to beat bad players because you are NOT playing them based on skill."

This is absolutely ludicrous. The skill comes in putting them in the situation where they're a 70/30 underdog. So you're actually claiming that you'd rather not have a 70/30 advantage when you get all your chips in? It would be better if there were good players, and you could only eke out a 52/48 advantage? Ummmm, no.


"But for the low stakes is it worth your time?"

This is a completely fair question, but has absolutely nothing to do with your previous statements. It sounds like a better question for you might be "Is it worth the aggravation I am clearly going through to turn a small long-term profit in these low-stakes tourneys?"

DoctorJ

[cferejohn]

If they are harder to beat, that makes them, by definition, not bad players. KK vs. 78s is a 77% favorite (78.5% if you have one of their suit). You will double up over 3/4 of the time you make this play. If you double up early in a one table no-limit tournament, you are a huge favorite to finish in the money. If you do double up like this often (and if the other players really play like this, you should), and you re not getting into the money 50% of the time, I think you need to look at how you play a big stack.

So what happens if someone plays this aggessively with 78s and you *don't* ever get AA-QQ. What happens then? You just fold and are eventually blinded down and out-aggressed by everyone overplaying their mediocre hands.

Your absolute worse case scenario here is you put your money in as a big favorite, get unlucky and lose quickly, and get to go play another one right away.

To imagine that somehow tougher games are more beatable is ridiculous. Sure you won't see a lot of early all-ins from tough players, and you might be more prone to buy some blinds early, but you are going to get smacked around once the blinds get higher. Look at the final table of a low-limit multi table tournament. Who is left? It is not the players who were shoving all-in on the first level with 78s, I promise.

[Justaloser]

>>My point was that low limit tournaments matter more on luck than they do on skill. Here's the problem with the pairs. If 70% of the time you win the hand, the other 30% you are eliminated.<<

You're missing the bigger picture. If you go all-in with every pair, then yes, you will bust out some to a bad beat.
But if you go all-in every time you have a big pair, people will notice and play you differently.

What's wrong with a pot sized raise? I think a poor player is much more likely to call an all-in with A3os or K4s than they would go all-in themselves.

Course, there's always the option of playing weak-tight for the first couple rounds until the fish get busted. But then you have to get those same chips from better players.

[Aces McGee]

This is a very interesting thread.

My contribution has nothing to do with the situation Teddy described in his original post, but deals with the "bad players are harder to beat" argument:

I think that people who make this type of argument tend to equate poker "skill" with playing the way the books tell you to (being mathematically sound, value betting/raising, checkraising, taking advantage of position, etc.) Without a doubt, that plays a huge part of it. But the other type of "skill" is recognizing that different players have to be played against differently.

For instance, some bad players constantly fear the mortal nuts if they aren't holding them. Against such a player, you can bet strong, representing a hand you don't have, because they'll fold to you.

Other bad players, on the other hand, seem to play like a bad poker simulation: they look at the strenght of their hand without taking into account what others could possibly have. If they have 22, and the flop is AJJ they'll call the way down, without even considering the possibility of a higher two pair or trips. They've got two pair (aces up!), and by god, they aren't going to muck it. Against such a player, you have to adjust your game, and play more straightforward. Bluffing just doesn't work, because they aren't paying attention, and don't know enough theory to know better than to call.

Earlier in the thread, someone (sorry, I can't remember who) said that "bad beats" aren't always bad beats; often, there is something that could've been done to avoid them. I think this is right on. If you're a good player, bad players shouldn't beat you over any significant period of time. It's just a matter of adjusting your play based on your opponents.

Aces McGee

(btw, I'm working on coming up with a quote for the bottom of my posts.)

[DaNoob]

Doc: What's your username on Stars? If you're winning over 50% of the time, I want to avoid sitting at the table with you at all costs (since that only leaves 2 places for me). Lol.

Teddy: I also play the $5 NL tables at Stars and since I started in March, I'm up about $40. Granted, the first month I lost almost every tourney, thus skewing my overall performance, but it does show that you can win at these games. I've only placed in the money 36% of the time, and I'm coming out ahead.

Now, $40 is a pretty ridiculous return on the time I've invested in these games. If you're looking for good income, spending 1.5 hours to win a max of $17 and probably an average of $8, is not any way to get there. For me, I love playing, and would happily pay $5/hr for the entertainment value alone. Luckily for me, my pasttime doesn't cost me anything, and from time to time actually pays me a little.

Anyway Teddy, good luck out there and I hope you find what you're looking for.

[DoctorJ]

It seems to me by my math that I should avoid you too, if you lost every tourney for a month, and still are at 36% in the money - means you're probably well above 40% for the last couple of months!

Seriously, though, I have no problem with a couple of other good players being in one of these sit-n-go's, especially if I know who they are. I think it helps for practice for larger B&M or online tourneys, since as another poster recognized, when you get to final tables of those tourneys, there are rarely the high proportion of maniacs you encounter in the early rounds...

I am dr_j_va, by the way - catch you on PStars sometime...

Cheers!

DoctorJ

[DoctorJ]

[Jimbo]

Here is the win ratio for KK vs 7/8 in the same suits:

<pre><font class="small">code:</font><hr>

Holdem Hi: 1712304 enumerated boards
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Kc Kd 1408504 82.26 296677 17.33 7123 0.42 0.825
7c 8d 296677 17.33 1408504 82.26 7123 0.42 0.175

</pre><hr>

Pretty good deal if you ask me.

[mr_jmac]

Hey,

These tourneys are definitely beatable.

I have played over 200 $5 + $0.50 NL HE single table tourneys and my win rate is about $2.50 per tourney. I'd be interested in hearing others results in these.

So, I'm averaging half a buy-in profit per tourney. I don't consider myself an awesome NL HE player so I suspect 1 BUY-IN per tourney is possible.

I finish in 1st or 2nd place 50% of the time.

[happyjaypee]

First off, does anoyne consistently win money form these games? In my opinion it is imposible.

One table tourney is the place I first started to make money online. Now I mostly play at Stars but I play the low buy-in one-table tourney on Paradise in my debut and beated them. whit over 300x 10$ tourney, I rated 44% money finishes.

14% 1st
12% 2nd
18% 3rd

Can someone consistently win at a game where the Best Hand AA only stand up 66% of the time 78s??

Well yes cause those guys will aslo pay you on AK vs there A5 when u both flop an Ace.


However, I'll had that I DID have a 16 consecutive no money finish streak wish can be really frustrating when it's cause by unreal badbeats coming from unbeliveable hands but hey, it happens.


-Happy /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

[Al_Capone_Junior]

For me, no, the $5 tournaments are not worth the time. Too little reward per unit of time spent playing them. However, I would love it if the morons who play in the $5 games would come and play with me in the $30, $50, and $100 games. And they do! Lucky me! And everytime I get a big pair, I also say LUCKY ME. It really makes no difference, if you can get all your $$ in the pot with a 70% advantage, you should do it every time. To say that it's bad to take 70% the best of it because 30% of the time you'll be eliminated is just plain insane. 70% of the time you'll have a commanding chip position and be much more likely to win it all. There is not going to be any convincing arguement that it's BAD to get dealt big pairs. Only if you consistently PLAY THEM BADLY should you wish that you wouldn't get dealt them.

al