How do I convince my buddy that this is idiotic?

[jedi]

My buddy has a "system" that I think is absolutely ludicrous, but I (and another poker player) can't seem to convince him of this. He plays No Limit Sit and Go tournaments at Paradise. Here's the system.

Play in a $5+1 tournament. If he wins it, continue to play in the $5+1 tournaments. If he doesn't win it, he moves up to the $10+1 tournament and tries again. If he wins that, then he goes back down to the $5+1 tournament and starts over. However, if he doesn't win the $10+1, he moves up to the next limit ($30+1 I think). And so on and so forth.

My first thought was YIKES! THis is a recipe for disaster. Much like the blackjack system of doubling your bets when you lose, but here the players IMPROVE as you get up in limits (generally). One other player and I have tried to convince him that it's a bad system, but he sticks to it because "I'm up $500 so far." Two things we've mentioned to him is that if he wins every tournament, he'll be stuck playing at $5 tournaments forever. Second, he complains that he's better at the mid level buy ins because people play tighter and are less fishy. Well, assuming that's true, then why doesn't he just play the $30 tournaments?

Am I on crack, or is this a truly bad system? And what would other people say that might help convince my buddy to stop this?

[SevenStuda]

Only you truly know if your on crack or not.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
Second, he complains that he's better at the mid level buy ins because people play tighter and are less fishy. Well, assuming that's true, then why doesn't he just play the $30 tournaments?


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry for not really answering your question, but I have seen alot of this lately...why do so many people want to play against better players? Don't you want someone to call you w/ KJo when you have KK??

[jedi]

Well, I think he was just frustrated with the number of suckouts and gambling that takes place early on the in the low level tournaments. My opinion is that he needs to learn to vary his game against all types of players, but if he recognizes where his strengths are, then more power to him. He does keep records of how he finishes at each buy-in level, so I should ask him about it.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Second, he complains that he's better at the mid level buy ins because people play tighter and are less fishy. Well, assuming that's true, then why doesn't he just play the $30 tournaments?


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry for not really answering your question, but I have seen alot of this lately...why do so many people want to play against better players? Don't you want someone to call you w/ KJo when you have KK??

[/ QUOTE ]

[jedi]

LOL. Yeah, I opened myself up to that one...

[ QUOTE ]
Only you truly know if your on crack or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

[CrisBrown]

Hi jedi,

If your buddy is more successful at the higher levels, he should stay there and drop down when he's on a losing run.

Moving up to "get it back" when you're losing is a bad, bad thing, and he'll learn that once he goes bust once or twice.

Cris

[CrisBrown]

Hi SossMan,

<<Sorry for not really answering your question, but I have seen alot of this lately...why do so many people want to play against better players? Don't you want someone to call you w/ KJo when you have KK??>>

Yes, you do. What you don't want is for someone to call you with bottom pair when there are three of a suit on the board and you're bluffing a flush. Bad players will call in both situations, which limits your play.

Good players win money in two ways: buying pots and selling pots. You have to be able to do both to win consistently, because on average the dealer won't give you enough monster hands and flops (selling pots) to survive. Extremely loose players make it all but impossible to buy a pot, so you're down to praying for cards and then dodging the bad beats.

That's why many of us prefer to play with stronger players.

Cris

[absinthe]

Hi Jedi,

The problem with this "system" can be seen just by looking at the blackjack case. There, the problem is not that the system doesn't "work" per se, but that the expected bankroll that you will need is infinite. You make money at a slow rate compared to the amount of money that you will potentially lose - if you play this game over and over again, you will bust any sized bankroll.

Taking this back to poker, it is easy to see that if you simply play at the highest level that you can win (at a decent rate), you will make far more money in the long term, with far less risk (i.e. there's a bankroll for which you can be quite sure you will not bust out).

If your friend insists that this "system" really works, try to get him to explain why it would not work for roulette. If he insists it would, drag him to the casino and watch the fireworks.

[AliasMrJones]

[ QUOTE ]
Good players win money in two ways: buying pots and selling pots. You have to be able to do both to win consistently, because on average the dealer won't give you enough monster hands and flops (selling pots) to survive. Extremely loose players make it all but impossible to buy a pot, so you're down to praying for cards and then dodging the bad beats.

That's why many of us prefer to play with stronger players.

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea that it is harder to win against bad opponents and easier to win against stronger opponents is absurd.

Assuming you don't call pre-flop every time, you CAN wait for good hands to come along. That is the very POINT of the starting hand requirements in such books as HEP, HEPFAP and WLLH.

Take a look at this link:
http://www.gocee.com/poker/HE_Val_Sort.htm

Assuming you are in a 10 person game, take a look at column "9". This shows the percentage chance of that hand winning when everyone goes to the river. Not half, not 75%, EVERYONE. Play only those hands where you will win more than 10% of the time. How can you lose? You'll win more than your fair share of pots at the LOOSEST table possible. If you play only hands that win 13% or more 100 times where it costs X to go to the river, you'll lose 85 times and win 13 times on average. You'll lose 87X and win 13 * 9X = 117X for a net gain of 30. You will be a winner in a far looser table than you'll find anywhere where people play for real money.

On top of playing good starting hands you also get to fold post-flop when things don't hit, which saves you additional bets and you get to raise when you've got a great hand. All this only ADDS to your winnings.

Are you REALLY saying you find it hard to make money against bad players that play far too many hands and take them farther than they should?

Telling beginners to play stronger opponents because it is easier to make money against them is crazy. When a good player walks into a casino, he isn't thinking to himself, "Where are all the strong players?"

[Mike Gallo]

[CrisBrown]

Hi Alias,

<<The idea that it is harder to win against bad opponents and easier to win against stronger opponents is absurd.

Assuming you don't call pre-flop every time, you CAN wait for good hands to come along. That is the very POINT of the starting hand requirements in such books as HEP, HEPFAP and WLLH.>>

That works fine in ring games where you can safely sit back, wait for the premium hands, and rebuy if you take a bad beat. It doesn't work so well in tournaments, where the blinds escalate and you can't buy more chips. You will have to buy pots (bluffs and blind steals) to stay ahead of the blinds while you're waiting for premium cards. And you can't buy pots from weak players who call everything.

Yes, my win percentage is much higher in $33, $55, and $109 tournaments than it is in $11 and $22 tournaments. And I don't even consider $5.50 tournaments; I may as well play for play chips.

Cris

[Akzhel]

I believe that the best opponents are players good enough to fold for a strong bet but still bad enough to not bet strong themselves or/and make any tricky plays. People who fold flush king high because they are afraid of the ace in a heads up game. You know the kind =)

[JDO]

Maybe he really is better at $30 SnGs. Take his stats and do a simple mathimatical model. If he has done better at $30 games than $5 games, you should be able to draw up some graphs that will convince him that his time is better spent at $30 games. Chances are that his stats aren't drawn from a large enough sample, but if he is silly enough to believe in his system, he'll probably believe the bad stats.

You said convince him that the system is bad, not prove to him that it's bad... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[JDO]

Another problem that I see is that you only adjust when you are losing money to make back money you have lost; not when you have an advantage (like when counting cards). You get down, and have to increase your bets to break even. Why would anyone think this is a viable way to make money in gaming?

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
What you don't want is for someone to call you with bottom pair when there are three of a suit on the board and you're bluffing a flush. Bad players will call in both situations, which limits your play.


[/ QUOTE ]
Well, call me stupid, but if you know you're up against bad players, why would you feel it necessary to make that bluff? Obviously, you have to change both your preflop hand composition, as well as your postflop play when playing against players that play too many hands and go to far with them.

[ QUOTE ]
Good players win money in two ways: buying pots and selling pots. You have to be able to do both to win consistently, because on average the dealer won't give you enough monster hands and flops (selling pots) to survive. Extremely loose players make it all but impossible to buy a pot, so you're down to praying for cards and then dodging the bad beats.


[/ QUOTE ]
I think you have a fundemental flaw in your line of thinking...poker isn't about how many pots you win, but how many chips you win. You take down less pots against bad players, but the pots you take down are much, much bigger. That's the whole concept of pot odds! If they are drawing incorectly, and you're making them pay, you win (even if they call and suck out on you...you still win.)

Now, that being said, I do prefer weak tight players to loose passive in a tourney for some of the reasons you have stated, but I don't think that this is akin to saying that I like to play against good players instead of bad ones.

[tpir90036]

the simple answer is, that just like there is a table maximum in blackjack to prevent this strategy from working, there is a maximum level of sit-n-gos that he will eventually hit if he keeps losing. now he will have no choice but to continue slugging it out at this maximum level to try and get even.

[jedi]

Very good answer. However, I brought this up to him and engaged in a conversation that went something like this:

Me: "You know there is a chance that you'll keep losing and can't go any higher to make your money back."

Him: "Well, there IS a chance, but I'm good enough that I'll win at least ONCE in 6 tournaments."

Me: "Then why don't you just play at mid/high buy-ins and cash in that way?"

Him: "Well starting at the lower buy ins gives me more 'outs' to win money."

?????

And this: "I'm up $500 bucks so far, so it's working for me."

Get this one: He's a math major.

[ QUOTE ]
the simple answer is, that just like there is a table maximum in blackjack to prevent this strategy from working, there is a maximum level of sit-n-gos that he will eventually hit if he keeps losing. now he will have no choice but to continue slugging it out at this maximum level to try and get even.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Bozeman]

If his purpose is not to win money, but to salve his ego by usually quitting up (~$5), it's a fine strategy.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
the simple answer is, that just like there is a table maximum in blackjack to prevent this strategy from working, there is a maximum level of sit-n-gos that he will eventually hit if he keeps losing. now he will have no choice but to continue slugging it out at this maximum level to try and get even.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if there was no maximum (at Blackjack, say) this strategy is still a long run loser. At some point, you're going to go on a long losing streak and this is going to bust you. Like some others have said, you would have to have an infinate bankroll. Now, this is with a negative expectation game (blackjack, roullette). It is possible, I've heard, to have positive expectation playing poker, so this could work in theory, but like everyone else has said, why not just play the highest limit for which you think you can beat.
The cards, and the results, have no memory.
That is, unless you park in your lucky parking space. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[AliasMrJones]

[ QUOTE ]
That works fine in ring games where you can safely sit back, wait for the premium hands, and rebuy if you take a bad beat. It doesn't work so well in tournaments, where the blinds escalate and you can't buy more chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

I play tourneys too. If you wait a bit, the crazies that call all the time tend to bust out. Then you can clean up what's left. At least that's my strategy. I've seen this at $5 and I've seen this at $30.

When you sit down at a tourney, who would you rather see sitting next to you...someone who's won the WSOP or a LL ring game newbie who's never played in a tourney before? I'll take the latter sitting in every seat any day of the week.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Alias,

<<I play tourneys too. If you wait a bit, the crazies that call all the time tend to bust out. Then you can clean up what's left. At least that's my strategy. I've seen this at $5 and I've seen this at $30.>>

Yes, that's really the only way to beat the low-limit tables. You have to let the rabbits eat each other, then clean up what's left. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Cris

[Al_Capone_Junior]

his only saving grace is that the competition at SNGs doesn't REALLY get much better till you get up in the $100+ range, and he'll likely never make it there.

Ask him where he gets his crack smoking supplies, down on the corner, sold in a kit at the texaco station? Brillo, a glass tube and some matches? Right next to the baking soda?

al

[Grivan]

Technically this isnt quite as bad as the blackjack situation since if he manages to win a tournament he makes more then just $5.

Assume he wins the $50+5 one for a $250 win that costs 50+5+30+3+20+2+10+1+5+1=$127, or a $123 profit.

He still is going to hit the problem of getting up to $200 tournaments and not being able to go higher, of course if he is a good enough player to have positive EV in the $200+15 tournaments this is still a profitable situation.

Overall this strategy is going to win him money slower then if he just played at the optimal level that he can beat, but if he is a winning player at the highest level this won't lead him to dissater.

[Cleric]

Depends.... Ultimatebets SnGs are great.... Partypokers SnGs are a joke..... I never played on paradise... but your friend needs to be consistent... I lost 2,000$ when i first started online by doing the same thing he is doing...... (I'm up a hlla lot more now that I smartened up)

[Cleric]

I'm immortal.

[Eric P]

If you had infinite bankroll you would win an infinite amount doing this if there were no table limit. Or say, you could put risk of ruin, or even hitting that maximum by bettin the minimum on a very high limit table. You are not going to lose more than 20 hands in a row ever so you will clearly make a lot of money doing this because blackjacks pays 3:2, hence you will win if you never double/split etc... and just play this system, but if your bankroll was infinite then splitting would not be a problem