How much of an advantage does an expert have in a NLHE tournament?

[SineNomine]

Sklansky vs. Harrington

Harrington says (p 12 Harrington on Hold’em) that in a seven card stud tournament a $1000 entry fee is worth about $2000. Meaning that the expert expects to make about $2000 in prize money for every $1000 dollars he invests in entry fees. He suggests that the value is about the same for Omaha and razz. He says that for NL hold’em however the same $1000 is worth $4000 or $5000, and in huge events like WSOP perhaps $7000 or $8000. He makes this argument based on the availability of information to the players and the ability of the expert to control pot odds. He agrees with Brunson that NL Hold’em is the “Cadillac of Poker.”

Sklansky (p 140 Tournament Poker for Advanced Players) argues that NL hold’em has an “Achilles heel”; meaning that a not very skilled player, who is willing to play aggressively pre-flop with frequent all-ins, can do much better than he has a right to against expert opposition. He makes this point just after describing his “system” that allows, he argues, even a novice to play competitively if not advantageously against an expert. He suggests that this makes NL hold’em a poor choice to determine the World Champion and that a tournament consisting of a combination of limit games would be better.

Who is right? Or, are they both right and I am just not fully understanding what they are saying?

[a500lbgorilla]

Play pot limit instead. Take away Sklansky's preflop allin system.

-'rilla

[Mike Gallo]

Or, are they both right and I am just not fully understanding what they are saying?

Yes.

Sklansky suggests that by going all in against an expert novice players will neutralize the experts advantage.

[Robk]

the statements would be inconsistent if all the novices used sklanskys system. but none do.

[EZE]

Honestly,

I have been reading and using David Sklanskys theorys and techniques in my NL Holdem Satellites at Foxwoods and practice 4/8,10/20 games. I have read both books, and I like Harringtons ideas, but honestly, I trully believe Sklansky's take on it is right. What you term Expert is relative, is it the number of tournaments he-she plays, how long he she plays, the years of experience? The ability to know all Group 1-8 hands like the back of head and math skills to calculate odds, pot odds, implied and reverse implied odds at any time, quickly to make a decision and stick with it. ( Yes I do know all the Groups, and how to play from early, middle and late positions, which has helped my game tremendously.)

But to say putting in 1G to make 4-5G as an expert, is silly. I put out a few "Pro's" at WSOP in Vegas last year, and so was put out by a newcomer on a bad-beat, but those are the nuts!

So basically it comes down to this, your skill, plus how well and how quickly you read your opponents, plus bluffing, semi-bluffs, check raises and deception play into the fact of whether you are going to turn that 1G into 4-5G or leave as broke as a joke.

EZE
"Mr Pittsburgh"

[ACW]

Well Dan Harrington should have a pretty good idea of how much his $1000 buys him in a tournament.

Looking at those making the final table at the WPT events I can believe his number. It seems that several players have made over 10% of the final tables.

[SineNomine]

[ QUOTE ]
The ability to know all Group 1-8 hands like the back of head and math skills to calculate odds, pot odds, implied and reverse implied odds at any time, quickly to make a decision and stick with it. ( Yes I do know all the Groups, and how to play from early, middle and late positions, which has helped my game tremendously.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the reply. What adjustments do you make to the hand groups when playing no limit? Sklansky says that the groups are for limit and would be substantially diffferent for NL.

[pzhon]

There is no contradiction.

First, the weaker players do not use Sklansky's system. They could improve their play in many ways; adopting Sklansky's sytem is just a particularly simple one, but not the most effective. They could do much better by learning to play at an expert level.

Second, even if each weaker player were to do "much better than he has a right to do" by adopting a preflop system, the experts would still have an advantage. It would be reduced, of course, but we are talking about someone getting back 70% rather than 50% of their entry fee. The extra 30% would still go to the stronger players.

Third, there are many more weak players than experts. I don't know Harrington, but my guess is that he wouldn't call many players experts. For every expert, there may be a few decent players who make back a bit more than their entry fees, and dozens of poor players who expect to win back less than half of what they put in.

So, even if the weaker players were to use Sklansky's system, the experts may still win a lot. However, the weaker players don't use Sklansky's system.

[TStoneMBD]

i think the number goes as high as 30% ROI. harrigton may be a good player, but his success in WSOP history is mainly due to luck.

[Iceman]

[ QUOTE ]
Or, are they both right and I am just not fully understanding what they are saying?

Yes.

Sklansky suggests that by going all in against an expert novice players will neutralize the experts advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would reduce the experts' advantage, not neutralize it. For a novice who doesn't know how to play at all, the System is better than just guessing what to do, but it's easily countered by anyone who is aware of it and knows how to adjust to it.