|
|
#1
03-23-2004, 11:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Many tourneys vs. cash game
The big difference between cash games and tournaments is that when you get broke in a toruney, you can't refill -- that's regarded as a simple truth among tournament theorists. It's brought along the gap concept and the idea of avoiding plays with small positive EV. I've bought into these ideas myself, and as far as I can tell it works well, I have a decent tournament record.
But still, when you think of it in a larger perspective, if you get busted in one tourney, a thousand others are waiting for you. Why wouldn't it be good strategy to play your usual, optimal, game in tournaments and when you bust out simply reload in another tournament? What am I missing here? 
|
|
#3
03-23-2004, 11:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
bust out too often
You will bust out way too often...........
|
|
#5
03-23-2004, 02:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Many tourneys vs. cash game
So you lose your stack with that play in a cash game also.
You join another tournament and it's the same as reloading in a cash game. The only tournaments this isn't too applicable to is the major ones like the WSOP and PPM. All the other tournaments run often enough to where you can reload.
|
|
#6
03-23-2004, 02:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Many tourneys vs. cash game
A couple of problems I see ...
1) The problem is that you can play 60+ hands per hour in a cash game. The number of tournament you can play is much lower. 2) The Gap Concept works because other people are playing differently, it has nothing to do with the structure of the tournament. 3) Small T$EV decisions are to be avoided because (IMHO) they can actually be -EV in term of real dollars. For example folding AA on the bubble with a very small stack. DK
|
|
#7
03-23-2004, 03:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Many tourneys vs. cash game
Hi Bradley,
There's a significant difference. If I make a marginally +EV play in a ring game and get busted, I can reload, and if I hit a couple of big hands right away, I've made back my losses and then some. If I make a marginally +EV play in a tourney and get busted, I can buy into another tourney, yes. But if I hit a couple of big hands right away and double up, I haven't won any real money. I have a better chance to make the money, yes, but there's still a lot of poker yet to play, and a lot of minefields to be dodged, before I'll get that cash back. Cris
|
|
#8
03-23-2004, 03:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Many tourneys vs. cash game
[ QUOTE ]
3) Small T$EV decisions are to be avoided because (IMHO) they can actually be -EV in term of real dollars. For example folding AA on the bubble with a very small stack. [/ QUOTE ] I think you mean when more people are in the pot than need to be busted to get into the money(2 to bubble, 4 all ins in the pot). However you have to add another qualification to that which is that the pot you would win has to be small enough to be a non-factor. For example the blinds are 10K and you have 600 chips after the 200 ante which means you could win 4K when all the other stacks are 50K+. For some unknown reason 4 people go all in and you're 1 away from the bubble. Of course your AA is the favorite and in the long run will win the most. However the amount you win won't cover the blinds, making this a clear fold into the money. But you're bringing up very very specific examples. As we know in poker even theorems don't hold up against very specific examples but they do hold up as a general rule. [ QUOTE ] 1) The problem is that you can play 60+ hands per hour in a cash game. The number of tournament you can play is much lower. [/ QUOTE ] Then why does anyone play tournaments at all? [ QUOTE ] 2) The Gap Concept works because other people are playing differently, it has nothing to do with the structure of the tournament. [/ QUOTE ] I don't get what you mean by this.
|
|
#9
03-23-2004, 03:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Many tourneys vs. cash game
[ QUOTE ]
If I make a marginally +EV play in a ring game and get busted, I can reload, and if I hit a couple of big hands right away, I've made back my losses and then some. If I make a marginally +EV play in a tourney and get busted, I can buy into another tourney, yes. But if I hit a couple of big hands right away and double up, I haven't won any real money. I have a better chance to make the money, yes, but there's still a lot of poker yet to play, and a lot of minefields to be dodged, before I'll get that cash back. [/ QUOTE ] These two situations are exactly the same. If I make a marginally +EV play in a ring game and get busted, I can reload, and if I hit a couple of big hands right away, I've made back my losses and then some, but there's still a lot of poker yet to play, and a lot of minefields to be dodged. The only difference is you can quit the cash game at any time but can't quit a tournament unless you want to lose.
|
|
#10
03-23-2004, 04:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Many tourneys vs. cash game
[ QUOTE ]
Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) Small T$EV decisions are to be avoided because (IMHO) they can actually be -EV in term of real dollars. For example folding AA on the bubble with a very small stack. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think you mean when more people are in the pot than need to be busted to get into the money(2 to bubble, 4 all ins in the pot). However you have to add another qualification to that which is that the pot you would win has to be small enough to be a non-factor. For example the blinds are 10K and you have 600 chips after the 200 ante which means you could win 4K when all the other stacks are 50K+. For some unknown reason 4 people go all in and you're 1 away from the bubble. Of course your AA is the favorite and in the long run will win the most. However the amount you win won't cover the blinds, making this a clear fold into the money. But you're bringing up very very specific examples. As we know in poker even theorems don't hold up against very specific examples but they do hold up as a general rule. [/ QUOTE ] I only gave one inarguable example. There are many more that make my point less clearly... Tournament chips change value. A move that might double your stack which is slightly +T$EV (eg calling allin w/ 44 vs a known AKs) might only increase you expected prize money by 25%. That would be a -EV in real $'s [ QUOTE ] Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) The problem is that you can play 60+ hands per hour in a cash game. The number of tournament you can play is much lower. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Then why does anyone play tournaments at all? [/ QUOTE ] Playing ring games, you are willing to increase varience to increase win rate since you will be able to get to the "long run" in a reasonable amout of time. In tournament play, if you consider each tournament an event, (assuming ave 2 hours?) it will take you 120 times longer to get into the long run. This will make it much more dangerous to trade varience for win rate. Thus, we choose to not to make small +EV choices that are high varience. [ QUOTE ] Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) The Gap Concept works because other people are playing differently, it has nothing to do with the structure of the tournament. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't get what you mean by this. [/ QUOTE ] There are other considerations that make the Gap Concept valuable but primarily... The reason you raise more is because the other players are (in general) going to tighten up and give you more uncontested pots. The reason you tighten up your calls against raises is because the other players (in general) have tightened up their raising requirements.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
