Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.

[PoBoy321]

My point was that avoiding pre-flop all-ins, even with the advantage, could be a valid tournament strategy. If you feel that you can outplay your opponents, why leave it to chance pre-flop when you can play more skillfully post-flop?

I'm not saying that this is the tournament strategy that I use, have used or would ever consider using, just that some players may feel that they don't need to take ANY risk early in a tournament, when they can take no risk.

[AngryCola]

Your skill post flop does not make up for what you lose by folding a 4:1 favorite most anytime during a tournament. It doesn't add up.

I hate to say it...but Paul Phillips is right.
::shudder::

[3rdEye]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that this strategy actually makes a lot more sense than people are saying. If he's 4-1 pre-flop, by winning this hand it won't guarantee that he'll finish in the money, or even to get much closer to finishing in the money. So we're basically looking at an 80% chance of doing marginally better in the tournament, and a 20% chance of getting knocked out. I think that smart post-flop play is generally a much better strategy than pre-flop all-ins every time that you have an advantage in the early stages of the tournament. I'm not trying to be a Hellmuth worshipper, just trying to understand his reasons for folding a clear favorite before the flop. Also, does anyone know what the stack sizes were here? If he folded to an all-in that was 1/5 of his stack that's one thing, if the all-in put HIM all in, that's another.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can understand if Hellmuth is unwilling to take preflop risks early in a tournament, but in a meta-sense, I would think that the fact that the other players are aware of this would make him easy to bully around in the early stages.

[PoBoy321]

I understand how in a meta-sense, this could lead to other players bullying Hellmuth a bit more, but I also feel that Hellmuth would suffer a lower variance as a result of the fact that he limits the situtations in which the outcomes is truly left up to luck.

[AngryCola]

Lower variance doesn't = better.
Unless you are on a short bankroll or late in a tournament.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
lower variance doesn't = better

[/ QUOTE ]

This much I understand, but I also understand that if you're a good enough player that you could extract as much money as possible while you're ahead and as little as possible when your opponent does in fact hit his set, it could prove to be a better strategy for some in the early, "survival" stages of a tournament. If I were at that level, I might want to play more conservatively in order to build a stack, rather than get sucked out on and leave the tourney.

Note: I'm not saying, and I don't think that I have said that I think Hellmuth made the right fold. I don't. I'm just playing Devil's advocate for the sake of discussion.

[BK_]

[ QUOTE ]
a 4 to 1 is closer to the borderline, but that is for him to judge.





[/ QUOTE ]
4:1 is so far beyond the border line its not even funny

[Jim T]

Wild conjecture, but maybe Hellmuth tries to cultivate an image of weakness so that aggressive players will overplay their hands against him trying to get him to make a laydown. Think about it, with a weak image, not only could he have people trying to push him around with marginal hands, but if he DOES show strenth by going over the top they are more willing to give him credit for having a great hand.

I've never played against him, never read his book (or anything he's written now that I think about it), etc. It just seems to me that a good player could take advantage of being thought weak. The way that Hellmuth advertises such weakness (examples being this hand, and a televised tourney when he called the cameraman over so he could show that he was laying down KK) makes this seem at least plausible.

[JARID]

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, I think the logic, at least, stands: the better you are at reading players and situations(in relation to the field), and the more chips you have in relation to the blinds, the more you have to gain by staying out of large pots, and the more inclined you should be to lay down advantageous situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Phoenix,

The better someone is at making these reads is all the more reason that they should be inclined to capitalize on advantageous situations.
Part of being great is realizing when you have tremendous edge and pouncing on it. There is nothing skillfull about recognizing your a 4-1 edge and taking a pass. Sklansky talks about passing up small edges. FWIW, I think he was just trying to save face in this article.

Regards,
Jarid

[JARID]

[ QUOTE ]
If you feel that you can outplay your opponents, why leave it to chance pre-flop when you can play more skillfully post-flop?


[/ QUOTE ]

Recognizing you have a 4-1 edge and taking a pass is not outplaying your opponent.

-Jarid