Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Tournament Poker > Multi-table Tournaments

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-13-2005, 12:03 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default is tournament success this arbitrary??

am starting to really wonder how much of a role luck plays in a large tournament.

last night, i had just got my internet connection back so playing a $1 NL tournament with 150 people. hit a few AA fairly early (after going 900 hands without) but couldn't get people to commit too much $$$$ early on, but i was doing quite well.

then went cold and an aggressive guy just ran over the table. so i'm waiting to take this guy down and i had a comfortable #'s of chips (1800, 1000 start, and leader = 19000)... so i doubled up thru him and had a couple of other nice plays. got myself to 6,000.

anyhow, eventually it's 3 am and i need to get to bed. so i go all-in on Q7s and, lo and behold, get three callers. i can't remember the hand but i won.... so now i'm an overwhelming chip leader (and went on to win the tournament). but the whole basis for my win was stupid "going to bed" all-in.

somewhat similarly, my friend finished 4th out of 70 people in a pretty tough home tournament ($50 per person). but he was down to one card and needing to hit the flush. either he was super-low (running on fumes) or chip leader of whole tournament (fairly early) based on one card draw.

i guess it seems alright as we won, and i don't generally spew chips or anything....

one thing i noticed online is that no one ever raises until they have something really good. classic, classic, predictable betting patterns. very little raising in general. i was the only one i saw who utilized strongly.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-13-2005, 12:31 PM
skoal2k4 skoal2k4 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Brighton, CO
Posts: 547
Default Re: is tournament success this arbitrary??

poker is a game of chance so yes, luck plays a very important role here. The skill of the game comes from being able to read players and knowing the math of the game (%, equity, etc.)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-13-2005, 12:36 PM
MeanGreenTT MeanGreenTT is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Tampa
Posts: 32
Default Re: is tournament success this arbitrary??

[ QUOTE ]
am starting to really wonder how much of a role luck plays in a large tournament. .....one thing i noticed online is that no one ever raises until they have something really good.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-13-2005, 12:41 PM
prayformojo prayformojo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mojo! What have they done to you?
Posts: 369
Default Re: is tournament success this arbitrary??

[ QUOTE ]
am starting to really wonder how much of a role luck plays in a large tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

I posted this in another forum a while ago:

Isn't this sort of question quite meaningless? Poker is in part a game of chance and in part a game of skill. Luck determines the cards that fall. In respect of who gets what cards and when they get them, the game is 100% luck. But luck will even out for everyone in the long run. No one is inherently "lucky" at poker. A winning player and a losing player will each benefit from and suffer from luck equally over a lifetime.

Skill, which in poker comes down primarily to making correct decisions with a positive expectation, is the only element of poker that creates profit over and above the long term levelling effect of luck (of course, with the rake, luck will end up considerably worse than even). Since in the long run a poker player will lose as much by being unlucky as he will win by being lucky, he is dependent entirely on skill to make a profit. In this respect, poker is 100% skill.

To use a simplified example, let's look at flipping a coin. A friend offers to flip a coin a billion times. If it comes up heads, he'll pay me $1.05. If it comes up tails, I'll pay him $1.00. The number of times it falls either heads or tails is dependent entirely on luck. No decision of mine can make heads or tails more likely. On the other hand, the profitability of my decision is in no way dependent on how the coin falls. I have used my skill (such as it is) to make an obviously correct decision and take a bet when I have the best of it. My profit depends entirely on my skill, and not on the flip of the coin. An event that is random, and therefore 100% luck, has by virtue of my decision transformed into a wager that is 100% skill.

Having said all that, I think it's much easier for limit grinders like me to view poker in this way than for people who play the occasional multi-player tournament. No one wins any particular tournament without getting "lucky". Long term profitability over a (long) career of tournaments depends entirely on skill.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-13-2005, 01:11 PM
ansky451 ansky451 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24
Default Re: is tournament success this arbitrary??

This is a common mistake that newer players make all the time. It isn't that luck plays such a big role, its VARIANCE. The luck evens out in the end, but in tournaments, it takes way longer to even out. The nature of poker-- especially tournament poker is such that you can always win or lose in the short term, regardless of how good/bad you are-- no matter what. There are donkeys who luckbox there way to final tables all the time, but they still are losing players over the long term, they just got a great rush of cards in that specific tournament.

The amount of "luck" involved in tournament poker, and poker in general, is minimal in the long term. In cash games, if you are a winning player, you probably will rarely have a losing month (but you still will sometimes), but in tournament poker you very often will have losing months, because of the insane variance. That said, you also could have insane rushes where you are playing well, and running well (case in point: Rizen, Sirio11) and the results will just keep coming.

With regards to larger tournaments, there is an insane amount of short term luck involved. If you play a 2000 person tournament, the chances of winning without a few key suckouts are almost non-existant. Think of it this way. Say ever person in a 2000 person tournament had the same chance of winning- 1/2000. Now say theres one player who has 5x the chance of winning (this person would have to be insanely good, and this is probably not a sustainable ROI), he still only has a 1/400 chance of winning.

Obviously tournament success is not arbitrary. Why would we have a forum for it if it was. So we could discuss how to use our pattern mappers, and find the most rigged online sites (I'm looking in your direction POKERSTARS [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img])?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-13-2005, 01:44 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: is tournament success this arbitrary??

thanks for the responses!!

i'm not a beginner, i just am really shocked at all the luck in the short-term. as someone said (very valuable comment), you probably do need a couple of huge suckouts to win a 150-200 person tournament. OTOH, i don't think winning those suckouts is sufficient to win or place very highly. i've seen guys get to dominant cheap leader thru risky aggressive plays and luck, but then they don't practice money management and eventually get taken huge.

regarding my comment about no one ever raising without something really good, i meant a strong made hand. no one seems to raise AK, AQ. not even sure they'll raise QQ. they want to see the flop, but if it's low cards, you won't get action. if it's ace, then you're in big trouble potentially.

two other things about raising online. alot of people seem to use 2x raise which is already in the box (my site). they won't seem to raise 3-5X ala harrington.

and people never seem to adjust too much to the higher level of blinds. they still think we're at 20-40 blinds, when we're at 500 big blind. never ever see 1500 raise at that level of blinds unless someone has nuts or close to it.

people barely raise until the turn/river anyhow and at that ppoint you should have folded or have good idea you beaten (or occasionally be able to go "over the top"!!!)

bear in mind, this is online at my site. B&M (or home) no limit tournaments have been alot more difficult.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-13-2005, 02:31 PM
jwvdcw jwvdcw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 182
Default Re: is tournament success this arbitrary??

[ QUOTE ]


one thing i noticed online is that no one ever raises until they have something really good. classic, classic, predictable betting patterns. very little raising in general. i was the only one i saw who utilized strongly.

[/ QUOTE ]

you've played in one $1 entry fee tourney, and you're ready to state this as fact?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-13-2005, 05:25 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: is tournament success this arbitrary??

[ QUOTE ]
you've played in one $1 entry fee tourney, and you're ready to state this as fact?

[/ QUOTE ]

i just got my internet connection BACK UP today after a couple of weeks down.... i've probably played 60-70 no-limit tournaments online, and yes a bias towards the lower entry fees.

good news though, i have nominated you for "troll of the year"
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-13-2005, 05:36 PM
Skipbidder Skipbidder is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Illinois
Posts: 415
Default Re: is tournament success this arbitrary??

[ QUOTE ]
eventually it's 3 am and i need to get to bed. so i go all-in on Q7s

[/ QUOTE ]
Starting a tournament when you don't have time to finish it is a big leak.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-13-2005, 06:06 PM
nath nath is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 79
Default Re: is tournament success this arbitrary??

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you've played in one $1 entry fee tourney, and you're ready to state this as fact?

[/ QUOTE ]

i just got my internet connection BACK UP today after a couple of weeks down.... i've probably played 60-70 no-limit tournaments online, and yes a bias towards the lower entry fees.

good news though, i have nominated you for "troll of the year"

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? He's absolutely right. Even 60-70 tournaments isn't a large enough sample size.

(I've been having a good run lately, but I busted out of a tournament yesterday with TT after a TT5 flop, so I think all my variance caught up to me at once.) [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.