Advice on internet play

[Cactus Jack]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no clue why you'd catch flack for that one, CJ. Most pros agree, and state openly, that you must get lucky and win at least a few coinflips in order to make a final table. Luck is definitely a part of poker, just not the most important one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would get flack from many because luck is the one thing we fear. We have no control over it. We hate it. It puts us on tilt when we take a bad beat, which is really nothing more than bad luck. We call it a bad beat because we don't want to even admit it was bad luck.

CP, your opinion is one I value. What do you think of the "lucky three times" theory?

CJ

[prayformojo]

If there's any flack for you to catch, it should only be for the "too many donkeys" comment. I'm pretty sure you know very well that the number of donkeys dramatically increases your chances of scoring in a tournament.

Idiots playing bad cards poorly bring the luck factor into sharp relief. That fact doesn't make those idiots any less valuable, or increase your reliance on luck to make the final table. If every player in the tournament played exactly as well as you do, your only hope would be luck. It's easy to recognize your own bad luck when your AA gets cracked by J8o, but harder to recognize your good luck when your KK holds up against a strong opponent's all in QQ. If you didn't suck out and you played it well, luck has nothing to do with it, right? But if he played it well too, the only thing that put you above him was the luck of having a better hand.

[ QUOTE ]
CP, your opinion is one I value. What do you think of the "lucky three times" theory?

CJ

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure that there's any way to put an exact number on the amount of coinflips you'll need to win in a tournament, however I think that stating that you'll need to win "at least a few" allows for some flexibility in the theory. I'm sure some people have FT'd by taking fewer than three coinflips while others have taken dozens of coinflips to get there - there's always some exceptions to the rule. That's the beauty of a theory, in that you don't have to make it an exact science. You just need a "good idea".

[Cactus Jack]

[ QUOTE ]
If there's any flack for you to catch, it should only be for the "too many donkeys" comment. I'm pretty sure you know very well that the number of donkeys dramatically increases your chances of scoring in a tournament.

Idiots playing bad cards poorly bring the luck factor into sharp relief. That fact doesn't make those idiots any less valuable, or increase your reliance on luck to make the final table. If every player in the tournament played exactly as well as you do, your only hope would be luck. It's easy to recognize your own bad luck when your AA gets cracked by J8o, but harder to recognize your good luck when your KK holds up against a strong opponent's all in QQ. If you didn't suck out and you played it well, luck has nothing to do with it, right? But if he played it well too, the only thing that put you above him was the luck of having a better hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very good points. It's even harder to recognize your good luck when you are NOT in a hand that would have gone very bad for you.

How often did you decide to not play a hand, see it hit on the flop and damn your misfortune/bad decision and see it lose badly by the river? Happens to me, a lot. That's an example of being lucky by not playing.

That's not what I'm talking about in the 3 times lucky theory. What you are talking about is exactly what I mean.

There comes a point three times in every tournament where you need a gift from the gods to stay in it, double up, or correct an inequity--where opponent got lucky on the flop when WAY behind and you beat him on the river.

Does Harrington's "inflection points" not really involve an element of luck?

CJ

[ QUOTE ]
Does Harrington's "inflection points" not really involve an element of luck?

CJ

[/ QUOTE ]

Every aspect of poker has at least an element of luck. Harrington's inflection point theory, however, is not based on luck. His theory provides a guideline that tells us hands have relative value when considering the size of your stack in relation to the blinds and antes. It tells us in what situations we can put in a preflop raise in the yellow zone without fear of a reraise, which situations are a sure push in the red zone because a raise pot commits us and how to comfortably manage your stack in the green zone. Again, it only provides a guideline and is not something set in stone - it's a theory that has room for flexibility and variation. The luck factor comes when you decide to push your stack in the red zone and get called or you decide to reraise your opponent all-in when you are sitting comfortably in the green zone and get called. It's not Harrington's theory that created this instance of luck - it merely drove your actions. The situation itself is where the luck comes into play. His theories do encourage you to rely on luck at times, but that doesn't mean they are based on anything less than sound strategy and a "good idea".

[Cactus Jack]

Thanks.

nh

CJ

[Sam T.]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no clue why you'd catch flack for that one, CJ. Most pros agree, and state openly, that you must get lucky and win at least a few coinflips in order to make a final table. Luck is definitely a part of poker, just not the most important one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Harrington said that it is virtually impossible to win a large tournament without, at some point, putting your chips in the middle as a small/big dog, and hitting your two, three or four-outer.

[locutus2002]

Multi-table.

If you are confident in your abilities, its a numbers game.
In a typical 2500 player field you need to make the final table ~1/200 times to break even (assuming you cash 10% of the time at avg 3Xbuyin) (~twice a year if you play everyday) The more you play the less lumpy your results will be. Of course you run the risk of finding out that you are a losing player.

[Stipe_fan]

I concur with the three flips. But, you also need to win at least one hand where you are really behind(i.e. KK to AA). When I go deep into a tournament, I always seem to get lucky on one hand and win 3 or so flips.

That is my highly scientific observation.

Stipe