Players capable of folds v. players that are not

[benkahuna]

I've been thinking a lot recently about which players make for better opponents.

I'm mainly thinking about tournament situations.

It seems that it can be very difficult to do well in tournaments when you get called down a great deal, even when you have the best hand 90 percent of the time. I'm not even talking about players drawing with hands as good as OESD or flush draws.

It's it worth more to have players fold to you, or is it better to have players that will always call?

I realize this is a complicated question having to do with hand values, adjusting for calling stations or very aggressive players, etc.


I've just noticed that I always do better when people are capable of folding to me, even when I typically have many strong hands.

With 2-3 people that will call all the way in a 6-12 limit game with any pair, I get killed. It seems that my top pair, good kicker or overpair gets rivered by someone calling with a lower pair. I know I supposedly want them making those -EV calls, but when there are many of them, I wonder how helpful it is to me. It seems that by teaming up in me, those players may be able to knock me out even with very loose passive play.

It seems to me that because hand values run so closely together that getting people to fold may have better equity. Gordon talks about one of the values of aggression being that you don't get bad beat when you get people to fold, an advantage I think is overlooked, but that I can't decide whether it has more value.


Am I just irrationally scarred by bad beats and bad luck or is this topic worthy of serious discussion?

Opponents chasing 2 pair all the way to the river (and maybe still calling you on the river) are a huge source of value bets. Savour it.

[OrangeKing]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I just irrationally scarred by bad beats and bad luck or is this topic worthy of serious discussion?

[/ QUOTE ]

The former. These are exactly the players you want in your games.

It is tougher to deal with these players when there are many of them. The best analogy that I've heard is to old western gunfights. If one gunfighter is vastly superior to the other he will defeat him easily. But imagine that John Wayne had to square off against 5 or 6 retarded gun fighters simultaneously. He is much better than each one individually but when they are all together it is inevitable that one of them will shoot him by accident before he can kill all of them. If there are many retards playing against you it becomes much more likely that one of them will draw out on you unless you have the stone nuts. I think you will still win in the long run playing smart poker, but your volatility is increased. It is harder to kill fish when they are in a school.

In regards to tournament play, it depends on what part of the tournament I'm in. If the blinds are low, I can handle the swings of calling stations because at that point I would rather win big pots than slowly chip away. Going broke early in the tournament doesn't bother me. If it allows me to double up or triple up before the blinds escalate then I will happily accept the beats which occasionally send me packing early. Being a big stack in a tournament is a tremendous advantage.

However, as the blinds escalate I would much rather have my opponents fold and just chip away to build my stack. Chipping away and avoiding showdowns quickly adds up in relation to the blinds. Also, any big pots lost at this poing can be crippling.

[silvershade]

I think in a tournament one of your main goals is to eliminate as much variance as you can whilst remaining in a positive EV position, this is very unlike a limit ring game where in order to achieve a decent win rate you have to 'embrace' the variance and push small edges. Unless your hand is a monster you'd therefore probably prefer that opponents fold a good portion of the time. This gives you a nice steady supply of chips without the risk of a huge suckout. Remember chips you win in tournaments are mostly worth less than the chips you lose.

In tourney's I feel that having an image of tight aggression makes it easier in the long run. I prefer players that will fold to me. I look at my stack and am happy if it continues to go up. Having people fold to you allows you to make another continuation bet on the turn if you choose and people will still fold, since they value their stack.

Then when you get caught with crud after that 2nd continuation bet, others will notice and you will get paid off on your next hand. I find that playing tight-aggressive puts you in position where a good percentage of your hands are stronger than anyone calling you.

Its bad enough that the end of tourneys are basically crap shoots and coin flips, so I rather people pay me off bits at a time and continually raise my stack. Going for the homerun gets costly in tourneys. Gradual increases will get you to the money consistently, and when you are hitting monsters in multiway pots, you have your chance to double/triple up and get in strong contention.

IMO

I guess it comes down to what works for you.

I like to sit back and let the maniacs take each other out. Of course a couple will survive and have big stacks, but no plan is perfect.

I've found that when you get involved in those early tournament slugfests, you tend to be going all-in on other player's terms. That's not a place I want to be.

I find I finish most consistently in the money in tourneys by folding all hands during Level 1 blinds, with the exception of AA or Ax suited (limping, and only from late position of course) - especially Ax suited - a hand that has such a high payoff against maniacs when you hit it that it outweighs the veritable worthlessness of trying to play when the blinds are so small that no one will fold.

In addition this immediately presents an image of tight (and at least post-flop aggressive), which comes in handy after blinds are raised - particularly around level 3 and especially those hand immediately following a raise in blinds.

Often your post flop continuation bets will garner more respect as well.