I lifted this from another forum

[m1illion]

Is this food for thought or crap? It sounds legit but so do politicians. Will help me define who to read on that forum.

Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 10:05 pm
Post subject: Why you guys don't get it

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think your mindset is related to some major misunderstandings about the nature of poker tournaments. Some of this stuff is still debateable - even the stuff that really isn't. You guys have been brainwashed by Cloutier/McEvoy and even the early Sklansky tournament book.

You problems stem from:

1. Not properly valuing your starting chips: Your starting chips are worth your buy-in, based on your skill level, doubling is worth about 2x your buy-in, maybe more for a great player, maybe less for a bad player.

2. Not understanding EV: Not knowing core gambling concepts, so of course they cannot be applied properly. You think that this call is a "gamble" not realizing that you are gambling any time chips go into the pot, even more so in a tournament.

3. Viewing tournaments as closed-ended single occuring events: You believe EV does not apply because there is no long-term. This is a very common misperception.

4. Not realizing the value of chips relative to the blinds and your opponents chip stacks: Going from T1500 to T3000 in level 1 gives you much more power than doing the same in level 7.

5. Over estimating their own ability to accumulate chips. xxxDEMExxx has posted some thoughts on this on www*pokerforums*org. After some thought, it seems obvious that the average player only has a 50% chance to double up in a tournament. The WORST player probably still has a 40% chance, and the BEST player can probably never have more than 60% chance, with most of the field being in the 45-55% range.

6. Not realizing the increasing danger of a shrinking chip stack: Smaller chip stack gives you fewer options, less ability to protect your pots, and changes what hands you can play and how you should play them-and most don't understand this either. Folding a 50/50 hand after getting 20% of your stack in and getting 1.5:1 on your money hasn't decreased you risk, it has increased it. It has also decrease your rewards.

7. The true nature of luck in a tournament: You will only get x chances to get your money in the pot in favorable spots where your opponent is also willing to put money in the pot. You may get a better hand, but that doesn't mean anyone will play with you. This gets back to Helmuth and his 80% favorite comment. How many times will you even get a chance at a 2:1 favorite in a hand when your opponent is willing to put all him money in?

8. The escalating blinds: If you wait around for that "lock" hand, how far will your stack have fallen? What will be the value of doubling at that point?

Of all of these, I think #5 is the biggest. If you come to the realization that you only have a 52% chance of doubling up, getting 1.5:1 on a 50/50 hand starts to look a little better. If you don't realize your true odds of doubling up, you cannot properly apply gambling concepts, or come to grips with the other factors that rule tournament poker.

Now, I am no whiz when it comes to applying this stuff, but I love the theory.

[m1illion]

b
u
m
p

[woodguy]

I think a lot that is very good.

Second nature to the good players here, as the 2+2 MTT forum is where I learned, and continue to learn all that stuff.

This one:

[ QUOTE ]
6. Not realizing the increasing danger of a shrinking chip stack: Smaller chip stack gives you fewer options, less ability to protect your pots, and changes what hands you can play and how you should play them-and most don't understand this either. Folding a 50/50 hand after getting 20% of your stack in and getting 1.5:1 on your money hasn't decreased you risk, it has increased it. It has also decrease your rewards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Should get a sticky.

Some think that folding in a hand because they think they are beat is good when if they put their opponenet on a range, and look at the pot odds in relation to the % of winning the hand vs. that range they should call or raise.

I am still very partial to this post by John G:

[ QUOTE ]
One common misapplication of the survival concept I see people making is that they commit chips early in the hand, preflop and on the flop, only to then fold later in the hand when the pot odds say they should be committing the rest of their chips. This is not how the survival concept works. It is not surviving. It is not conserving chips. It is leaking them. The exact opposite of survival. The correct application of the survival concept in a tournament is to get out early, or follow through and play the hand how it was meant to be played. Congruency.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's his post in context of the thread.

Regards,
Woodguy

[A_PLUS]

I was not expecting that.

I would keep reading that guy/gals posts.

P.S. I may have been blinded though. He had me at "You guys have been brainwashed by Cloutier/McEvoy"....he had me at "You guys have been brainwashed by Cloutier/McEvoy".

Although I think most people misunderstand Sklansky's book rather than it being wrong.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Although I think most people misunderstand Sklansky's book rather than it being wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

I always had a feeling that Sklansky's book (way?) overestimates the edge a good player has over the field. It's not that there's wrong advice there, but from the approach of it you can understand that (as a good player) you should generally look for a better spots than if it was a cash game, since when "You're broke - You're done" and when "They're broke - They're done". Honestly, I don't think this is Sklansky at his best...

[A_PLUS]

I agree, that this is not his best book. The 'gap concept' is worth the price of the book alone though.