3 key areas to winning in MTT`s

Hi guys.

I found this on a website (I don`t wanna advertise it incase I get into trouble!!!)

I agreed 100% with what it says. What do you guys think???

MTT strategy requires three key components to be successful:

1. Skill (30%) - A player must be skilled in order to win multi-table tournaments. You have to know when to hold'em and when to fold'em. When a tricky situation arises, you'll almost always want to fold more than call.
2. Discipline (30%) - To win consistently you must have strong mental discipline. Most of the time, you'll be folding, because in MTTs, folding makes the money. The only tip I can give you regarding patience is to keep yourself occupied. Always try to predict what people have and take each blind level step by step.
3. Luck (40%) - Luck is a big factor in MTTs. We can't control this factor at all.

I think this sums up my thoughts on MTT. TAG is the way to be!!!

OMG

Im going to do a proper MTT post tomorrow

"Luck (40%) - Luck is a big factor in MTTs. We can't control this factor at all."


dude how can a poker session that takes 6 hours++++ to win be 40% luck? people who routinely make the top 3% of fields dont get there by accident.

specific hands can be 99% luck 1% skill, but in the long run it's definetly 99% skill 1% luck

I dont know dude, I think the OP has all the nuances of MTT strategy down perfectly, I don't see what you can possibly add to it.

..I dont agree with that statement of 40% luck

Its pretty much all skill... i mean even if u are lucky to get the best hand, someone with skill could make u fold that hand..

so if u really think about it , skill should be valued at a higher % than luck.


P.S. Im not talking best hand like "nuts" im talking like pair of K's or w/e

I agree with Tenbob.

What the guy is saying for me sounds about right. 40% luck???

It has got to be!!!

For example, this weekend I played one live MTT and 5 online

Live - pkt KK. Shortstacked, so pushed all in. Got called by guy with 1010 - he caught 10 on river.

Online - pkt AA. Flop A, 10, 8 rainbow. Got pushed all in. Other guy catches runner runner flush.
Online - pkt KK. Late in tourny. Slow played and short stack went all in. I called. He had 77. Hit 7 on river.
Online - pkt K2 in bb. 4 callers. Checked. Flop K27 rainbow. Eventually pushed all in. Other guy turns pair of 2`s giving him set.
And there are more!!!

The point is, and I have said this before on this site, to win a MTT you normally end up sucking out to place real high or to win. I know whenever I have won a tourny I can always recall one hand when I won a lot of chip showing say AQ v AK and me catching my Q. Look at the guy Gold who won the WSOP 2006. He played well but he had the Gods with him on a lot of occassions. He would play 53o out of position and the flop would be 246.

I assume tenbob has never put a bb on anyone and when he wins a tourny he always wins by pure skill, no luck at all???
You should write a poker book mate!!!

OMG OMG

Your trying to tell me that a 10 line post beats harringtons 3 books on MTT play ?????

Im a very successful MTT player, and to be honest in any one game, yes your correct luck is a very important factor, but over the course of 1000 games it pales into nothing in comparision to skill.

I would say that luck would have about 20% in MTT's. Disipline early on is very important but overall it would have to be a skill game.

I don't know about that. Obviously over 1000 games, skill is the much more important factor, but to say it pales into nothing in comparison is, I think, very misleading. I think this is especially true given the top-heavy nature of MTTs.

One player could play 100 MTTs, and let's say he makes one final table, but in that final table he's running extremely good, wins every race, and takes 1st place. Another player could play 100 of these same buy-in MTTs and make 11 final tables, but make less profit than the amateur because how heavy the prize pool is towards the top spot. Which one would you guess is the better player? Probably the guy with 11 final tables.

The vast amount of your profit is determined by how you do at the final table. In 1000 decent sized (500 players +) MTTs, you're not going to see very many final tables. Loads of variance comes into play because one suckout at a final table can easily equal the profit of 100 tournaments of extremely skilled play.

I'm not going to try to put a % on it, (because what does "20% luck" really mean anyway? Luck in poker comes in so many different forms, it's almost impossible to quantify it) but I do believe it would take a whoooole lot more than 1000 MTTs to make luck a small or negligible factor in the amount of money you make.

Putting percentages on things like this is stupid. Yeah, a while ago I made a post saying SNG bubble-game is x% this and y% that, but that's because SNG bubble play is so mechanical. MTT play from start to finish is so dynamic trying to put percentages on things is just stupid and pointless, so please stop debating over whether it's 10% or 20% luck or whatever (the answer obviously depends on sample sizes too but who cares).

I suggest instead we talk about how the advice Ron lifted in the OP is really crappy, general, stupid advice that I wouldn't even waste a complete beginners time with.

"A player must be skilled in order to win multi-table tournaments"- dun dun dunnnnnnnnnnn

"You have to know when to hold'em and when to fold'em" - WOW DID THE AUTHOR JUST GRADUATE FROM CLICHE SCHOOL?

"Most of the time, you'll be folding, because in MTTs, folding makes the money" - lol.

etc etc

"Most of the time, you'll be folding, because in MTTs, folding makes the money"

let them think this, playing against people like this is how i accumulate chips near the bubble & make FT's

I think we r all agreed but we are expressing ourselves differently!!!

The post was not meant to b the way to win, I just felt in general I agreed.

To win a MTT u need skill, discipline and luck. To win one I think the split is about right 30/30/40.

100 MTT is probably 60/30/10 - I don`t know.

It might b time for me to find another forum - people here r so picky it`s untrue!!!!

I`m not trying to rewrite the theory of poker either. The next thing I know I`ll be hit with a lawsuite!!!!

God bless America, land of the free

Duuuuuuude,

1) The 'advice' sucks. As it's written by someone who will probably never come here, I see no need to be subtle about it.

2) Nobody is being 'picky'. Would you prefer that we all just nodded our heads and said "Hay guyz the OP is great advice and 100% correct!" and you moved on witout learning anything (except that you have to know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em, of course).

What you have done in the OP is essentially comparable to lifting a passage from "Sesame Street - Baby's First Book" and intimating that it is literary genius. Read the HoHs and you will see why the extract in the OP is just meaningless poo.

Guys, I mean no offense to anyone, but this is a very silly discussion brought on by advice that is at best extremely vague.

My personal view is that there is a huge luck component in any one MTT. You always hear from big MTT winners that they "had to win one or several coin flips" to get there, and they did. That's my experience as well. But to do better than average over a series of MTTs I think would definitely be primarily skill.

But I think we're arguing semantics here. I don't think anyone actually believes that luck plays no role in a MTT, and no one believes that no skill is required. It's not like if we agree that luck is 80% or 60% or 12% we're going to change our play somehow, so it's moo!*

I think we're chasing our tails a little on this...

* Like a cow's opinion, it's moo.

Yeah, but who doesn't like to chase a little tail occasionally?

But I think you're right. Actually most of the posts were right. The statements were vague. There is no really set % for any of the items. Both skill and luck are required. etc. I don't think this thread overall will be extremely beneficial to any newbies that read it, but I think there may be room for discussion on some of the items if we can keep the sarcasm out (oops, never mind).

Whatever website you found this on (or at least the author), consider it garbage. That 40% luck shiii...crap is nothing more than the "poker is rigged" lunacy stated differently.

Point 1) It was not `advice` the way I read it - it was an opinion.

• Advice = recommendation.
• Opinion = View

So he does not `recommend` you use skill 30% of the time, etc...
His opinion is similar to mine, nothing more, nothing less.(I know in the USA u r not allowed to have an opinion, in the UK we r so that is why u might be struggling with the concept) I will not change my style of play because of what this guy said. (Unlike what u r sugesting DM, I would tell a person to his face if I did not agree with him, so if the person visits this site or not I would not be subtle)

Point 2) I`m saying people are being `picky` because it was an opinion, not advice. You can`t knock an opinion. If a person has an opinion it is their opinion. You can disagree, but you can`t prove it is wrong (Jesus was the son of God - an opinion!!!)

For me, what this guy said put things into perspective. I picked it up as he was saying, for a single tourny,
"Unless you are a good player u will not win on a regular basis. U need to be patient, but some of the time you could play well and find yourself out of a tourny down to pure luck." And I agree with the guys opinion.

Advice.

Advice.

Advice.

Can we not get bogged down in semantics?

What's more - the 'quote' is stupid because he says "You have to be skilled to win MTTs", then a few lines later says "Luck is a really big factor that is uncontrollable". So do we have to be skilled at being lucky which we can't control to win MTTs? WTF is this guy smoking?

This is a really bad insult, made worse by the fact that I'm not American loooooooooool.

Yes, I would too, but I'd be more subtle about it. If people posted "LOL YOU SUCK AND YOUR POST IS CRAP" every time someone made a bad/flawed post here the forums would be anarchical. There's a fun technique called 'exercising a little restraint', which I recommend.

Umm, I and anyone can knock opinions all we want. Yes, we (generally) can't prove an opinion wrong, but if someone comes onto the boards saying "You know what, Hitler and Stalin were really nice guys", you can bet they're gonna get knocked to Hell and back.

To reiterate, his opinion is what I agreed with.
All of what you were calling advice could be classed as opinions - I`m leaving it at that.

(P.s. I have seen lots of your posts in the past, I had never noticed u were form the UK. I caught `Birmingham` and though it was Alabama!!!)

I'm not getting wound up at all. If I were American I would probably be a little insulted at your assertion that Americans aren't allowed to have opinions, but I'm not so I don't really care. Where did you get the impression I'm getting 'wound up'? I'm just debating the issues at hand.

I'm merely trying to help you and everyone else understand that the quote in the OP is crap, that's all. If you want to continue thinking that you absolutely have to have skill to win an MTT but it takes 40% uncontrollable luck too, then more power to you.

So u r trying to say that everyone that wins a tourny wins by skill alone???

U might, but I know the times I have won tournys I can go back to marginal situations - folding JJ after a raise and seeing QA hit on flop, then going all in with KK, finding I`m up against AA and I hit K on flop.

I do not want to go on and on and on, sry. U r entitled 2 your opinion

No, im saying that whoever posted the quote is contradicting themselves.

Just to add my "2 cents":

1) Ron, what I have found is that people here don't hold back. I think you've learned now that if you want to share some info or "opinion", you have to have a thicker skin and be prepared for any folks who disagree. As long as they don't insult you, you should be OK with it.

2) I've always thought poker was about 10% luck. But if we take the 1000 hand example, that would mean 100 hands were luck. Is that one player's luck or any hand won by "luck"? I don't know. I think that shoots down my 10% theory. I don't think you can measure luck since it is so very streaky. Maybe we'll never know.

3) Ron: As an American, I was a bit insulted by some of your US vs UK comments. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were just heated up over the discussion and weren't thinking clearly. I forgive you.

4) I've also learned that one should keep the heat down when debating DM. His quick wit and way with words has him winning any kind of attempt at off-topic bickering, such as the "opinion vs advice" debate. I'd stick to the subject if I were you. Just a friendly warning. Your fate is your choice.

(Was that "4 cents"? Oh well.)

If winning a tourny is 40% luck then I must be the luckiest guy in town...last week I placed 1st in two 15 dollar buy in MTT's, 3rd in another(on The Gaming Club) then 13th in the luckyseven Freerolls. If you don't believe me I will E-mail The Gaming Club and send my results. I am not saying I am a great player or anything like that, but I would like to think that luck plays a smalller role in MTT's. I think that building the right table image is the most important aspect in playing these. Oh, if anybody was wondering what kind of money I made...$4801st
$4603rd
$12001st
$53 13th
Over the weekend went on full tilt -300

I do appologise to the Americans out there, sry.

As for DM, the difference between me and him is that I value other peoples opinions and I also don`t care if I look stupid from time to time - I`m big enough and ugly enough to take it!!!

And, DM, when someone is 60/40 they could win or they could lose, that is not a contradiction, its a possibility!!!

Over to you, professor

Okay, my turn to throw in 2 cents or a nickle if someone can make change.

The only part of poker that involves luck is the order in which the cards come out. Which comes in two parts really. First are your hole cards, second are the board cards. No amount of skill will ever affect the order in which the cards come out. That order is defined by the shuffle (whether live or by online algorithm is irrelevant).

Everything else you do is based on your personal skills. Your skills include, but are not limited to:
1. evaluating your hole cards for starting value
2. knowing and understanding your position at the table
3. viewing your stack size proportional to others
4. reading your opponents
5. recollection of previous hands and the play in them
6. knowing/understand odds of making your hands
7. counting outs
8. putting opponents on a range of hands
9. pot odds and implied odds
10. I'd keep going, but you should get the picture.

All these things mentioned (and all the other stuff that didn't make the list for sake of space) are skills and have nothing to do with luck, not at all. Some things you may be good at, some you may suck at, but they are skills with levels that can be changed. Maybe you've heard those sayings where good players get luckier, etc. Well there is some truth to that. Not because they are actually luckier, but because they are making more skilled decisions than others (based on odds and such). They seem to make their hands more often, and if fact they do because they are typically in a better situation than someone else that is complaining how the cards are coming back to haunt them. In reality, it is the skill level winning out. As for the bad beats, that is back to the luck factor as to the order of the cards coming out. You can't fix that. So in my opinion, the luck factor is much smaller than 40%, more like 10% overall. But luck appears to be a much larger factor because everyone harps on their bad beats (of which many aren't bad beats, but bad plays) and forgets about all of the winning hands that held up like they were supposed to.

/whew. Glad I got that off my chest.

Ronaldadio,

I think that Dorkus is rightly pointing out that the original quotation is a truism at best, a contradiction at worst. Giving it the benefit of the doubt and assuming that it's the former, then it's basically saying that luck and skill are both needed to win MTTs. It then goes on to suggest that it might be 30% skill and 40% luck (plus 30% discipline!).

I have to admit, I don't find that thought overly helpful. Is the quotation trying to suggest that it's a skill game so don't worry about bad beats because they even out and the more skilled person comes out on top over time? Is it trying to suggest that there's a heavy luck component and so even if you lose, don't worry because it doesn't mean you're not skilled?

I think it's just not that helpful a statement in general. Kind of vague, slightly circular. I don't think the quotation is the worst thing in the world, just kind of inoffensive and not so well thought out (ie, I think most respected players would disagree that fold fold folding is how you win at poker -- tight/aggressive, sure, but folding your way into the money on the bubble is not an advanced play).

Dorkus does not hate you (sorry for speaking for you Dorkus), no one here does. Please don't take everyone's comments so hard. The reason I find this forum so helpful is because if (sorry... when) I post crap, I'm shown why it's crap and I learn something.

I think people reacted a little more sharply because you were so defensive of it.

"As for DM, the difference between me and him is that I value other peoples opinions and I also don't care if I look stupid from time to time."

If you're suggesting that Dorkus doesn't value the opinions of others, you are wrong. Just because he disagrees with yours doesn't make this so, either. And as for whether he cares if he looks stupid from time to time, have you seen his usual avatar???

- Beriac

Nice post. The only thing I would say is that the cards dealt must represent a high % of the outcome. The main reason poker is not 100% luck is down to the way the hands delt are played, if that makes any sense

My own 2 cents here: luck is a huge factor in any one game (my evidence: newbies who don't know how to play poker even win at all their first time playing in my competitive live home game), but over increasingly long sample sizes it becomes decreasingly important, eventually irrelevant.

In any given game, is luck 50% or 80%? Over the long term, is skill 85% or 99%? I have no idea, and frankly the numbers are almost meaningless.

But over time the luck should even itself out, and really what's left should be mostly skill.