NLHE Tourneys are all luck so don't sweat them...

[KenFischer]

If every hand was played all-in, there would be more truth to this line of thinking, but in reality, the best players are rarely committing their entire stack on a "coin-flip".

Of course, the players who can maneuver and pick up a lot of small pots without risking too much can also afford the occasional race once they have 2-3 times the average stack.

If you are basing your MTT strategy on only racing for stacks, working to develop a different style of play might go a long way to helping you to succeed. I have run into a lot of lucky players recently, and it has been very frustrating.

In response to this, I'm working very hard on changing my game so that I am less vulnerable to the swings that they can cause - for me, this means playing for smaller pots, and while I still wind up in the occasional race, I'm lasting much longer in the tournaments that I manage to stay away from them.

EDIT: of course, as I submit this, I lose nearly my entire stack to AK when a rivered A gives them a better 2 pair than I had on the turn. Sometimes there is just nothing you can do

 

[odinscott]

If every hand was played all-in, there would be more truth to this line of thinking, but in reality, the best players are rarely committing their entire stack on a "coin-flip".

What about late in a tournament when ALL of the small stacks are going in because they need to double up or be blinded to death? You can either fold fold fold fold fold or you can call...

 

[KenFischer]

What about late in a tournament when ALL of the small stacks are going in because they need to double up or be blinded to death? You can either fold fold fold fold fold or you can call...

Ideally I'm not one of the short stacks, and I'll happily let them take each other out unless I have a premium holding. Every time two small stacks races, everyone moves up in the ladder - that's what you want to happen.

If I'm a short stack, then yes, I'll need to race - that's just how it goes sometimes. If I'm not, then I don't have any desire to stop them from gambling with each other.

 

[The Shrog]

NLHE Tourneys are all luck so don't sweat them...


seriously?

 

[odinscott]

Even if you arent a small stack though, it is fold fold fold fold... eventually even the ante adds up if it is too long. I mean dont get me wrong, it takes skill to get deep, but once you get there you need lots and lots of luck to go with it.

 

[4Aces]

Open your mind brother. You might learn something...

?.

 

[zachvac]

I didn't read it particularly closely, but I think I see the point you're trying to make. In a tournament of hundreds if not thousands of people, the odds of winning one, even if you are the best in the world, are close to 0. BUT your odds are higher than the bad player. And if you play the same tournament over and over again millions of times, you will win more than most players. You will also average a higher payout than most players. So yes it takes luck to win a tournament, but it takes less luck than the bad players. You mentioned how hard it is to win a bunch of 70-30s, imagine how tough it is to win that many 30-70s. It's bad enough when you flip coins you're favored to win several times, now try flipping coins weighted against you where you're not even a favorite to win the first one. Then see how long you last. Get the point?

 

[PokerVic]

I'm suggesting lowering your all-in instances will increase your chances of survival because the very nature of tournaments stack the odds against you before a hand is played.

Of course, that's true. In order to be good at tournaments, you not only have to know how to play an individual hand, but you have to know how to manage your chips and how to play your position.

If you're playing your hands based on the blind levels, there's no reason why you can't win tournaments even after a few suckouts.

 

[odinscott]

^^ agreed

edit: with zachvac

 

[odinscott]

I think the point OP was trying to make is that in tourneys the best player doesnt always win. The wsop is a good example of that.
In cash games the best player does always win. (In the long run).

 

[Shylax]

I didn't read it particularly closely, but I think I see the point you're trying to make. In a tournament of hundreds if not thousands of people, the odds of winning one, even if you are the best in the world, are close to 0. BUT your odds are higher than the bad player. And if you play the same tournament over and over again millions of times, you will win more than most players. You will also average a higher payout than most players. So yes it takes luck to win a tournament, but it takes less luck than the bad players. You mentioned how hard it is to win a bunch of 70-30s, imagine how tough it is to win that many 30-70s. It's bad enough when you flip coins you're favored to win several times, now try flipping coins weighted against you where you're not even a favorite to win the first one. Then see how long you last. Get the point?

Exactly Zach. Even if you make all the right plays, you're overall expectation to win the thing is minute so imagine if you're not on your game like your example with the weighted coins.

My point of this thread was to try and relieve tilt so you play as close to optimal as possible. You may have a bad beat in a particular hand but in terms of the entire tournament, it's not a bad beat because the probability of you winning the tournament weren't great to begin with. There's a reason why it costs you $10 to win $10,000 or $200 to win $200,000 or $10,000 to win $10,000,000. It's because the chances to win are small based on the probability you survive practically all your all-ins. The blinds and antes reach a point where no one's stack is comfortable and an allin preflop or postflop are the only plays with any fold equity.

I also wanted to relay that with the increased number of allins, your chances of survival decrease dramatically regardless of how good you put your money in. So maybe it will force someone to think a little before committing their tournament even if the situation looks great. It has for me and now I find I get farther in tournaments.

To me, winning a tournament doesn't reflect on my skill. I knew I had to be extremely lucky whether it be all my hands holding u or getting a suck out. Likewise, I'm not as bad or unlucky as I think because my chances before the tourney started were so low. Bottomline, you can talk position, moves, bluffs, semibluffs, check raises, etc. The real hands that determine your tournament are the hands where your stack was on the line because those are the hands that can end your tournament. And skilled or not, there are a lot of situations where your stack is endangered and not with the odds you'd ideally want, especially deep in the tourney. Hell, you're liable to put your stack at risk almost every hand you play if you reach the final table.

Again, I love tournaments. Just finding a way to be better at them so I'm tryting to understand them thoroughly. Not just hand by hand. But the whole structure.

 

[zachvac]

I think the point OP was trying to make is that in tourneys the best player doesnt always win. The WSOP is a good example of that.
In cash games the best player does always win. (In the long run).

But the same is true of tournaments in the long run. If you put Ivey, Negreanu, Cunningham, Brunson, and Greenstein in a tournament with 95 other amateurs a pro won't win the majority of the time. But considering they only make up 5% of the field, a pro will probably win a vast amount over that. If they played the tournament 100 times, a pro may win up to 15 or 20 of the tournaments, despite the fact that if all skill factors were equal 5 would. Same is true in a cash game (ignoring rakes). The best player will sometimes have months where he can't seem to win. But in the long run, the player who played the best overall will be the one with the most money.

 

[odinscott]

The difference between the cash game and the tournament is that in the cash game the blinds dont get so high that you have all the small stacks pushing whenever they go in. In a cash game you can decide how much to bet, based on the hand/odds/player etc. Tourneys take all that away (at least when you are deep).

 

[zachvac]

The difference between the cash game and the tournament is that in the cash game the blinds dont get so high that you have all the small stacks pushing whenever they go in. In a cash game you can decide how much to bet, based on the hand/odds/player etc. Tourneys take all that away (at least when you are deep).

Agreed, the long run in tournaments is definitely longer than in cash games, but in the long run the better players will still be the ones who win the most money and have the most 1st place finishes.

 

[odinscott]

Agreed, the long run in tournaments is definitely longer than in cash games, but in the long run the better players will still be the ones who win the most money and have the most 1st place finishes.

That is absolutely correct. The person that wins does (usually) have alot of skill, but it took alot of luck as well. I just know (for myself), that I can win at cash games (lower limits though - then again I think in ways that they are harder sometimes because you can never tell what people will call and raise with in the lowest). I cant get to that #1 spot in a tourney. I win some SAGs, but I suck at MTT. I use Poker Tracker, go back and look at my plays when I get knocked out. I can show you that I got in with the best hand (not usually a 60% favorite either), but somehow eventually I get the boot. It is weird too, because the times that I got to the final table I actually made a few mistakes that paid off (yeah I have sucked out once or twice lol). But the games that I have played near perfect, I get booted.

Edit: ughh I must really suck. In the last 2000 hands I am losing with (are you ready for this):
AKs AKos AQs AQos AJs AJos A9both A8both A7both (so in the A category I am winning with AA and A10 and I didnt even bother to look below A7)
KQs KJs KJos (not including rest of kings below 10 only winning with KK and KT though in that range)
QJos (not going any farther with them, am winning with QQ and QJs)
88 77

I have Poker Tracker stats that show these. This is tournament play from the last few days, 2161 hands. To give an idea as to the numbers, AA I got 12 times/20 times between AKs AKos/29 times for AQboth. I mean this is only from the last few days, but I assure you that this is my regular results. I have probably 20 or 30 thousand hands set aside, but wanted to see if I was playing better. So I start new stats every now and then.

For comparisons sake lemme show cash game results. I am losing with:
AQos A10s (stopped there)
KQos K10s (stopped there)
QQ (sheesh looking at it Qeverything - only Q10 I am winning with)




Besides for the Q category, which I usually only played from the blinds, I am winning with the same hands in cash games but not in tournaments. Maybe I am just the biggest donkey, but either way, Poker Tracker backs up what I am saying about luck. (for myself anyways). I have my heart in MTT, but I can only make money in ring games... dont get me wrong, eventually some day I will get lucky and take one down, but then I think that it will probably be that I got lucky. Not necessarily that I played any differently.

 

[odinscott]

Thinking about it, alot does have to do with the blinds I guess. I mean I am very methodical (listed as Tight/Aggressive in cash games and neutral/aggressive in tourneys). Since I can "sit and wait" for my hands in cash games, that probably does agree with my style. I like to bet when I know that I have the best hand. I am not much of a gambler. I multi-table, so I can usually wait for the big hands. Especially at the smaller limits, where alot of guys will play with absolutely anything it really pays off.
I always dread that part of the tourney when everyone always starts going allin, because even though I know that I probably will get my money in with the odds (heavily) in my favor, I know that it will only be a matter of time before someone draws out and knocks me out or eventually they cripple me.
I hate playing cash games. =\ But it is where I will be for awhile...

Edit: I guess I gotta agree that I have been getting extremely unlucky lately, but I cant figure out how to change anything. I make the right play, but lose. Maybe I will get on a heater soon, but until then I gotta rebuild my roll. =( lol

 

[PokerVic]

Not sure if anyone's mentioned this, but it's like Harrington (I believe) said. The WSOP is like a lottery, but he gets more than 1 ticket, and some people only get a fraction of a ticket.

 

[Shylax]

Not sure if anyone's mentioned this, but it's like Harrington (I believe) said. The WSOP is like a lottery, but he gets more than 1 ticket, and some people only get a fraction of a ticket.

Great quote!

Exactly what I'm trying to convey with MTTs. With skill, you have more than one ticket but it's still a lottery so your chances are minute no matter how good you play. If you're off your game or don't have the skill, it's like you didn't even buy a ticket for the lottery.

 

[Shylax]

Yesterday, I was fooling around with a friend to put my theory to test, I took AA and gave myself 100 chips and gave my friend 22 and 1500 chips to see who would win heads up. We ran it 5 times and I only won once. I got lucky. You guys should try it and let me know your results.

 

[zachvac]

you.hae.to.get.lucky.to.win.a.trny.if.your.good.or.not..

Just curious because this seems to be a theme with all your posts, but is your space bar missing or something? Why is it you have periods or dashes in between all your words rather than spaces?

 

[odinscott]

Just curious because this seems to be a theme with all your posts, but is your space bar missing or something? Why is it you have periods or dashes in between all your words rather than spaces?

His shift key must be broke as well (and spell check too)...

 

[riverboatrat]

I think he learnt how to read n write on a cell phone

 

[JblackII]

I didn't read it particularly closely, but I think I see the point you're trying to make. In a tournament of hundreds if not thousands of people, the odds of winning one, even if you are the best in the world, are close to 0. BUT your odds are higher than the bad player. And if you play the same tournament over and over again millions of times, you will win more than most players. You will also average a higher payout than most players. So yes it takes luck to win a tournament, but it takes less luck than the bad players. You mentioned how hard it is to win a bunch of 70-30s, imagine how tough it is to win that many 30-70s. It's bad enough when you flip coins you're favored to win several times, now try flipping coins weighted against you where you're not even a favorite to win the first one. Then see how long you last. Get the point?

Thank you. I was hoping someone wold say something along these lines.

It is true, you cant a big one without lady luck on your side. But consistancy is how I judge a players skill (tournament wise).