3 key areas to winning in MTT`s

[Kennyseven]

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

 

[Ronaldadio]

Thanks MrSticker

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

 

[Jack Daniels]

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.

 

[Beriac]

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

 

[Ronaldadio]

So in my opinion, the luck factor is much smaller than 10%, more like 1-4% 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.

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

 

[Beriac]

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.

 

[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

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

 

[buckster436]

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

i agree with this, but if your up against Jamie Gold, well what can i say, he was so lucky in everyway in this years wsop that it was Unbelievable, for you guys who didnt see it yet, he was the most luckiest guy in the world from day 4 till he won,, im not saying he dont have any skill, but it was amazing, buck

 

[Ronaldadio]

iJamie Gold, well what can i say, he was so lucky in everyway in this years WSOP that it was Unbelievable, for you guys who didnt see it yet, he was the most luckiest guy in the world from day 4 till he won,, im not saying he dont have any skill, but it was amazing, buck

I agree, what a run he was on!!!

 

[joosebuck]

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

who said that

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

who said it

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

stop clinging to an unfounded argument

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

i hate you =/

 

[Ronaldadio]

i hate you =/

U struggle to make your point.

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

 

[Jack Daniels]

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

Yeah, that does makes sense. Because people choose what hands to play and bet and fold, etc, is what does away with the 100% luck factor. And increased skills continue to push the luck factor down. What I mean by this is that we have all heard people complain about how they called a 4xBB raise with J7 os oop, caught a J and a 7 on flop and proceeded to lose half their stack to someone that had 88 an caught an 8 on the turn or river. They talk about how unlucky they were that this guy caught an 8, etc. But the reality is that they never should have played J7 os. But instead of acknowledging the skill gap of having played the hand, they go on about how they got unlucky and got a bad beat when the opponent sucked out, etc. From their point of view luck was a huge factor. But the luck factor related to the order of the cards coming out was only an issue because of the lower skill factor for playing the hand that should have been folded to begin with.

Oh yeah, just saw that I totally hosed up what I meant to say about luck in my previous post. I fixed my post to say I think it is less than 40%, more like 10% which is what I intended to say to begin with. But really...

and frankly the numbers are almost meaningless.

...this is very true. In reality there is no exact % number that is luck or skill.

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

^^ this ^^

 

[SiMor29]

I agree with some of it to an extent. For me in the end there are always at least two or three all in situations where you're relying on a hand to stand up for a lage portion of your chips if you want to progress into the money and further. This is the luck factor.

I would no way put it at 40%, but if you come through these vital situations unscathed or without a significant dent to your stack then skill should see you into the money.

At least that's the way my MT tournaments are defined.

Whether or not that's down to bad play on my part is another question entirely.

 

[blankoblanco]

EVERYBODY STOP WITH THE PERCENTAGES! THEY ARE BASICALLY MEANINGLESS *head explodes*

 

[SiMor29]

Basically you say. . .



How would you quantify it I wonder. Is it percentage of your stack after each level? At the end of the tourney?

I came first, I had 1,000,000 chips at the end.

400,000 of those I jammied on the river hitting outrageous draw after outrageous draw.

300,000 I built through skill, cause i'm the man.

The other 300,000 I got through hard graft and determination. Stealing blinds, laying down at the right times, playing tight, solid poker textbook style.

Perhaps this is what they allude to?

This is the winning formula. You take the total chips in play, and you divide it into three segments. Therefore you have a quantifiable goal to aim at for each section.

If you don't win the required amount of chips in each then you have no chance. .

But then what takes precedence? Could you say, counter balance a downturn in luck with an up surge in tight play? I suppose that would depend on which yeilds the best profit. I'd be tempted to say the luck factor, in that it's assumed that to get lucky you've put a lot of chips on the line with bugger all, meaning that your opponent has certainly bet big in the knowledge that he has a good hand. So maybe that's why luck makes up 40% of the pie. .

Or. .

Yeh it's bollocks innit?

 

[Ronaldadio]

Ok, lets stop

EVERYBODY STOP WITH THE PERCENTAGES! THEY ARE BASICALLY MEANINGLESS *head explodes*

But, out of intrerest combuboom, what % of talking about % is meaningless???

 

[Ronaldadio]

joking apart...

EVERYBODY STOP WITH THE PERCENTAGES! THEY ARE BASICALLY MEANINGLESS *head explodes*

The % IS a big part of your decision making process in poker?

So, therefore, % are not meaningless???

With the origional post, I felt that it was a way of explaining to people that on a single MTT, luck is a factor, as is skill and patience. Therefore, don`t worry if you get sucked out, your additional skill will win over in the end.

As a final point on this, I am looking forward to playing with you guy on Pstars in 2 weeks (can`t play 2moro, sry). We will then be able to settle our difference in a more honorable way

 

[Welly]

Oh Ronnie....ronnie ronnie ronnie...what are we going to do with you

Statistics for any single MTT are an irrelevance. If gives complete disrespect to the game of poker to think it can be quantified like this.

The only stat that really matters is your ROI% over a large dataset (preferably 1000+ MTTs, but certainly no smaller 200 MTTs). How that is achieved is a whole seperate discussion.

 

[Beriac]

This thread is giving me 40% of a headache.

Ronaldadio: I think if you'd just said "I think tournament poker is as much luck as skill", you would have gotten a friendly if spirited debate. But as a quasi-statistician by trade, I can say that applying %'s as your quotation did doesn't make that much sense and so I can see why this has gotten off-track.

All I'm saying is it wasn't so much your message that was an issue here, as the medium with which it was delivered.

 

[Ronaldadio]

Oh Lord, please save me from all of this!!!!

All I'm saying is it wasn't so much your message that was an issue here, as the medium with which it was delivered.

That is all I was saying but I didnt think by suggesting luck in poker can play a big part over a single or short period of time would cause such a stir!!!

I thought it was no different to saying "My trip A`c on the flop has been beaten on the river by runner runner flush, but I`m a good player and in the long term skill will win the day. The other guy got lucky"

I do not want anyone thinking I am suggesting that poker is massivley dependant on luck - its not!!! I`ve built a $2000 bankroll up to $7000 over a 12 month period. I can assure u, I am not that lucky!!!

 

[Welly]

No ones really bothered about the luck vs skill debate. Not in this thread anyway.

It's the attempting to quantify luck to a % for a single MTT which is the part which has got you all the stick. *feels a little sorry for ronnie*

If you went through say 10,000 tourneys at random, and properly analysed every hand played by the tournament winner, what you would find is that some winners were statistically extremely lucky, and others werent. Some didnt once pull neq eq, others pulled it 5 times, some beautifully implied at value and missed, others over implied and hit, some were cold decked but came through through selective aggression, others had an extremely hot deck with hands landing in their lap....the list goes on.

So, it isnt "40% luck"......It is more like "Luck helps and is necessary in some degree to win an MTT"

 

[Beriac]

You said it best, Welly.