Evolution of Tournaments

[F Paulsson]

It just seems too black or white with no grey/gray area in between. Limp = bad or super good. But I do see what you're saying too.

Here's something to think about

What if you consider other peoples cards but you know they don't? Do you just consider your own cards then?

There's a concept called "levelling." The idea is this:

Level 0 (Zeroth level) thinking: What are my cards?
Level 1: What could my opponent have+
Level 2: What does he think I have?
Level 3: What does he think I think he has?
Level 4: What does he think I think he thinks I have?

... etc.

The real trick here is to be one level - but not more - above your opponents. If they think on the zeroth level (oooh, look! aces!), you should be thinking on the first level (what hands would he raise UTG with?).

If, however, they think on the first level - "he just called my UTG raise, that probably means he has a pocket pair and is going for a set, or some other kind of speculative hand", you must think on the second level and try to figure out what your opponent thinks you have.

... etc.

Clearly, thinking on the second level when you have an opponent who's stuck at looking only at his cards is a waste of time. Worse, it's actually something that may lead to incorrect conclusions. "Out-thinking your opponent" is a consequence of precisely this.

 

[IrishDave]

In tournament play I see 2 distinct sections of the game, the survival part and the win part. Early on you have to survive the donkeys and luckboxes that are in every MTT regardless of buyin. I choose my spots very carefully at this level as one of the aforementioned "pros" can end your session quickly. If you're lucky enough to stay at the same table for a while you'll be able to get a read on your opponents which helps as you move on.

By the first break the MTT should have settled down a bit and by then you should have determined the style that will suit you best to chase chips. I've been in situations where I can be very aggressive early on and collect chips, conversely I've folded nearly every hand - no sure way to tell what will work. Once the donks are gone or thinned out then I generally start to play textbook poker - if that style is working. The thing I try to do is target folks based on their play as you're goal is to remove players from the game.

Again I think flexibility and adaptability are the key as there is no single strategy that will get you to the final table. One other point, I've found that playing in CC events or other controlled events actually hurts me as I don't make the plays I normally would. I try to stay more textbook and that seriously limits your options...

 

[jayneseo]

I'm familiar with leveling and not overthinking your play but what about the people who are like "hey I got some cards, I want to see the flop" regardless of what they are. Its almost not even 0 level thinking.


Joose, I see now that you meant that more of an example of how tourney's are changing yet staying the same. Took you too literally there .

 

[F Paulsson]

I'm familiar with leveling and not overthinking your play but what about the people who are like "hey I got some cards, I want to see the flop" regardless of what they are. Its almost not even 0 level thinking.

Ah, sorry. I misread you. If they don't consider their own cards (they play any two cards) then the same basic rule of levelling is still true. It's just that they're on level -1, and you should be on level 0. Yes, play your own cards.

Compare this to a guy with $600 left in chips when the blinds are $100/$200 and he pushes on the button and it's folded to you in the big blind. The only thing that matters right then is what two cards you have, because he will push with virtually everything. You don't have to care about anything else but the odds you're getting and the cards you've been dealt.

 

[F Paulsson]

As a sidenote, the above example of when to execute level 0 play is valid in many shorthanded limit hold 'em situations. When the button open-raises, what matters the most is what two cards I'm holding. Not who raised (unless it's the tightest player ever), not what my image is, not what his image is, etc. It's almost black-or-white at that point. Of course, it gets a whole lot tricker on the flop, but that's a different story altogether.

 

[jayneseo]

Ah, sorry. I misread you. If they don't consider their own cards (they play any two cards) then the same basic rule of levelling is still true. It's just that they're on level -1, and you should be on level 0. Yes, play your own cards.

Even this is dependent on the situation at hand.

I was a massive chip leader in a tourney yesterday and there were 3 or 4 people to go until the bubble.(it was the FT satellite so places 1-20 got the same reward) No one at my table was a super short stack but I still had 5-10x as many chips as any of them. I told them all I'm calling any all in no matter what so in theory if everyone had just folded until the bubble popped, which they could've done they all win a ticket. Had a few people still going all in with AA and even things like KJ or 22 and I of course called and they got donked out.

They were pissed at me but in situations like that even your own cards don't matter. Its best to ride out the storm.

 

[F Paulsson]

Eh. Well, on the bubble in satellites is the catch-all "yes it matters" situation so while you're right, it's one of those things that I don't think anyone argues over. Hell, it can be correct to fold AA in those situations.

 

[bubbasbestbabe]

When you enter a situation with short-stack play, the actions get more and more limited. A bet where you leave only half your stack behind may as well be an all-in bet to begin with. You approach a situation where decisions do become either/or. There's less room to maneuver, and therefore less room for strategies, little room for counter-strategies and virtually no room at all for counter-counter strategies. So to speak.

This is a little gem of wisdom.

 

[dj11]

This looks to end up being one of those milestone threads. Little seemingly small tidbits of wisdom that will effect at least my thinking. There have been several lately. The Roshambo thread about 2 weeks ago, and one Steve wrote a month ago and I edited about 2 weeks ago, and now this thread.

-The Roshambo thread says that a rock beats a maniac, a manic beats an aggressive , and an aggressive beats a rock. Rock, Paper, Scissors.
-Steve's post was his method of untamed aggression. Nearly untamed anyway.

Both those threads hit some flapping neuron unconnected in my skull and tied them down where they are supposed to be tied down. Made a lot of things much clearer.
Already I can see that in this thread there are the makings of a fresh post that will again effect at least me in a similar way.

That accolade out of the way. Fairly fancy bump eh?