Tournaments and Expected Value

[Lheticus]

I've seen several people state on this forum that in tournaments, they make decisions in accordance with "expected value"--playing the odds in such a way that they win more than they lose. While this is, as far as I can see, THE way to win in cash game play, there is a major problem I perceive in doing so in tournament play, and I would like to expand on it.

That problem is this: In a tournament, Expected Value has nothing to do with the chips. In a tournament, you don't get value from having chips, you get value from finishing in a position in the money, and that means not finishing before most of the field. I figure the questions people should ask in making tournament decisions is not "does the long run favor this play in making chips?" and instead, they should ask themselves "Will I be likely to finish higher/lower in the tournament if I call/raise/fold?"

This is why bad beats get a lot of press in tournaments--because they really, REALLY matter. A single bad beat in a big pot can change the entire course of the tournament for all involved. If you don't account for the possibility you will be a victim of a bad beat and plan accordingly, if you always take the "favorable" odds no matter what the circumstance, there WILL come times when you overreach yourself, become a bad beat victim, and be crippled or eliminated as a result. You can bemoan bad luck all you want in such a case, but the fact of the matter is that even on an 80% chance of victory, all that means is one out of five times, you will still lose. In committing chips when you have someone beat, but not drawing dead, (as far as you figure), always, ALWAYS ask yourself "can I afford to lose these chips?" when there are still cards to come--because the possibility of you doing so is very, VERY real.

Again, exactly none of this thought process is relevant in cash games, because in there, you do get into the long run--but as I've said in another thread, a poker tournament is far too microcosmic to EVER get into the long run--even the World Series Main Event, with 8 full days of live play, doesn't even come close. Since the only thing that exists is the short run, there are myriad things in tournaments to consider that would simply be superfluous in a cash game--and as such, playing pure +EV isn't just not the best strategy--it's folly.

Feel free to share all counter-thoughts, everyone.

 

[WiZZiM]

$EV or ICM is basically what you are talking about. Yes it's just common sense.

 

[Lheticus]

$EV or ICM is basically what you are talking about. Yes it's just common sense.

Interesting you should use the phrase "common sense" here--because I've long held that it's one of the least common things in the world, despite the name, and I do see people espousing opinions of relying of +EV per hand in tournaments on this forum. However, $EV or ICM only covers half the equation I'm proposing. The problem with a pure EV system, or even a $EV system calculated using the ICM to determine equity, is in the very name itself: EXPECTED value. Since luck is a factor in poker, in fact it never ISN'T a factor in poker, any system that relies on such principles ignores the instances when your expectations are not met, which do in fact happen, since as aforementioned a tournament literally cannot reach the long run. Relying on ICM to update EV with greater accuracy still leaves the important issue of "what if the hand goes wrong?" unaddressed. If you have an 85% chance to win a pot, how much would you put in it during an instance of the other 15% and not have significantly more obstacles to overcome in order to get into or stay in a winning tournament chip position? If you exceed that value and lose, you have just made a dumb play--if you exceed that value and WIN, you have just made a dumb play.

Now, the variable I've just defined--how much you can afford to lose--can swing wildly depending on circumstance. If someone is being hyper aggressive and running the table, picking up a significant majority of pots with no one challenging him, then the variable is essentially "all of them" because when someone runs roughshod over your table, you, along with everyone else, is bleeding out too much to have ANY realistic chance of lasting through to the money--in such a case, regardless of $EV, (which would likely be close to 0) your de facto EV is 0. Same goes for when you're on an exceedingly short stack and not reasonable near the money bubble--your de facto EV is also zero because unless a change is made, you are not going to cash in this tournament. That, incidentally, is when ANY +EV situation is more than acceptable to enter a pot into...where if you don't do something soon, you will definitely or very likely not win any money. Whether to rely on EV poker or whether to factor in other variables is hugely dependent on whether or not you are in such a situation.

In other words, another good question to ask is "if I do nothing, will I still have a good chance of making the money?" Yet another is "If I lose after this call/raise, will I be in a position requiring my imminent action to have a good chance of making money?"

 

[DonV73]

I agree that EV decisions are far more, maybe even only, applicable in cash games, not in tourneys. That's all about survival.

 

[WiZZiM]

Yeah i get what you are saying. You are basically using a risk/reward system to determine if a play is good or bad. But the other thing is, what it means to you as a person.

like, lets say you are in a final table, and you get shoved on by a loose player, and you know ranges and expected value very well and know it's fine to call with AQ here, but you also know you only win 65% of the time vs an ATC range. Now, if we think purely about EV then it's an easy call. However the risk part of the equation is very high, and it depends how much of a reward we get from it.

Also, more importantly, asking yourself questions like "how important is this tournament to me and my situation". Like, do i final table all the time and the buyin doesn't really affect me. Or is this your first final table, the buyin is bigger than you normally play and the money you can win if you creep up the pay ladder is more important to you than winning this tournament.

So that's why i refferred to 'common sense' because while it isn't very common, it's the best way to describe some of the decisions you might face.

I totally agree with what you are saying though, a lot of the time, especially in 2+2 people get brainwashed into thinking you HAVE to take +EV spots ALL the time. It's kind of like a peer pressure thing. But if you are a thinking player (which it sounds like you are) you can make good decisions for your situation.

Just to give one example of a situation where i wish i knew what i know now. I was playing a 1.5k buyin and was down to 30ish players, 20 paid, min-cashing was 4k which was a pretty big payday for me in poker terms. Despite of that, i made a few plays late in the tournament i felt i "had too, becuase it's +EV" when i could have easily folded my way into the money. It's not regret as i felt i played the hands well and in a +EV manner, but if i knew what i know now, I certainly would have considered making an alternate play or just nitting it up a little and folding more.

I know this isn't exactly what you are talking about either... Basically you are saying that some tournament situations rarely reach the long term, we shouldn't rely totally or at all on EV. However, how will you know if a call is good/bad long term if you don't know the EV of situations?

I think we should still be concerned with EV but then make adjustments to that based on risk/reward and what the tournament means to us individually.

 

[WiZZiM]

and why is this thread not getting more love? we have a whole thread devoted to "is online poker rigged", but when someone posts something that actually requires thought it's like a ghost town.

 

[Lheticus]

I notice ALL the threads I start that require thought tend to be like ghost towns...nevertheless, you've refined my thoughts excellently, WiZZiM.

 

[Matt Vaughan]

I notice ALL the threads I start that require thought tend to be like ghost towns...nevertheless, you've refined my thoughts excellently, WiZZiM.

Way to bash a whole forum, bud.

Truth is, what you're talking about has already been thought about and discussed extensively on the internet, so maybe people just don't take the time to respond to a long-winded statement about chipEV vs. $EV.

From OP:

You can bemoan bad luck all you want in such a case, but the fact of the matter is that even on an 80% chance of victory, all that means is one out of five times, you will still lose.

Actually it means that one out of 5 times you lose X, and 4 out of 5 times you win a pot worth Y chips that increases your chances of winning the tournament by a factor of Z. You're only focusing on situations of high risk. But the thing is that your tournament life has very, VERY little inherent value early on past the amount you bought in for. Likewise your odds of winning the tournament are not greatly increased by winning any given pot. So chipEV and $EV are remarkably close.

Again from OP:

Again, exactly none of this thought process is relevant in cash games, because in there, you do get into the long run--but as I've said in another thread, a poker tournament is far too microcosmic to EVER get into the long run--even the World Series Main Event, with 8 full days of live play, doesn't even come close. Since the only thing that exists is the short run, there are myriad things in tournaments to consider that would simply be superfluous in a cash game--and as such, playing pure +EV isn't just not the best strategy--it's folly.

You're using logical fallacies to support bogus theories. Your statement about one poker tournament not ever coming close to the long run is obviously true. But you completely avoid the concept of using multiple tournaments to reach the long run. I'm not saying you can ever get to the long run in live tournaments, but it can be done online.

But also, it's not even a question of the long run or not. It's STILL a question of EV (in a general sense, not chipEV). Would you rather take a 5% chance at $1,000,000 or a 50% at $50,000? This kind of gets more into utility, so let's ask it a different way.

Let's say you're not on the bubble in a tournament, just in a standard situation, at least a few levels away from bubble play. You have a decent, approximately average stack of 30bb. Are you folding AA pre if not folding means you'd be all in? Because this is almost exactly what you're suggesting in your example of losing 1/5.

Winning doesn't put you at a MUCH higher probability of winning, but it DOES mean that you're much less likely to have to be all in or at risk soon. And consider that if you're not putting your money in here, you will likely have to do so later with a smaller stack, a smaller equity advantage, and a less significant resulting stack even when you win.

If after all that you still think that you should be folding AA preflop vs. an effective all in (again, this is what your OP is saying), then more power to you, and I look forward to meeting you on the felt and shoving vs. you every time we get HU. You may eventually flop the stone cold nuts, but you won't have many chips by the time that happens.

I honestly don't know why I respond to these, since most people who post something like this are unwilling to change their views, but meh, there you go. I'm unwilling to address your utility concerns ("how much is a min-cash worth to me"), since I'll assume you're actually buying into tourneys you can afford. Therefore min-cashes shouldn't really ever present massive utility differences. The utility difference between winning $0 and winning $mincash should never be so large that you pass up a +$EV spot for a greater chance at $mincash.

 

[Lheticus]

Way to bash a whole forum, bud.

Truth is, what you're talking about has already been thought about and discussed extensively on the internet, so maybe people just don't take the time to respond to a long-winded statement about chipEV vs. $EV.

From OP:



Actually it means that one out of 5 times you lose X, and 4 out of 5 times you win a pot worth Y chips that increases your chances of winning the tournament by a factor of Z. You're only focusing on situations of high risk. But the thing is that your tournament life has very, VERY little inherent value early on past the amount you bought in for. Likewise your odds of winning the tournament are not greatly increased by winning any given pot. So chipEV and $EV are remarkably close.

Again from OP:

You're using logical fallacies to support bogus theories. Your statement about one poker tournament not ever coming close to the long run is obviously true. But you completely avoid the concept of using multiple tournaments to reach the long run. I'm not saying you can ever get to the long run in live tournaments, but it can be done online.

But also, it's not even a question of the long run or not. It's STILL a question of EV (in a general sense, not chipEV). Would you rather take a 5% chance at $1,000,000 or a 50% at $50,000? This kind of gets more into utility, so let's ask it a different way.

Let's say you're not on the bubble in a tournament, just in a standard situation, at least a few levels away from bubble play. You have a decent, approximately average stack of 30bb. Are you folding AA pre if not folding means you'd be all in? Because this is almost exactly what you're suggesting in your example of losing 1/5.

Winning doesn't put you at a MUCH higher probability of winning, but it DOES mean that you're much less likely to have to be all in or at risk soon. And consider that if you're not putting your money in here, you will likely have to do so later with a smaller stack, a smaller equity advantage, and a less significant resulting stack even when you win.

If after all that you still think that you should be folding AA preflop vs. an effective all in (again, this is what your OP is saying), then more power to you, and I look forward to meeting you on the felt and shoving vs. you every time we get HU. You may eventually flop the stone cold nuts, but you won't have many chips by the time that happens.

I honestly don't know why I respond to these, since most people who post something like this are unwilling to change their views, but meh, there you go. I'm unwilling to address your utility concerns ("how much is a min-cash worth to me"), since I'll assume you're actually buying into tourneys you can afford. Therefore min-cashes shouldn't really ever present massive utility differences. The utility difference between winning $0 and winning $mincash should never be so large that you pass up a +$EV spot for a greater chance at $mincash.

Okay, first off, the "ghost town" thing was NOT my words, and it is THE furthest thing from my intent to bash anyone here. I guess I didn't think parroting that through and I apologize, but I'd appreciate it if you'd be less accusing. The accusation that I'm resorting to a logical fallacy goes even further and genuinely offends me. I dismiss the notion of reaching the long run via multiple tournaments because each tournament result is independent of each other tournament result, and I believe as such that long run probability simply does not matter when a "here and now" result that goes against such probability reduces the probability of making it anywhere NEAR the money bubble to zero or an exceedingly low chance due to you being extremely short stacked. Unless you can enlighten me as to how this constitutes a logical fallacy, you have less than no right to act as though your view is as superior to mine as you are.

Also, if anyone is indulging in logical fallacies, it's you--namely via appeal to extremes. Folding AA preflop just because you're all in is an absurd example, and completely misses the point of what I'm trying to say--rarely are situations in poker so clear-cut. Let's say instead that I have...let's say 10 10 with a slightly above average stack, with a few dozen to go before the money bubble. If someone shoves in front of me preflop who has more chips than me, considering the stack size, there is a significant chance he has a premium pair, but let's say he's a donk and has something like 10 J suited.

Most of the time, I would win, but if he catches a straight, flush, or Jack, I won't. If I go for it and win, I will be in a significantly better position, but if I go for it and he lucks out, I will be in the worst position possible--out of the tournament with nothing. In this instance, the positive EV for that hand IS MEANINGLESS.

Also, what's with that crack about "most people who post stuff like this are unwilling to change their views"? That sounds close to insulting a large segment of this forum or even of the entire poker player population. I ask that you refrain from judging me without giving me a chance, please.

 

[hackmeplz]

ev takes icm into account. You're simply bashing things you don't understand, and then when people try to explain it you lash out at them. No one in this forum owes you anything and I'm not going to waste my time explaining why it would be retarded to turn down a flip where you're 2/3 to win at the beginning of a tournament when all you're going to do is respond with your preconceived answer that results are all that matter.

 

[hackmeplz]

Let's say instead that I have...let's say 10 10 with a slightly above average stack, with a few dozen to go before the money bubble. If someone shoves in front of me preflop who has more chips than me, considering the stack size, there is a significant chance he has a premium pair, but let's say he's a donk and has something like 10 J suited.

Most of the time, I would win, but if he catches a straight, flush, or Jack, I won't. If I go for it and win, I will be in a significantly better position, but if I go for it and he lucks out, I will be in the worst position possible--out of the tournament with nothing. In this instance, the positive EV for that hand IS MEANINGLESS.

But just for the sake of other people reading in this forum. The calculation would be this. What do you think your ev in the tournament is if you win the hand? What do you think your equity vs. his range is? Let x = your equity against his shoving range, y = ev in the tournament if you win, and z = ev in the tournament if you fold.

if x*y > z you call. If x*y < z you fold. If you are on the bubble with 5bb and getting you 10bb doesn't increase y enough to make it a call even with KK, then sure there are spots to fold KK (mostly sngs though, very rarely and probably never will this come up in an mtt). For the most part though people reading this are going to not do any math and instead play a scared strategy which results in maximizing mincashes and then wondering why they can't win at mtts long term. The answer is that all the money is at the top and if you're playing a style that sacrifices gaining chips for the sake of mincashing a few extra % of the time you will struggle to show a long-term profit at mtts. And that should be the goal of anyone playing mtts they are rolled for (and if they're not rolled for it the answer is to sell action or not play, not to play scared money).

 

[Matt Vaughan]

Also, if anyone is indulging in logical fallacies, it's you--namely via appeal to extremes. Folding AA preflop just because you're all in is an absurd example, and completely misses the point of what I'm trying to say--rarely are situations in poker so clear-cut.

Oh I see, so being an 80% favorite is an extreme example, yet you use an almost identical scenario:

If you don't account for the possibility you will be a victim of a bad beat and plan accordingly, if you always take the "favorable" odds no matter what the circumstance, there WILL come times when you overreach yourself, become a bad beat victim, and be crippled or eliminated as a result. You can bemoan bad luck all you want in such a case, but the fact of the matter is that even on an 80% chance of victory, all that means is one out of five times, you will still lose. In committing chips when you have someone beat, but not drawing dead, (as far as you figure), always, ALWAYS ask yourself "can I afford to lose these chips?" when there are still cards to come--because the possibility of you doing so is very, VERY real.

The only reason I used an extreme example was because it mirrored the one you chose yourself. If I'm appealing to extremes, it's only so that I could refute the extreme that you presented yourself.

To this:

Most of the time, I would win, but if he catches a straight, flush, or Jack, I won't. If I go for it and win, I will be in a significantly better position, but if I go for it and he lucks out, I will be in the worst position possible--out of the tournament with nothing. In this instance, the positive EV for that hand IS MEANINGLESS.

I have to respond because it's so fundamentally wrong. Again, you will get into MANY situations in tournaments where you are presented a marginal spot. What you're ignoring is that being in a much better place at that stage of a tournament gives you a better chance not just to mincash but also to win. Let's say you're 65% chance to double up, and 35% chance to bust. And let's say that when you double up, your expected payout in the tournament doubles. Seems like pretty easy math to me. Again, if utility of the mincash is huge to you then none of this applies, but if you're actually talking about reasonable buyin tournaments then the EV always applies. To suggest otherwise just tells me that you don't understand what EV is, fundamentally.

You're still talking about single outcomes. If you're only playing one more tournament for the rest of your life, then sure, your thoughts apply I guess. But if you're planning on playing more, then passing up +EV spots over and over again just means you will make less money on average. If THAT doesn't make sense, no one here can help you.

Oh, and remember when you wrote this?

Feel free to share all counter-thoughts, everyone.

Yeah. Ok. You're not exactly taking the counter-thoughts like a champ.

And one last thing, with respect to this:

Also, what's with that crack about "most people who post stuff like this are unwilling to change their views"? That sounds close to insulting a large segment of this forum or even of the entire poker player population. I ask that you refrain from judging me without giving me a chance, please.

Notice how you're refusing to even respond to the actual points being made? That was what I meant. I was neither referencing the forum nor the poker playing population at large. I was noting the fact that you wrote a long-winded set of statements that could have been summed up concisely in a brief discussion of the similarities between chipEV and $EV, thoughts on ICM, and a point on utility for people of differing bankrolls.

Usually people who write these types of threads take many well-thought out (but disagreeing) replies - often from forum members who contribute a lot and are experienced in the game - and all they manage to come back with is "No, you're wrong," or self-defensive remarks. Pretty much exactly what you've done here.

 

[HooDooKoo]

I've seen several people state on this forum that in tournaments, they make decisions in accordance with "Expected Value"--playing the odds in such a way that they win more than they lose. While this is, as far as I can see, THE way to win in cash game play, there is a major problem I perceive in doing so in tournament play, and I would like to expand on it.

That problem is this: In a tournament, Expected Value has nothing to do with the chips. In a tournament, you don't get value from having chips, you get value from finishing in a position in the money, and that means not finishing before most of the field. I figure the questions people should ask in making tournament decisions is not "does the long run favor this play in making chips?" and instead, they should ask themselves "Will I be likely to finish higher/lower in the tournament if I call/raise/fold?"

This is why bad beats get a lot of press in tournaments--because they really, REALLY matter. A single bad beat in a big pot can change the entire course of the tournament for all involved. If you don't account for the possibility you will be a victim of a bad beat and plan accordingly, if you always take the "favorable" odds no matter what the circumstance, there WILL come times when you overreach yourself, become a bad beat victim, and be crippled or eliminated as a result. You can bemoan bad luck all you want in such a case, but the fact of the matter is that even on an 80% chance of victory, all that means is one out of five times, you will still lose. In committing chips when you have someone beat, but not drawing dead, (as far as you figure), always, ALWAYS ask yourself "can I afford to lose these chips?" when there are still cards to come--because the possibility of you doing so is very, VERY real.

Again, exactly none of this thought process is relevant in cash games, because in there, you do get into the long run--but as I've said in another thread, a poker tournament is far too microcosmic to EVER get into the long run--even the World Series Main Event, with 8 full days of live play, doesn't even come close. Since the only thing that exists is the short run, there are myriad things in tournaments to consider that would simply be superfluous in a cash game--and as such, playing pure +EV isn't just not the best strategy--it's folly.

Feel free to share all counter-thoughts, everyone.

Lheticus --- As indicated by Scourrge and hackmeplz, your belief is terribly flawed. Making +EV decisions is the ONLY thing that matters in either cash games or in tournaments. The weightings/components of +EV decision making are DIFFERENT in cash games than they are in tournaments, but that doesn't changed the fact that +EV decision making is all that matters in either format.

I don't know how to explain to you why your theory is flawed other than this: your theory espouses playing not to lose while the objective is to play to win. The winner of every sizable MTT gets sucked out on at some point. The reason those HEROs survive is they have their opponents covered --- with chips that they likely gained as small favorites (+EV plays) in previous hands. If you are unwilling to risk your tournament life as a 60-80% favorite when you're covered, good players will exploit that behavior and you will certainly lose. End of story (and EV = 0).

Best of luck to you.

-HooDooKoo

 

[duggs]

Sigh wrote long post to wiz but got lost

 

[WiZZiM]

i think i got lost in my post above too, lol, doesn't make a lot of sense reading it now... But please feel free to point out my flaws in logic or whatever, because i likely have heaps of them

It's a pretty complex/taboo topic for sure. I think I know what the OP is getting at, and i think there are rare examples of where it can be correct to basically pretend you don't have a +EV spot.

But in general, as mentioned above, if you are playing games within your means, then we should pretty much always be going with the most positive EV decision. Also, i'm predominately a 6max SNG player, where spots come up very often, so it's often quite correct to pass up on spots that are marginally +EV, however in MTTs we pretty much want to take every thin spot until we get the the final table.

 

[Ronaldadio]

Without going too deep. I play mainly MTT's - NLHE, O8, etc, etc.

I think the mindset of a MTT player has to be almost an acceptance that you will bust out or double up at important points throughout the tourny.

I don't think I have ever won or placed high in a MTT WITHOUT sucking out. So I almost accept it.

I also look at EV, etc

Don't know if this helps?

 

[Lheticus]

Oh I see, so being an 80% favorite is an extreme example, yet you use an almost identical scenario:


The only reason I used an extreme example was because it mirrored the one you chose yourself. If I'm appealing to extremes, it's only so that I could refute the extreme that you presented yourself.

To this:


I have to respond because it's so fundamentally wrong. Again, you will get into MANY situations in tournaments where you are presented a marginal spot. What you're ignoring is that being in a much better place at that stage of a tournament gives you a better chance not just to mincash but also to win. Let's say you're 65% chance to double up, and 35% chance to bust. And let's say that when you double up, your expected payout in the tournament doubles. Seems like pretty easy math to me. Again, if utility of the mincash is huge to you then none of this applies, but if you're actually talking about reasonable buyin tournaments then the EV always applies. To suggest otherwise just tells me that you don't understand what EV is, fundamentally.

You're still talking about single outcomes. If you're only playing one more tournament for the rest of your life, then sure, your thoughts apply I guess. But if you're planning on playing more, then passing up +EV spots over and over again just means you will make less money on average. If THAT doesn't make sense, no one here can help you.

Oh, and remember when you wrote this?


Yeah. Ok. You're not exactly taking the counter-thoughts like a champ.

And one last thing, with respect to this:


Notice how you're refusing to even respond to the actual points being made? That was what I meant. I was neither referencing the forum nor the poker playing population at large. I was noting the fact that you wrote a long-winded set of statements that could have been summed up concisely in a brief discussion of the similarities between chipEV and $EV, thoughts on ICM, and a point on utility for people of differing bankrolls.

Usually people who write these types of threads take many well-thought out (but disagreeing) replies - often from forum members who contribute a lot and are experienced in the game - and all they manage to come back with is "No, you're wrong," or self-defensive remarks. Pretty much exactly what you've done here.

Lheticus --- As indicated by Scourrge and hackmeplz, your belief is terribly flawed. Making +EV decisions is the ONLY thing that matters in either cash games or in tournaments. The weightings/components of +EV decision making are DIFFERENT in cash games than they are in tournaments, but that doesn't changed the fact that +EV decision making is all that matters in either format.

I don't know how to explain to you why your theory is flawed other than this: your theory espouses playing not to lose while the objective is to play to win. The winner of every sizable MTT gets sucked out on at some point. The reason those HEROs survive is they have their opponents covered --- with chips that they likely gained as small favorites (+EV plays) in previous hands. If you are unwilling to risk your tournament life as a 60-80% favorite when you're covered, good players will exploit that behavior and you will certainly lose. End of story (and EV = 0).

Best of luck to you.

-HooDooKoo

Guys. Let's pull back a bit, k? My latest response was skewed because I felt insulted. If it feels to you all that I'm not "taking criticism well" other than that, it's because, quite honestly, I don't understand your counter-arguments. I just don't get it.

I concede the 80% thing was a poor example--it was used hastily. But I have two issues with your "65%-35%" example...you say if I win, then my expected payout in the tournament doubles. How exactly is something like that determined? If we're still in, let's say, blind level 6, nowhere near the money, then we can't possibly figure out with any accuracy how much we "expect" to win--there's simply too much tournament left to be played before the money bubble. And you know what? The utility of the mincash IS huge to me, because the only tournaments I can usually afford to play are freerolls. I don't exactly have a proper bankroll over here, so the difference between no money and some money makes ALL the difference to me. On top of that, people are a lot more inclined in freerolls to shove all in in spots where it's really flagrantly unnecessary, reducing a disproportionate number of hands to an all or nothing situation. Where in a "proper" tournament even online such a scenario wouldn't happen frequently enough to really be cause for alarm, in a freeroll, it can present itself a dozen times or more in a single half hour, particularly if someone is going all in virtually every hand--which happens at the table I find myself at almost more often than not. If they manage to increase to a monster stack, it's not even bloody well playing poker anymore whenever they make a move.

Also...I don't appreciate being told I'm ignoring the actual points being made. If I seem to be missing them, it's because I'm not comprehending them. Please stop accusing me of being a judgmental, stubborn asshole, I'm trying my best over here!

 

[duggs]

Chips are good, more chips make you more likely to win money, less chips makes you more likely to bust. No chips means you lose, all the chips mean you win. Having more chips can never make you worse off. You can argue that the relationship is not perfectly linear, it's clearly not ICM accounts for this, as does tEV as increasing stacks to points where other strategic options become viable also happen. Staying in a tournament longer doesn't help our expectation by itself, anything that doesn't have extreme payoff effects should be viewed as primarily cEV decisions.

 

[duggs]

Your statement reeks f getting angry at people for playing a way you deem bad, you should celebrate their mistakes. All in or nothing decisions are simple to solve, embrace the variance and push small edges, or stop playing poker as its not for you.

Incorrect all in shoves is one of the easiest and profitable strategies to counter

 

[Steves22]

In most tournaments I play in I am not simply just trying to survive. I am playing to win. If I think I have the better hand I am not going to wait to go with it.

 

[Lheticus]

Your statement reeks f getting angry at people for playing a way you deem bad, you should celebrate their mistakes. All in or nothing decisions are simple to solve, embrace the variance and push small edges, or stop playing poker as its not for you.

Incorrect all in shoves is one of the easiest and profitable strategies to counter

In theory, yes--but when I'm faced with a MULTITUDE of all in shoves, it just seems like inevitable that sooner or later, I will get sucked out on or run into a situation where I DON'T have the best of it somehow (even donks get good cards) and whenever it happens, they either have more chips than me or their stack is big enough to at least seriously cripple me. You say "embrace the variance" but freerolls don't grow on trees. If I get sucked out on and taken out on the 3rd blind level, I can't just instantly enter another one. It takes time and patience on my part to get into any freeroll, as all clients I can access don't host a great deal of them. BlackChip's "on demand" freerolls are the most reliable, but they require 270 players to start, so it easily takes a significant amount of time for me to actually start playing--and if I get eliminated within such a short time in such an idiotic way, it feels like the effort is utterly wasted.

 

[duggs]

Deposit and play real poker then

 

[JustDestined]

I don't know the correct answer to the statement made by OP, but I can tell you I see merit in statements by all. There have been many times, I repeat MANY TIMES that I have gotten in good and wished I had just backed off a little bit. My late wife used to always say if I was approaching the bubble "why do you insist on tangling with big stacks when you know how online poker can be at times, just avoid the situations" and I think this plays into what OP is getting at. KK QQ JJ etc against a stack capable of taking you out has another factor to consider at times that I like to call pokerstars Law. That is at times even the most overly aggressive donkeys can and do catch the miracle hands. How many times have all of you been going into the river at 95% and seen that 95% change to 0 when the river hits? It can happen and does and should be factored in even though I'm not sure of the correct answer on how to factor it in.After all even on final table, if you can fold your way to 5th or higher is it better to go out 8th trying to get to 3rd when you can fold to 5th? Do you factor in how the cards are running? What about "expected loss in value" that can become a real loss in value by getting involved or being overly aggressive in a hand that you can pull back on a bit with a much bigger stack, after all those big stacks even the ones that play poorly got those chips some how, it wasn't by not hitting their miracle flops.

 

[123andyp123]

Yes i agree with you deposit and play real poker.Also Join every site that you can and play the freerolls .I play at least ten sites . Dont know if You know all of them but full flush and bet online have a lot of freerolls. Although a lot of them are Around 20 dollar prize pools .

 

[Lheticus]

Guys...I can't deposit. I don't have money, I don't have an income...I'M A LOSER okay?! It's either freerolls or nothing for me, not because I want it this way, but because it's either that or don't play poker. Clearly, my views are extremely skewed because of this situation. I mean...I feel that a lot of what people are saying in counter-arguments could have merit, but my position right now renders me unable to appreciate those arguments because they assume that I can play at a tournament level that approximates proper poker, when I can't.

I should have made this clear from the very start...but I've never claimed that I don't have moments where I'm a big, fat idiot. (not LITERALLY fat...I hope. Been a while since I stepped on a scale.)