blonde poker forum

I am well aware most 'professional' poker players make their living from playing cash games.

But something i have always wondered is: when you sit down in a tournament, whether it be a £20 rebuy at your local card room or a 'major' event is your INITIAL goal to WIN the event or to try and make sure you CASH? (any profit has to be good if you are doing it for a living)

cant win if you dont make the money

tournies aren't won on the first day, so survival is the most important thing

old school thinking is survival but the new players play for the win fdrom the off. This is why you will see many pros having early baths trying to get a stack. Tis better to win one event and not cash 19 times then creep into the cash 15 times out of 20. I personally play for the win in any event I sit down in its just not gone to plan for the last couple of years ;)

Good point, considering the money in major events these days, Thank You

Making sure i cash is never a concern, i look to make the most money possible.

I try to take this logic & water it down to my feeble levels.

Of course, financially, one good win pays for loads of misses. 

But what about the physcological side to it.  If you fail, & fail & fail again, how do you keep mentally strong.  Is there not an argument to say that regular cashes keep the mind keen, & all you need to do is get that one step further.  eg if you regularly hit the cash, but are low stacked, then a double up at that point is going to give you a playable stack to push on with.

Whereas not cashing time & time again, but suddenly hitting the final table with a top 3 stack, are you going to be mentally capable of closing it down ?

Or is it horses for courses ?  ( or maybe I'm just wrong  ;carlocitrone; )

Fair point. You are playing in a 'big tourney' have accumalated a good stack of chips (enough to see you into the money) only a few players to go out. Does this alter your style of play? i.e are you happy to 'cruise' into the money or do you get more aggresive in your play as you have 'big chips'

Big chips on the bubble is a beautiful thing, i go absolutely mental at this stage, raising and re-raising like i am trying to get knocked out of the comp. It's the easiest time to build a stack and you will see any top player doing it.

Your my hero Flushy.

You stole my line!

You still going out tonight?

For me, un-sponsored like most of us, Bankroll Management is all that matters.

Going for the win is all very well & heroic, but no money = no poker, so for me, priority number one is to cash.

Laugh if you will, but how else does one of such mediocre talent survive in poker? Many a better player than me has gone busto going for the win, & many of them exist on the Circuit only by nipping.

I pay my way, my way. Earning enough to stay in the game I love  - without nipping all & sundry - is all that matters to me.

Bankroll management is a completely different matter. Of course you can reduce the amount of risks you take in tournaments so you don't need as big a bankroll, it will cost you money in the long run though, but for some that is the best thing to do. Personally though when i play a comp it's usually (not festivals) about 0.2% of my bankroll so i don't have to take such considerations.

I actually think Bankroll Management IS part of strategy in Tourney Poker - well, it is for me!

tony,this  is probably your best ever post imo.

stellar stuff.

So a £30k + bankroll then - nice

Ideally though Tony you don't want to be in the position of having to adjust ttourney strategy because of your bankroll, of course that's the ideal, like i said on occasions you will make the trade +£EV for less variance because of bankroll considerations. Like i say though in the Ideal where you can play optimum tournament poker with a huge roll it should never be a consideration.




ty.

It depends what we mean when we say "ideally".

Ideally, we should not even think about bankroll when playing Tourneys, decisions should be made on the Tourney situation alone. Obviously.

Ideally, I need to earn enough to stay in the game, which I play because I enjoy, by one means or another. As I can't quite go with the big boys at the sharp end of Tourneys, I have to fiddle & diddle to earn cashes to sustain my Bankroll.

It's that balance thing again.

If I had pots of money, I'd play Tourneys VERY differently. But I'm not sure my results would be as good, truth to tell. Sponsored Pros or zillionaires never play scared poker. I do, sometimes, particularly in the bigger buy-in comps. But I'm comfy with my game in the £100 to £500 range, & do OK in them.

lol, selling yourself a bit short there I think.

OK


Fellow members can provide you with an answer that is specific to them.

The beauty of the forum is seeing the diversity of attitudes that exist and comparing them to your own.

So what is YOUR initial goal? And what are YOUR expectations? Because this is specific to you.

When I first started playing the game I had a certain arrogance about my own expectations. I only played to win. If truth be known I still do. I try to put the money side of things out of my head and play each hand as it comes.

I earnestly believe that the purest form of poker is played without the thought of money corrupting your mind. I do try to live by this philosophy no matter what the potential reward is.

However, during my first year playing the game the following happened....

£1,500 NL Hold Em Event
Walsall Grosvenor

I am deep into the second day with just two tables left.

I am currently sitting third in chips with fourth a long way back. I could just leave the table now, have a few drinks, and wait to take my place at the final table.

I have played great so far, but have a deep, deep, burning desire to win this thing.

It is bubble time....I care not!

Everyone passes around the table to me on the small blind. To my left is Barney Boatman, the chip leader, and the big blind.

I look down and see  Ks  Qs. I decide to just flat call, hope to see a monster flop and trap this guy for all his chips.


He checks.

The flop comes..... Kc  Kh  8c ..............Bingo!



Check...Bet...Raise...Re-raise...All-in...Call



Now the table, which included El Blondie and Howard Plant amongst others, had been very, very aggressive throughout the day. They didn't like me because I was an unknown aggressor and was playing the bubble situation like a seasoned pro. I was not scared....No Sir!! I put Boatman on a steal or a draw and he was NOT HAVING MY POT!!!!

Barney Boatman showed pocket eights.

I am not sure what happened for the next 20 minutes or so. My head hurt.

Whether I played the hand well or not considering the history at the table is unimportant...and of course I still could have got lucky. The fact remained that I had missed out on a big, big cash that day because I wasn't scared.

It took me a week to recover.

It was a lesson learned and I am kind of grateful for that...cough!

Today, I sometimes play scared.

But I call it Tournament Management.

tournament management? you have KQ suited in a battle of the blinds - no matter how you are playing the tournament you go broke on this hand unless you pass preflop - and if you are passing KQ suited in the battle of the blinds whilst on the final table bubble then you probably need to find another game as your playing more than scared.

Matt


This was my very attitude at the time.

Not now though

There were a number of very short stacks left in the tournament at the time. I did not have to play this hand at all. Barney Boatman was chip leader. All I had to do was wait for a short-stack to bust....any minute now, earn £2000 min, and save my gambling for the final.

Like I said....Tournament Management

Sorry, when you said you were deep into a 2 day event playing final two tables that you'd already be in the money.

Even so - if i ever look down and find KQ suited in the battle of the blinds and pass will be the day i give up poker. If i'm paying £1500+juice to play a tournament then £2000 is not what i'm looking to win, its significantly more.

An interesting array of different views, thank you very much for taking the time.

With regards to MANTISO1, in his position in that tourney and as a 'professional' someone who makes his living playing poker, surely ANY return on his buy in has to be looked at as profit? So like he said, "there were a number of very short stacks" and he didnt need to get involved. But by doing so, instead of returning say £300 he lost £1,500 plus(a bad day at the office?) Thats not a critiscism, just my take on things if i were to look at making money from the game (many will say weak play) but bills have to be paid.

Anyway once again thank you all very much.

If your that worried about paying the bills then you wouldnt be paying £1500+juice for a single tournament.

What if you qualify for it?

Interesting points, im not a full time pro but do take my poker very seriously and I live in spain but have managed to get over to play the first 3 GUKPT events.

Anyway just a couple of questions for the Pro's how do you deal with the bad beats which i have had two herendous ones in Walsall & Cardiff and as you cant win every event you enter what how do you judge your relative success of a tournament etc etc

One lesson i have learnt is if you end up getting low stacked you get a lot more bad beats

I made a decision to play the first 3 events just so i could see what level i was at and the bottom line is bar one mistake in Cardiff I'm very happy with the way I played for the 8 hours or so before this idiot made a horrnendous play and put me  out, I wont bore everyone with what happened in Cardiff( As I did that in Cardiff) but just to say the person who won the hand wont be winning many poker tournaments.  Kashan who made the final table was also in the hand and DTDs Carlo was also at the table.

The interesting observation for me is that the Bolton was won by the poker player and the card catcher has won the last two tournaments

Anyway I probably wont play Manchester  but hope to be in brighton

That is the key isn't it.  Whenever you're all-in there's a chance you can go out if the other player's got you covered.  Also, when you've got the chips you're less concerned about the cards and more focused on using your stack as a weapon.  When you're short you have to make moves - but it often comes down to your hand having to win a showdown.  The more this happens, the more chance you have of losing one.


(oh and  ;welcome; to Blonde)

OK

Firstly, I won a seat through Blue Square, so free-rolling all the way in that one and any cash would have been pure profit.

The important thing is this though.

Myself, Barney Boatman and Darren Grosvenor were well clear of the pack in terms of chip position.

Darren won the event pocketing £66,000, Barney came second for £34,600 and I left with nothing.

I got busted that day because my absolute and only consideration was winning.

Like Matt said. That hand was almost impossible to get away from once the call had been made and the flop came down.

But the important lesson I learned was this...

When you very first start playing the game you only really consider the cards. But as you become more experienced you take into account a variety of other factors such as mentality and situations.

Fact: Every time you put chips into the pot you are gambling.

So at this point in the tournament, in a markedly healthy position and with a number of short stacks in play, I did not need to gamble! I certainly didn't need to gamble with the chip leader! That was the situation.

When I flat called with the suited K-Q I thought about flopping something big and taking all Barney Boatman's chips. So before the flop came down I was dreaming of getting all the chips in the middle. Winning a big pot would mean risking all my chips and my tournament life. This was my mentality. Looking back it was the wrong mentality for that particular situation.

Clearly I am not afraid to gamble. In many situations this is a good mentality for a poker player to have. I should have been afraid to gamble in that situation.

My priority should have been to cash. Then go on from that foundation and use my amply sufficient stack to gamble in the final. To try and win it there rather than here.

So I think that the answer to the question is to change your expectations dependant on the situation. A poker tournament is a living entity. Things are changing around all the time and it is important to consider a variety of factors before deciding what your next step should be.

In this tournament, experience and an ability to manage their tournament certainly won the day for those guys. On the other hand my raw aggression, inexperience and will to win cost me dear.

This might be the most interesting post I have ever read on Blonde. REALLY

I think there are some many variables that go into this that there will never be a "great" post, just great opinions. As has already been stared the "money" is a way to continue your poker playing. Look up Tony Cusineau on the Mob or another results site. I swear that I would be more scared to play a pot w/ this person than any OTHER PERSON IN THE WORLD, bar none.      Why?????

He is the best "casher" in the world!  There is no value here. Even if I win 10 pots from him he may get it all back latter in just 1 pot. Here is what I am saying, this guy plays to cash 1st and win 2nd. Not a bad thing, but he is actually harder to play than Phil Ivey!!!!!!  I cant lay a hand down to Ivey, but I sure can to Tony C.

I want to play "loose" players early on, I want to be able to outplay people later w/ their own chips.

To get back to the original question! I think this is one of the BIGGEST "tells" in poker!

It really is simple, figure out why the other player is there and take advantage of it. On the bubble or not!

EXAMPLES:

1) Tikay finding out a guy had a $1k last longer in a $75 comp, bingo====== information = +ev
2) Knowing a player is broke
3) Knowing how he qualified and what his expectations are ( usually get this at the bar the night before)
4) Befriend the quite guy at the table, they will tell u anything
5) Watch the table 20 minutes prior to sitting down at the start of the comp
6) Basically just talk to the people at your table, they will tell u everything.
7) 2005 ewsop in Vienna, I outplayed the mug because he "told me to" w/ our precomp conversation.

The bottom line is that u really are always playing on the bubble and u r really always playing to cash if u listen to what the players at the table are telling u!

The idea of making bad or -ev plays does not apply, u should always be making +ev plays even if it is just to cash. If not u are not "reading everything around you and u r not playing poker at a +ev so it may not matter anyways.

I would talk about my WSOP final table but I dont want to be FLAMED by anyone that I sucked out again!!!! Sorry, It was a good story. 

This is a great topic, simply due to the many different approaches that can be applied.

Firstly, we have the “safety first” approach that can sometimes prove costly in terms of how many chips you win from an opponent, while on other hand; can save you from going broke. The problem is, in many instances (like the K-Q V 8-8), there is nothing a player can do to stop the chips going in. The other problem, really depends on the mentality or approach of the player. Example:

With playing so many tournaments over the years, I have gained a lot of experience in terms of trying to control just how much money goes into a pot. Obviously though, in the very late stages of tournaments, this is less likely to play any great role. Simply put, the blinds tend to force issues. But in order to make the late stages, we first must negotiate the minefield that we face. Some like to blast through the minefield and take their chance that they don’t get blown up. Some players like this approach. And in truth, there is great justification in trying to accumulate as many chips as possible. After all, with such big field to overcome, it improves a player’s chances to go deep. And in truth, this approach has proven successful for some aggressive players. 

But I guess one of the points being made in these posts, can a player play with this type of aggression, irrespective of financial state? Obviously, it‘s so much easier if one is flushed and can play without fear. But very few players manage to reach such a major safeguard. In fact, for the majority, their financial state DOES dictate or influence certain decisions. But is that positive or negative? I guess the answer to that is: it depends. Because at the end of the day, the luck factor will play a role when it wants to. And the more you push with your stack, the more you are asking luck to play a part. So I would guess, what works one day, may fail the next. It therefore seems that there is no clear indication as to the best approach on any given day.

So what is the answer? Perhaps the only answer is to find a style that befits the moment, or the day, or a poker life. In other words, try and find a balance that allows you to play a hand well, to play good during the day, and to give you a chance through your whole poker life. I guess you just have to gauge the balance between taking a tournament by storm and finding consistency. No doubt players have varying views - but isn’t that the beauty of this game?

So what did I choose?

My initial approach to poker (when poker became my only hope and only source of income), was to look for consistency. To be honest, around 2001, there were very few really big pay-day opportunities, it therefore made much greater sense to focus on consistency. After all, one tournament win would not have set me up for life! The outcome to this approach, was perhaps my saving grace in terms of surviving. Things may different now days. One tournament can set up a player for life. Bt no one can choose which tournament they win. Perhaps therefore, this approach still holds true today?

As an after thought, I just wonder the importance that this approach had on my brain? Because I must admit, I liked consistency. I liked to have a chance in every event I played. In fact, it made me very strong in terms of handling the downside of poker. So even though some beats had proven costly, the fact that I had confidence in my ability to be consistent, was probably my biggest weapon in that fight. I guess not everything is as black and white as results. Perhaps it’s what’s behind the results that ultimately matter?

So what exactly was the approach?

Firstly, I would say that my first goal was to not get busted. That may sound negative. Perhaps it does sound negative when compared to the approach of wanting to steamroll through a tournament? But when does one player actually achieve this? In my experience, this was vary rare. In fact, I saw so many tournament wins from low stacks, that it really hit me as to how many ways there were to win a tournament. So for me, not getting busted became my prime aim. Did it work? I guess I lost count of the number of events that I won because of my desire not to go broke! It may sound like a negative approach, but overall, players need to know how to handle a short or medium stack, because that is the case more often than not. And also, wins sometimes come when least expected!

So how could I example one or two cases that highlight the positive? Obviously, even though there must have been numerous times when this approach lessened the amount of chips I took off another player, I vary rarely dwelled on this. Because overall. I doubt if any of them proved crucial to a getting a result. On other hand, getting busted was always final and critical!

So, from the many examples I could use, I will choose the same one that featured Ks-Qs. The event was a the 10k Buy-in for the WPT in Tunica about three years ago.

On the table, about four to my right, was the one and only Alan Goerhing. For those that have not played with Alan, I got to say that if you don’t enjoy playing poker with Alan, then give up the game. Simple reason being, Alan is just a true gent and so much fun to play with. Oh…and another things, he plays every hand he can. From garbage to A-A, Alan sees potential. And boy can he play well at times!

Anyhow, I decided from the moment we teed off, that I would go along with Alan and play him at his game. Looking back now, it still makes smile what we got up to. In fact, we must have played 70-80% of the hands during the first level or two. The problem is with Alan, he sometimes has the goods. And when that happens, he can send you to the rail scratching your head.

Anyway, we have had fun galore while waiting to trap each other. Finally, I have him where I want him. Calling one his usual raises, I have position Ks-Qs. On a flop Q and two small spades, I also seem to have him with a monster hand of top pair and a four-to-the-flush. The expected flop-bet from Alan has me contemplating a raise. But really, even though I have a big hand, I am still not in love to start committing chips from my stack. I guess the years of playing in this manner managed to control my desire to get too busy at this early stage of a tournament. However, when the Kd hit’s the turn to give me top two pair, all thoughts of safety disappear. Suddenly, my only thought is how to extract as much from Alan as possible?. In fact, I was already trying to find the right figure to bet, once the expected check came from Alan. He is bound to check this, isn’t he? After all, even though we have been at other from the outset, he is badly out of position in the hand. But to my initial delight, Alan leads out with another bet.

Trying to work out Alan’s hand, the worst I could put him on was A-A. Should I commit now? But what if it pairs the board and he does have A-A? Would I be sent to the rail with nothing more than a bad beat story to keep me company? You know what, I’m going to play this safe and if I like the river, I would try and extract the right amount from him.

Looking to either make a boat or a flush, I wasn’t too disappointed with the blank rag on the river. Surely I thought, Alan HAS to check now. But Alan again leads with a bet that is almost a third of my stack. Suddenly, from trying to work out how much I would win from Alan, I contemplated a muck. I can’t help but smile at Alan. How can you bet into me three time, was the only question that filled my mind. I make a crying call and Alan shows me his set of Queens.

About an hour later (having recovered from that setback), I raise Alan’s BB and get the expected call from him. The Jack high flop with two hearts is checked by Alan. Trying to trap, I check with him. The turn card manages to pair the board and also bring out the flush. Alan seems to like his hand now and leads out with a bet. Wary of the combinations that are now out there, I just call the turn. Alan leads out again after the river and I decide that my A-A may not be good enough. After I muck, Alan shows K-K. How strange for Alan to play the hand as he did. On first thought, it seemed that he was trying to trap. But in fact, Alan was just playing it safe. Funny really, if Alan played the hand as he should have, I would have doubled up and crippled him in the process. But I guess I’m not the only one that plays it safe sometimes!

These above two examples how both the positive and negative from playing “safe”. However, in this instance, the A-A had little effect and I went to increase my stack that first day to becoming one of the chip leader; whereas if I chose to raise with the K-Q at any stage, I would have gone broke in the hand.

Footnote.

In the very next hand, Howard Lederer raised Alan’s SB and Alan re-raised. Holding Q-Q, Howard pushes all-in , only to bust out to Alan’s K-K.

Footnote #2. Alan and I soon parted ways when our table broke, only to met up again when Alan joined my table just before the day was done. And as it happens, Alan busted me on the first hand when he raised my BB from the just behind the button. I guess I could have put him on K-K, but Alan rarely has the goods. But when he does…….

Nice post Peter, that is why u write about poker and I do not, great stuff


Thanks,

Brian

Thank you Mr Costa, you sneak in here when we are sleeping and leave us these gems, we should call you santa.   ;thankyou;

Without a doubt this is the best thread I have read since i joined blonde. Great information and input from everyone, great stories and sums up everything i love about poker. That there can never be one definitive answer or solution to any poker related situation or at least one that is agreed on by everyone!

Thank you again for all your views, very interesting reading others thoughts.

I am not, and never will be a 'professional' poker player, but i have played many tournaments, mostly last year on a local circuit. The buy ins varied from £10-£100, but mostly £20 freezeouts, so the money (buy in) was never an issue.

I can play the game, and if i say so myself, to a reasonable standard. I generally get to a mid point in the tourneys with a reasonable chip stack, then the problem kicks in, i know if i play 'safe' i have a good chance of making the final table therefore cashing, so all of a sudden i stop playing hands i KNOW i should, especially if i have no money committed to the pot. I know this is 'weak' but its sort of a mental thing with me and i wish i could be different.

having said that, on our circuit last year i made as many FT as any other player (up until the time i left) winning only ONCE, as the majority of the time i arrived as the small stack. But i made a PROFIT overall so that made me happy.

Anyway thats just me.

Well done taximan, what a great thread to start and so many different outlooks. All perfectly understandable in their own way. More of the same please gents.

Would be great to get DC, Camel, Roland ect to post thoughts about this!!!!!!!

8 8 was always beating K Q however if you were playing me you would probably have hit a K or Q on the River.

Anyway i now feel compelled to tell you about my 2 bad beats as they were exactly that

Walsall,

Had a horrible tournament and kept getting JJ, 10 10 and even QQ with AK flops and got down to my last 3000 chips and found KK in the smaill blind and made it 600 to play Shaf calls me in the big blind and the flop comes down 6 3 8 and i move all in and Shaf calls me with 6 4  and the turn is a 7 and the River well you guessed it was a 5

Cardiff,

Played very well with a stategy of playing tight for the first 4 levels with a view to exploiting my tight image at a later stage and I had about 13000 chips at the dinner break, unfortunately the table broke and the new players didnt respect my raises as much as the first players would have anyway after the break I was surviving on one hand an hour ie a hand I could call a raise with. were towards the end of level 8 and im on the button with A Q Suited and i have 3 callers so i reraise All in a good spot for my last 6000 chips, Kashan in the Small blind calls me with pocket 10s and the other two callers fold and the last person to act moves All In for an additonal 3000 chips, Kashan then says I have to call, how bad a shape Am I in, he then turns over pocket 4s.  I think every player on the table just couldnt believe it and I felt in very good shape and felt very confident I would hit an A or a Q as it was more or less indicated that not there werent too may high cards dealt out.  Anyway first card was an Ace and the turn card was a 4.  This hurt me a lot more than Walsall because the player who beat me just shouldnt have been in the hand.  If he didnt hit the 4 i would have had 20000 chips and back in the tournament in a big way and I was due to get better cards at some point.

In both cases I was massively ahead at the flop and got badly beat up, so it does beg the question about which style to adopt in these tourneys Tight and Agressive or Very agressive from the Off to try and get to 20000 quickly from where it is hard for people to put you out on a bad beat

I too agree that this has been a really interesting subject to discuss.

Just to follow up on my post about the £1,500 tournament and how it changed my attitude to winning/cashing....

Two months later January 1st 06
£300 NL Tournament
Walsall Grosvenor

Once again we are deep into the second day with 13 players remaining

I am well stacked and lying a comfortable second in chips

We are 6 handed at my table when a certain Tony "Tikay" Kendal pushed all-in on the button.

It is my big blind.

I looked down to see  Aspades  Js.

To call here would cost me about one third of my stack. I considered what to do.

Because I was completely aware of what was happening in the tournament that day I knew that Ali Mallu was a massive chip leader. Consequently there were a number of short stacks hanging on for dear life.

I considered why I needed to use my chips to call an all-in here and gamble for a third of my stack? I thought it far better to ensure the "cash" and then use my chips to gamble at the final. I folded the A-J face up to the surprise of some.

Tikay showed the  Qd??

He heavily intimated that he had A-Q and that it was a good pass. (A few days later on blonde I found a post stating that he actually had Q-10!!)

Even so I was still happy with the fold. A-J Vs Q-10 at that specific moment in the tournament was not a necessary gamble for me to take. Particularly because it was using my chips to call.

A couple of hands later it was "tikay's" blind and I had already resolved to raise blind and use the credit I had from showing the A-J to ensure a fold. Sure enough I raised it without looking.

Phil Peters, who was also at the table, said that he "knew" I had the goods because he had an accurate "tell" on me.....(Isn't poker great!)......"tikay" duly folded and the balance was restored.

That day I eased myself to the final table and eventually had a chop of the prize money taking home £6,000....Happy New Year.

So the point was that I had learned my lesson. Took stock of the situation in the tournament as a whole and went for the cash first and then the win. This change in mentality saw me going home happy and loaded rather than penniless and sick

Sometimes it is better to just go for the cash!

lol, what an invite to the lags.

Just a quick tip, if you going to do this then check your table number as most tables get broken in order. So only do this when you have a low / mid table. If you know your table is one of the first to get broken you dont need to plan for the long term regarding table image.

Aspades

AT LAST SOMETHING ACTUALY WORTH DISCUSSING ON BP


 Some great comments and some very useful answers.
Tikays take is true pro u don`t cash u don`t eat  and that`s the way it is for the pro`s in the real world. Peter Costa`s obviously got a lot of experience and his words ring true, and I can empathise with the guys on a bad run it can last a long time and effect you badly both financially and metally..the bad beats take their toll...trust me.
My own advice for what it`s worth.... tailor the buy ins to suit your bankroll that way you will always be playing your best game and not worrying about how much the entry fee has cost you.
One point I will add is that at the late stage of a tournament especially one off the cash ( If cashing is your goal) Then it is crucial to keep control of the size of the pot . Sure you are going to get involved with KQ on a K.K.8. flop but do you really have to go to war with the chip leader with a chance of going busted? ...maybe..maybe not. Think about the overall picture KEEP CONTROL of the pot and you may survive flukes like this one.... and cash

 ;shark;

FYP.

It was a misread, I thought I had JJ.

Seriously, MANTIS has been Posting regularly of late, & I am not alone in loving his style of writing, but I was curious as to who the guy was. I went to Walsall on Saturday, sat down & the guy next to me introduced himself to me - it was none other than MANTIS. Top bloke, too, though he enjoyed no luck on Saturday.

Well then, in that case, I shall send them all a PM with a Link to this thread, & maybe they will give us their thoughts. This Forum is what the Members make it, if they want input from the Big Guys, just PM them, & maybe they'll oblige.

As to the Gentleman who said "at last, something worth reading on blonde", well, all Members have the right to start threads, so if you have interesting stuff for us to debate, please start threads, we'd be muchly grateful, & I'm sure you'll be pleasantly surprised by the responses. Nice to see you, Saturday, by the way. The quality & nature of threads on blonde is up to you guys!

PM sent to el blondie, Camel & Roland.

Next!

havent got my pm yet......

Yes Tikay, it was a real coincidence that one.

I was naturally humbled to be sharing the table with a living legend once again, however, I do think that it distracted me from my game.

Tony had barely settled into his seat before I was swiftly and unceremoniously dumped out slow-playing AA into 2-3.

I read somewhere that you should raise with aces....hmmmm....think I may give that a go next time.

Good to see you though!

Well I base my strategy on the payout structure. In 90% of tourneys 1st prize is double 2nd and almost quadrouple 3rd. This is plain wrong if you are getting through fields of 200 runners or more. They dont do this in tennis or Golf or any other type of competition.
It is because of this though I feel that the correct strategy is to play to win the comp. If that means putting my life on the line during the bubble period then so be it. 1 win probably pays more than 20 minor money finishes. If you are in it for the long term you have to play to win.
No guts No glory.

Dave, do you factor into your calculations the fact that you will not be able to play enough live 200 runner tournaments for your 'true edge' over the field to distinguish itself through the noise of variance?

So, assuming, say, 300 runners, what % do you think 1st, 2nd & 3rd in that elusive "ideal world" should pay, & how far down should the money go?

As a "grinder" (me, not you) I obviously prefer flatter structures, & more positions paid, but that sure as hell is not to the liking of many.

The worst day of my poker life was the 2nd place finish in the 888.com UKopen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1st place $500,000    not me
2nd place $150,000    yeap, thats mine

oh what could have been??????????????????????????????????????????

I think flatter structures are a much better idea for the poker economy.... (even though i personally prefer top heavy)  it affords a better distribution of the wealth which in a game where in the short term the winners and losers are divided by a paper thin line, and we likely dont live long enough for the long run to meterialise, is probably a good thing.

As a player who is interested in the psycology of other players in given situations I have found this thread quite fascinating.


When I was 14 I used to sit next to the sexiest girl in school.

Her name was Jane Allwood and double biology on a Monday was the highlight of my week. Incidentally and somewhat disappointingly, we sat next to each other by virtue of the fact that my surname begins with A and the seating was alphabetical.

Her perfume used to make me feel dizzy.

I used to tell my mates that if only I could get Jane alone for half an hour there would be no stopping me.

We started to get on really well and later on in the term I did get her alone after a friend's party.

I shit myself.

Anyway, this is relative to what we are talking about because how we would like to act and what we actually do in the heat of the battle can be different.

I remember reading a blog from Dave on blonde about the world series. He was playing in a pot limit event and was killing his two remaining opponents.

He decided to do some business.

Although he got the most money he felt that he lost the bracelet because of that decision.

So I find it very interesting that as people we can have or at least want to have a win at all costs mentality but then in reality find that hard to follow through with.

Especially when significant sums of money are involved.

This is the very reason Noel Edmonds "Deal or no Deal" show is so popular. As people we want to win but we also don't want to loose.

It would be interesting to know whether Dave feels that this experience shaped his attitude towards winning and/or dealing at the final table.

By the way, Biology was the only G.C.S.E. I failed so thanks for nothing Jane!

Your in Monte Carlo to play in the EPT Grand Final.

You have paid the entry fee out of your own pocket. The evening before the event, someone who is desperate to play (but cant its sold out) offers you 13,720 euros, the equivqlent prize money for places 64-57.

What do you do?

If u take the money u r not hungry enough to play poker so u should not. There is no way u should be able to allow yourself to settle for that.

It would be interesting to know whether Dave feels that this experience shaped his attitude towards winning and/or dealing at the final table.


Just in case el blondie misses this, I believe he thought he made the right decision at the time, but has regretted it ever since, & is now a strong opponent of final Table Deals, as it affects the way the game plays out.

Not his words, or even thoughts maybe, hopefully he will reply himself if he sees it.

Well it did obviousl shape my views...and nowadays I rarely do deals for that reason.
However, if 3rd to second was a 25% increase and 2nd to first was a 25% increase then the players wouldn't feel that they had to do a deal all the time. It is the structure that forces the players into this deal mentality, and I dont blame anyone for making a deal in a double double payout situation.
I am not saying pay more people. 10% is too much in my opinion. I am just saying flatten it down a bit on the final table especially the last 3 or 4 spots.
Then people would play to win just because they wanted to win the tourney and they wouldnt be obsessed with making deals.
 :pop:

I take it and go out on the lash!

lol - another good post Mantis, keep em coming.

Surely the current size of your bank roll must be a major if not the overiding factor weather to do a deal or not.

At Cardiff they did a deal when down to 3 and not knowing the players finances that made good sense if there bankroll wasnt that high, they still played for a bit

Ok

Next time you watch Match of the Day look at the crowd when an easy chance is put over the bar. Every supporter instinctively puts their hands to their heads as the scream of "ooooooooooooo" rings around the stadium.

People INSTINCTIVELY cover their heads to protect the brain from danger in risky or scary situations. It is natural. You can't control it.

There are many other examples of this automatic and protective behaviour, e.g. closing your eyes when you sneeze.

The brain is inherently designed to protect you.

Trying to over-ride these natural reactions is a very tall order.

Remember the last time you got knocked out of a big tournament when you were really enjoying it. I think the word "GUTTED" is an appropriate one to describe how you probably felt.

You don't want to feel like that. It's no fun. So your brain does what it can to protect you from that situation.

It is why the bubble is such a profitable situation for aggressive players. And it is also why deals are often made in spite of a no guts no glory mentality. I could take $100,000 now and then I am protected from the hurt of feeling gutted if I get knocked out next....I am guaranteed the security of success.

Subsequently, the complexion of the tournament absolutely will change because player's brains are no longer in survival mode. It is now pure enjoyment. Interestingly, in El Blondie's example, he felt that HE was in charge of the game and HIS name was on that bracelet. So when the deal was done it seems that Dave was the player that still had something to loose and his shorter-stacked opponents were free-rolling and enjoying themselves. Was this a factor in the eventual result?

2006 WSOP - Steve Dannaman is the runner-up after playing for fun. He has a list of his expectations which he pulls out at the final table. Number 1 on the list is HAVE FUN. Does the freedom of fullfilling his expectations regardless of the result allow him to play better?

Maybe people who just want to cash have an advantage over those who play to win. When the goal of cashing has been achieved the shackles of expectation are removed and playing becomes pure and fearless enjoyment, something that instinctively cannot be experienced by players who only want to win.

Or maybe we should just have fun and pure enjoyment from the outset. This way we always win.

Following on from the previous post....

I remember watching an interview with Chris Moneymaker after his WSOP Main Event win in 2003.

He stated that when they got to heads-up he offered Sammy Farha a chop of the prize money. Farha quickly declined.

The impression Moneymaker got was that Farha felt he was the better player and as such...expected to win.

Moneymaker was annoyed by the arrogance of his opponent and was determined to play Farha off the table because of it.

We all know that heads-up play is a psychological battle and the two players had very different mentalities as play commenced. Moneymaker was an internet qualifier who had already gone much further than he could ever have expected. The second place prize money was plenty enough to be satisfied with and now all he wanted to do was steam-roll his arrogant opponent to the rail. Farha on the other hand still had the weight of his own expectations on his shoulders. He was playing to win and only first place, the bracelet and the title were going to fulfill his own particular goal.

Although Sammy Farha is world class and probably a much better player than Chris Moneymaker I think his mindset of first or nothing actually handicaps him here. His brain is still sub-consciously protecting him from the "gutted" feeling of not winning.

Moneymaker couldn't care less either way....he's just annoyed now.

Example hand to demonstrate the difference in mentality.....

Moneymaker     Ks  7h

Farha      Qs  9h

Moneymaker raises to $100k and Sammy calls

Flop comes      9s  2d  6s

Both check

Turn comes      8s

Sammy now bets $300k into a $210k pot....Hmmm

Moneymaker re-raises to $500k and Sammy calls

River comes      3h

Sammy checks and Moneymaker moves all-in.

Farha actually says...."you must have missed your flush eh?" before eventually passing.

Sammy Farha, a notoriously aggressive poker player played this hand like he was scared to loose. He checked top pair on the flop, over-bet the pot on the turn, weakly called the re-raise when he could have pushed himself and then check-folded the best hand on the river even though he put Moneymaker on a missed draw. Moneymaker on the other hand just hammered his opponent into the ground.

I think a good theory to explain why Farha lost this battle was because he played to win. This created a scenario where sub-consciously he wanted to withdraw from dangerous situations to protect himself from loosing.

So can we say that playing to win may be a handicap?

Just a theory....but then again work is really boring today.

Sounds like a load of tosh to me.


He checked top pair on the flop, (probably looking to CR)

over-bet the pot on the turn, (how does that show he was afraid to lose?)

weakly called the re-raise when he could have pushed himself (obviously recognised a re-raise held little value, he fancied he was massively infront or drawing thin)

and then check-folded the best hand on the river even though he put Moneymaker on a missed draw. (if your silly enough to believe players actually tell you what they think you have then gl to you!)

 ;topman; :goodpost:

OK


This could certainly be true.

But look at what El Blondie says here about his WSOP tournament.


I think it would be worthwhile if we learnt something from his experience.

Before the deal is done El Blondie has a seriously powerful weapon in his favour. His two opponents hope the other one goes out next. They don't want to loose. The fact that their brains are putting them in survival mode means that Dave can exploit this for all it's worth and kill the tournament off right here and now.

After the business has been done his opponents become more care-free. The only factor that has changed is the mentality of the other players. They are not prepared to let Dave push them around anymore. And this changes the complexion of the tournament altogether. The main reason his opponents are care-free is because they are satisfied, the pressure is off and they are free from danger.

El Blondie on the other hand can only loose a tournament he was expecting to win. So that additional pressure of now not wanting to loose will now probably effect how he plays the game.

I think in the 2003 example, Chris Moneymaker played heads-up with this care-free attitude because he was already satisfied with his achievement. Sammy Farha wasn't satisfied with second and so had the additional pressure of playing for the win. If you want to win at all costs surely there must be an instinctive desire to protect yourself from loosing.

So maybe, just not caring if you loose is a good mentality to have as a player. Playing to win puts a lot of extra pressure on your shoulders.

Incidentally, I was surprised at the way Sammy Farha played that hand though. He never imposed himself on it at all. He had the best hand throughout and just let Moneymaker brush him off it. Very unaggressive from a guy who wanted to win so bad. Moneymaker moved all-in, heads-up, in the World Series, on a stone cold bluff.

He doesn't give a toss...Call that Farha!...Bloody good poker that!

Anyway can I just confirm for the record that this could be a load of tosh.

Good post  ;iagree;

Actually, I have now decided that this is not a load of tosh after all.

Studying and understanding the instinctive behaviour of players in certain situations is no different from looking for tells.

Instinctive behaviour Vs an instinctive reaction

If your mentality is only that don't care about loosing, your instinctive behaviour will remain constant throughout a competition.

An increased desire to WIN will simultaneously create a situation where you will instinctively protect yourself from losing.

Thus you will not be able to play as purely as you could.

The hotter it gets means that it is getting less and less cold.

So the more you want to win instinctively means the more and more you don't want to loose. I think this could definitely affect your behaviour at the table.

So for the record then. This is not the load of tosh I considered it might be. It is now an insightful gem of poker wisdom.

Quality stuff sir

You should have quit while you were ahead...

Still looks like tosh to me.

I have never heard anyone say at a poker table that they lost because they were going for the win so badly that they played to protective incase they lost.

Haven't heard it but I recognise it

I think they are an excellent thought provoking set of posts. Challenges conventional wisdom, I like it

Agreed

But now I am mentally conditioned not to think about the win.

Instead I have a fearless approach to loosing.

Therefore I was unable to instinctively protect myself from this eventually.

just like the thread

bump