Poker Lesson #6: Surviving In Tournaments, Part 2

Poker Lesson #6:
Surviving In Tournaments, Part 2
by Oliver Butterick

In the February 11, 2005 issue of Card Player magazine, long-time professional poker player and commentator for the Travel Channel’s World Poker Tour, Mike Sexton, wrote the article, “Tournament Tips.” In his article, he replies (though not explicitly) to my first article on surviving in tournaments. While he and I agree that survival and accumulating chips are both important, he disagrees with my assertion that survival is more important.

I’d like to address a few assertions that Mike made within the context of my Survival Theory of Tournament Play.

“Tight players don’t win tournaments.”—Mike argues that Survivalists are designed to get to the money. They wait and wait for their premium hands, but end up having to commit their chips before reaching the final three or even the final table. Since tournament payouts are extremely top-heavy (1st place is usually roughly twice the 2nd place prize), it will take many small-money finishes to equal one tournament win.

As annoying as it may be to some people, I’m going to have to go back to my roots and get a little philosophical, because I think this is an issue of rhetoric. Mike describes tight play as “sitting back waiting for aces or kings.” If this is what “tight” means, then I agree that this type of player will not win a tournament until he runs very hot with his cards.

I guess that, instead of advising to play “tight,” I’ll advise not to play “loose.” I define “loose” play as getting involved in too many pots with sub-par cards. Whether you raise or just call with a hand like 9-4 off-suit, doing it frequently will lead to your demise. If your opponents don’t know it already, they will soon figure out that you like to bluff and will wait to snap you off. In fact, I will go out on a limb and say that if the cards fall evenly, you can win a tournament without ever bluffing.

Yes, I said, “without EVER bluffing,” but this needs a little explanation. Some people consider it bluffing any time that someone bets or raises without having the best hand. I’m slightly more lenient than that. Here are some cases that I don’t consider to be bluffing:

You limp in with Q-J and are only called by the blinds. The flop is 10-6-2 and the blinds check to you. A bet in this situation is a great play. You’ve already showed some strength by calling before the flop, and the blinds showed weakness by checking to you. It’s entirely possible that you have the best hand. Yes, you will probably get K-4 (technically a better hand at this point) to fold, but betting your over-cards isn’t a bluff in my mind. If you are check-raised and call (or re-raise), or are called and you bet again on the turn (without improving), THAT is a bluff.
Stealing the blinds: Many players will steal the blinds whenever they are given an excellent opportunity to do so—say, whenever everyone folds to them on the button or small blind. I think there is a lot of value in NOT stealing the blinds in these situations, especially during the early rounds. Sunday night, when I played a super-satellite and won a seat into the $10,000 No Limit Holdem Championships of the LA Poker Classic, I folded the small blind in this situation about four or five times. I got value out of it by advertising the fold to the table. The first time I surrendered my small blind, I said, “This is the only time I’m going to do this,” and I was taken seriously; the big blind prepared to defend his blind when the situation came up again. However, the second opportunity for me to steal from the small blind was also a bad hand, so I again said, “This is the only time I’m going to do this.” Now everyone at the table knew that I was joking, and I reinforced the tight table image that I had fostered by playing very few hands. I was now confident that if the time came when the blinds were large enough that I really needed those chips, I could take them at will, provided that the big blind didn’t wake up with an ultra-premium hand.

In short, playing aggressively and taking advantage of opportunities is important, and can be done while still playing tight, or at least “not loose.”

“To get to the victory stand, you must be willing to take chances.”—Again, Mike seems to be relying on the idea that tight players only play big pocket pairs. Of course, you have to take chances. I have been known to take a lot of chances when I’m short-stacked and have an ace. If I’m short-stacked and everyone has folded to me, all I need to see is an ace to move all-in. In fact, if the first card is an ace, I won’t even look at the second card. Now that’s gambling! Or is it? If I’m already short-stacked enough that I will go all-in with any ace, what is the point of looking at the second card? What if I see an off-suit 2? Hey, I might chicken out and fold the hand, or worse, I might give off a tell that my hand is weak and get called by 10-9 suited, a hand that is a coin-flip with my hand. Instead, all I see is an ace, so all I think is, “strength.”

Yes, Mike, you do need to take chances, but not just for the sake of taking the chance to build a big stack. Let’s say that it’s early in the tournament when everyone has a big stack, and you move all-in before the flop with A-K. You’re thinking, “Hey, maybe I’ll get called by pocket Jacks and I’ll take a 50% chance of doubling-up.” In my mind, that’s a pretty stupid risk, because, chances are, you’ll only get called by a hand that dominates you, pocket aces. The shorter your stack, the more willing you should be to take chances. The bigger your stack, the more you need to protect it.

“Chips are power.”—Mike argues that it is much easier to win the tournament if you reach the final table with a chip lead. No doubt, the chip leader has an advantage, but I think that having an average-sized stack upon entering the final table can be very powerful. First off, no one is looking to you to play “sheriff” to the small stacks, as they do to the chip leader. Consequently, when the chip leader raises, the short stacks are more likely to call, because they expect him to try to put pressure on the small stacks. However, when an average stack tries to steal the blinds (especially after fostering a tight table image for most of the tournament), he’s much more likely to be successful. Plus, if you have around half of the big stack, or more, an all-in raise before the flop sends a strong message that you have a big hand, since the small stacks know that you are risking busting out of the tournament. They are less likely to call you because they would prefer to see a big stack call and bust you out of the tournament, which will propel them up a spot in the money.

“If you’re a tight player, chances are that you won’t get any action when you do pick up a hand.”—While this is sometimes true for big buy-in events, I don’t think it is necessarily so for smaller ones, and I think the target audience of this article (and Mike’s) is people who are playing smaller buy-in tournaments. Beginning and intermediate players often focus too much on what cards they hold, rather than who their opponents are and what opportunities arise at the table. For example, in the satellite tournament that I mentioned above, I had fostered a rather tight table image. When we were “on the bubble” (there were 11 players left and only 10 got paid anything), I made a standard raise from early position with pocket Queens. I had an average stack at the time and I wasn’t interested in playing many hands, because my goal was only to make it to the top seven, since we all would receive seats into the big tournament. So, the players at the table should have suspected that I had a big hand. However, one of the short stacks moved all-in for about twice my bet with pocket Jacks. He was simply playing his cards, instead of looking for the right opportunity to go all-in. Consequently, he busted out on the bubble and received nothing for his four or five hours of work. Long story short, I had a tight table image and I still got action, because the short stack was under a lot of pressure to play what was probably the best hand he had seen in a few hours.

In reality, I think that we both endorse a similar tournament strategy, but the only difference is the mindset. If you are constantly worried about building your stack, you will be more likely to take chances early in the tournament, when there is no good reason to do so. However, if you are focusing on surviving, then you will be able to sit back and wait for the right opportunities. In my experience, more often than not, patience is rewarded.

Oliver can be reached at oliver@babblog.com.