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:
1.
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.
2.
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. |
