From 2+2
(David Sklansky Forum)
Al Says: This was a very interesting article I
found browsing 2+2. I wanted to share this with the site readers.
It has to do with gambling early in a NL tournament. Do you gamble
when you feel you are ahead but not 100% sure or do you play it
safe and survive.
SAMPLE SITUATION: If a person went all in and
a pro was a 2-1 favorite, would he call? What about
a 70% favorite? How much of
a favorite do you think the top pros would have to be in order
to call all in on the very first hand of the tourney.
Or heres another somewhat similar question(perhaps Annie or Barry
can chime in here): You hold QQ on the very first hand of the WSOP.
Some unknown internet guy goes all in from EP. Do you fold? What
about if you hold KK in the same situation?
Some Say: "Doubling up early does very
little for you in the overall tourney. In general you want to avoid
situations like this early in tournaments in order to maximize your
chances of winning."
This paragraph talks about a specific hand in which the
better was raised but still felt he was ahead in many cases compared
to his opponent's hand. Here he was faced with a decision for a
decent portion of his chips: Some have argued that the
decision is too close and that there is no reason to "gamble"
early in the tourney, but the poster considered the information
he had available and decided that calling was +EV. If that's the
case, he needs to get all-in IMHO. The fact that the hand is the
first one of the tourney is irrelevant.
Of course, the reader may still choose to avoid all-ins early,
but I would suggest at least considering the Raymer/Phillips position
before accepting our esteemed colleague's position.
But while I'm at it , I also have a problem with this:
"Look at it this way, if you survive the first hour of
a tourney intact and allow people to bust out, then you are competing
for a prize pool that contains money from half the field that is
gone. Just by surviving you are creating profit."
Simply not true - unless there is some sort of prize awarded for
just surviving the first hour.
Let's take the Party tourneys as an example. The bubble usually
breaks around 3 hours in. So, which is better - 1000 chips at the
start or 1 chip at the end of the first hour? Does surviving the
first hour with a crippled stack "create profit"? Surely
not. Clearly an exaggerated example, but I'm trying to demonstrate
that merely "surviving" the early stages of a tourney
has no value in and of itself.
Using a more realistic example, I would rather have 1000 chips
at the start of a tourney than 1000 one hour in. If I could magically
start one hour in with 1000 chips, I would not do it because I would
lose 50-60 opportunities to apply my edge. I would not survive the
first hour many times, but my average chip count at the end of the
first hour is considerably more than 1000, even if I include the
times that I end the first hour with zero. Thus, my average $EV
is considerably more than it would be if I merely survived the first
hour with my initial stack intact.
|
