We’ve often heard people say tournament play is different from cash games, but what exactly does that mean? How much different can cash games get, when you’re playing the exact same game? The cards don’t change. Your odds and outs in a particular hand don’t change.
What changes is the fact that blinds played are progressively increased. Imagine playing cash games with progressively increasing blinds! You could only play as long as your bankroll can sustain your blinds. The more blinds (forced bets) you have to make, the more the game becomes a gamble. In fact, thinking about it, a single tournament could be used to represent a player’s progression at poker, that is, if you had the choice of remaining at a certain blind level until you’re ready to move on.
When you’re forced to move up in blinds, the more it becomes necessary for you to recover your losses through forced bets. This means playing more hands, which would eventually mean that luck decides the outcome. When should you start playing more hands in a tournament? At the beginning, where the blinds don’t matter as much? Or towards the end when you’re forced to play hands due to a diminishing stack size?
The ultimate goal of a tournament is to stay “alive” as long as possible. The person who stays alive the longest, wins. This is the fundamental concept of a poker tournament, and one that most players fail to understand. Everyone tries to accumulate as many chips as possible, but in an inevitable situation in the tournament when you’re forced to make a decision for all your chips in a cooler situation (e.g. nut flush versus a possible full house), players ignore the goal of “staying alive” when making that decision.
How does staying alive factor into a poker decision? Simple. Imagine that you’re playing a tournament with actual money. Blinds increases periodically, and you don’t stop playing till the last man standing. You’re given a decision to go all in pre-flop when you’re holding Aces, but you’d be playing for all the money you have left in the world, with no chance of earning more. This would mean that if you lost (which you will, at least 20% of the time!), you will be relegated to permanent bankruptcy. Would you still take the risk with Aces?
I was playing a hand in an online tournament just yesterday. I was the shortest stack, with 13 players left in the game. Blinds were $25/$50, and my stack size was $900, less than 20 times the big blind. I got AQs on hi-jack, and made a standard raise of 3xBB. Action folds over to the player on the Big Blind who was playing a loose aggressive style, and was at that time, holding the largest stack with about $4000 in chips. He thought for a while, then shoved me all-in. Based on his play, the chances of him holding a better hand than mine was slim, and I made the call. Sure enough, he was holding JTo, and my odds to win was almost 65%. The flop comes J66, and he flops top pair, but I flopped a flush draw, with two over cards. Even with him holding top pair, I was still the favorite to win with a 52% chance. His Jacks held up to take down the pot, eliminating me in the process.
I knew I had the better hand, based on all the information available, but if I had thought about it in terms of actual cash, and going bankrupt, I would never have made that call. With 15 big blinds remaining, and 6 players on the table, I could still see about 60 hands before I’m forced to play for all my (remaining) “money”. A lot can happen in 60 hands.
In reverse, the “staying alive” factor can also be used to advance yourself in the tournament. Big blind played an aggressive strategy, forcing me to make a decision for all my chips while only risking a 25% of his stack. He had 35% to win $900 if I called, and 100% to win $225 if I folded. He only had to risk 25% of his stack. This was an excellent play, and plays like this win tournaments. He ended up placing 2nd.
There are a lot of ways to view this, and the sheer number of possibilities that could happen is what makes poker an extremely challenging game. Sure, it was technically a suck-out by the JTo, but if you think about it in relative terms (since everything is relative), Big Blind was playing at a 25% risk, while I was playing at a 100% risk. The odds to win the hand was in my favor, but the odds to win the tournament was in his favor!
Which would you rather win? Till next time, make your decisions like all your money depends on it!
Post a Comment