Tourney Rebuys without encouraging "reckless play"? (1 Viewer)

[Jimulacrum]

Would it be the same as cash (over the long run..... yada, yada) if you played enough tournaments perfectly would you eventually be a big winner? Just wondering, math is math, it’s got to work the same in both scenarios.

The main difference is that tournaments tend to produce more inconsistent results, assuming you're a winning player overall. Winning cash players will tend to have many winning sessions punctuated by occasional losing sessions (subject to variability based on the game and structure). But winning MTT players tend to have longer streaks of losing sessions punctuated by large wins. The larger the fields, the longer those losing streaks are likely to be.

 

[ekricket]

The main difference is that tournaments tend to produce more inconsistent results, assuming you're a winning player overall. Winning cash players will tend to have many winning sessions punctuated by occasional losing sessions (subject to variability based on the game and structure). But winning MTT players tend to have longer streaks of losing sessions punctuated by large wins. The larger the fields, the longer those losing streaks are likely to be.

Any statistical or other maths to support this? Just curious if this has been documented in some books or studied by someone. Not saying your not an expert in the field, but words like “tend to” and “likely” aren’t too scientific. Neither is saying if you are a winner overall you have inconsistent results, it’s like saying if a driver doesn’t win every nascar race but his team is up money overall he had inconsistent results. Results - what are you measuring? Money? Finishes? Enjoyment? Length of time playing? Respect? Your arguments “tend to” be too vague and subjective, and are “likely” to be perceived as opinions. Not trying to be an ass but seriously would like to see some data to support that tournaments are more of a losing proposition long term than cash play is.

 

[upNdown]

Any statistical or other maths to support this? Just curious if this has been documented in some books or studied by someone. Not saying your not an expert in the field, but words like “tend to” and “likely” aren’t too scientific. Neither is saying if you are a winner overall you have inconsistent results, it’s like saying if a driver doesn’t win every nascar race but his team is up money overall he had inconsistent results. Results - what are you measuring? Money? Finishes? Enjoyment? Length of time playing? Respect? Your arguments “tend to” be too vague and subjective, and are “likely” to be perceived as opinions. Not trying to be an ass but seriously would like to see some data to support that tournaments are more of a losing proposition long term than cash play is.

bah
what he said is totally true. you can try to dissect it if you want, but its true
(and tournaments arent more of a losing proposition long term, there are just a lot more losses that separate the occasional big payoffs)

 

[CrazyEddie]

Has anyone ever tried a tournament scheme like this:

First X hours are the "grab as many chips as you can" period. Last Y hours are the "hang on as long as you can" period.

During the first X hours, every player gets an additional new stack of chips every Z minutes, for free. Rebuys are neither required nor allowed. During the last Y hours there are no rebuys, reloads, or second chances - when you're out, you're out.

With this scheme:

• Nobody has their evening ruined because they busted out in ten minutes; everyone is guaranteed X hours of poker
• Busting out is inconvenient and annoying - you have to sit out for up to Z minutes until the new chips are handed out - so people will be cautious with their stacks instead of rushing into coin flips the first chance they get
• Busting out is not ruinous - you only have to sit out for up to Z minutes - so people won't be afraid to get it all in when the situation calls for it, rather than sitting like a nit on their only tournament life hoping they don't get blinded out
• Having a big bankroll doesn't give you any advantage - the stock clerk and the stock broker have the same amount of money on the line and the same chances to win relative to their skill
• Losing players are still losers - someone who donks off their stack once every Z minutes will go into phase two very short stacked, with the winning players having gotten just as many "reloads" as the losers but having gotten all the losers' chips as well

Adjust X, Y, and Z to suit your tastes. Adjust the blinds schedule accordingly, taking into account the additional chips that will be injected during phase one. Time the blinds so that players will start dropping like flies once phase two hits, so that the cash game can get started in short order with a decent number of players.

This is basically the same as the "everyone gets three free reloads" scheme suggested by others above, except instead of giving the players discretion as to when to use their reloads, you force them to space them out over the entire first phase. The forced timeouts create the dual incentives for being cautious but not too cautious.

I'd be curious to see what happens if anyone tries this.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Any statistical or other maths to support this? Just curious if this has been documented in some books or studied by someone. Not saying your not an expert in the field, but words like “tend to” and “likely” aren’t too scientific. Neither is saying if you are a winner overall you have inconsistent results, it’s like saying if a driver doesn’t win every nascar race but his team is up money overall he had inconsistent results. Results - what are you measuring? Money? Finishes? Enjoyment? Length of time playing? Respect? Your arguments “tend to” be too vague and subjective, and are “likely” to be perceived as opinions. Not trying to be an ass but seriously would like to see some data to support that tournaments are more of a losing proposition long term than cash play is.

bah
what he said is totally true. you can try to dissect it if you want, but its true
(and tournaments arent more of a losing proposition long term, there are just a lot more losses that separate the occasional big payoffs)

^ Yup.

I never said tournaments were more of a losing proposition. They just have less consistent results (and to be clear, by "results," I mean monetary gain or loss relative to the cost of entry and time spent playing). I wish I could prove this to you mathematically, but it's something you'd "prove" inductively via long-term data collection. It also just makes sense to me on its face, but that isn't of much value to you.

I'm speaking both from looking at my own modest data and reading the thoughts of experts on the subject. Tournaments produce more variable results than cash games, all else being equal, just because of how they're structured. I believe I read about this primarily in Poker Essays or maybe DUCY?, but it's been a while.

As to my choice of words, we're talking about trends in highly variable data, not fixed things where I can speak with certainty. If I were to talk about it with terms like "will" instead of "tend to," I'd be lying. We can only really discuss this question in terms of likelihood. Every step along the way is a chance event.

 

[BearMetal]

I kind of feel like understanding that there could be reckless play is all part of knowing how to play in a tournament. Knowing that your opponent either does or does not have a rebuy affects how you play them.

With that said I've certainly seen in my two tournaments that we play weekly that the tournament with the higher buy-in and only one rebuy does not get anywhere near as reckless as the tournament with a lower entry and two rebuys.

 

[Mojo1312]

Any statistical or other maths to support this? Just curious if this has been documented in some books or studied by someone. Not saying your not an expert in the field, but words like “tend to” and “likely” aren’t too scientific. Neither is saying if you are a winner overall you have inconsistent results, it’s like saying if a driver doesn’t win every nascar race but his team is up money overall he had inconsistent results. Results - what are you measuring? Money? Finishes? Enjoyment? Length of time playing? Respect? Your arguments “tend to” be too vague and subjective, and are “likely” to be perceived as opinions. Not trying to be an ass but seriously would like to see some data to support that tournaments are more of a losing proposition long term than cash play is.

Jim quantified his posts to MTT's. What separates cash from tournaments besides the fixed blinds is every hand is its own game. You can't approach a tournament with the same mind set.

But winning MTT players tend to have longer streaks of losing sessions punctuated by large wins. The larger the fields, the longer those losing streaks are likely to be.

In general, but in the end, it is the quality of players that matters. It is easier for a skilled player to finish in the money in a 40+ player tournament largely populated with recreational players than it is for him to do the same against 19 other skilled tournament players.

 

[JustinInMN]

IMHO, tournaments are horrible poker

I love this sentence.

It's a race towards short-stacked and then extremely short-stacked poker, where you end up having a binary switch: Fold pre or all-in pre.

A good explanation.

I dunno. I've been rufflin' feathers today...

I strongly agree with your preference for cash poker. I'll play tournaments from time to time, but cash is a far superior form of the game IMO.

Agreed and to me cash is more interesting because there are many style differences and strategies that can be profitable.

Tournaments only reward survival, meaning passivity. Before heads up play, avoiding action is too often the best strategy.

Cash play can award different strategies.

 

[Josh Kifer]

I love this sentence.



A good explanation.





Agreed and to me cash is more interesting because there are many style differences and strategies that can be profitable.

Tournaments only reward survival, meaning passivity. Before heads up play, avoiding action is too often the best strategy.

Cash play can award different strategies.

Wut did I do?

 

[Mojo1312]

Although going home with extra jingle in your pocket feels good after an evening's cash game, taking down a tournament, especially an MTT, is more gratifying.

 

[Mojo1312]

https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/my-journey-as-a-professional-poker-player.58520/post-1273403 as a case in point.

Skill or luck?

 

[Jimulacrum]

Although going home with extra jingle in your pocket feels good after an evening's cash game, taking down a tournament, especially an MTT, is more gratifying.

True.

When I win a cash game, I leave feeling like I've simply won money from people.

When I win a tournament, I leave feeling like I've defeated everyone.

 

[Saoliver]

https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/my-journey-as-a-professional-poker-player.58520/post-1273403 as a case in point.

Skill or luck?

Well...mostly skill, with some luck along the way.

When I had A2 in the SB facing a shorties button shove and binked a 2 on the flop to bust his AK and bubble him

 

[Mojo1312]

Well...mostly skill, with some luck along the way.

Luck also happens in cash games.

 

[BonScot]

I’ve been running my game for 14 years and we eventually settled on this masterpiece.

2 rebuys allowed in the first 2 hours (6 levels).
1 add on allowed after level 6.

Rebuys and add ons are the same amount as starting stack.

My game is more about friends having a laugh and the two rebuy / one add on structure means that everyone gets around 3 hours of play before they start busting out.

We then play a cash game when the tourney finishes.

As for tourneys being luck... this familiar sight happens far too often for it to be just dumb luck

 

[T_Chan]

Discouraging loose play is exactly why I host freeze outs. Yes it sucks when you're looking forward to playing poker, get there and get stacked in the first 10 minutes. If you do that enough times, hopefully you'll learn not to get it all in without a solid hand when you're 180-200BB's deep. Just because you have AA or TPTK doesn't mean go all in in the first couple of levels. If you do, and that's your style, then that's the risk you take.

That being said... I've played in games where rebuys are limited for the first few levels, and 1 per person. I don't think this really deters loose play though since anyone who gets busted would tighten up AFTER rebuying, but would feel more bulletproof knowing they have a rebuy in their back pocket.

I've also played and hosted where you get a half stack when you rebuy, or you get a full stack but rebuys cost double. This usually deters loose play, but if you do get bounced with trip K's into trip A's or something early on, you can get back in, but at a disadvantage.

I also play in a game where the house allows 1 rebuy, total. Not 1 per person, just 1 so once someone rebuys, there's no more.

Pick your poison...

P.S. I'm not against rebuys, I host a few games a year where players get a free rebuy (or 2) which just changes the dynamic of the game and can be very entertaining watching normally tight players getting loosey goosey.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Are we really having this discussion again? Luck vs skill? Didn't that get settled like...during the boom or something? Or even last week when I in another thread claimed that winning a tournament (note: singular form) takes luck, and some people thought I meant that skill isn't involved?

I think we're just misunderstanding each other. I think everyone agrees that there's both skill and luck, right?? So are we gonna argue exactly how much of each decides a single tourney? Let alone define it??

Look, everyone knows that skill prevails in the long run.

Read that ^ sentence again. In that very sentence you can deduce that the lesser the run, the lesser skill will prevail, i.e. luck can beat skill on single instances and one can even have lucky runs, but long lucky runs are unlikely. This is not ground breaking rocket surgery, this is simple math!!

I think we all have seen bad players win tournaments, even MTT, right!? Ergo: Short term luck!
I think we've all seen those same bad players lose that prize money on future tournaments without cashing. Ergo: Victims of long term skill (or plainly: they suck)

If you think winning a tournament is 100% skill, you just haven't played enough tournaments.
Search-replace /skill/luck/ and the sentence still holds true.

Did you ever get heads up with somebody in a tournament, and realize that they suck at heads up play?
It's a joy everybody should experience for themselves.

Yes, twice! I won 1 of them!

1st: Villain was too tight postflop, so I out played him. He was on the other hand veeery liberal on calling all in pre-flop, so I jammed (rather than trap) when I had strong hands.
Results:
I built up a lead, lost it on AK vs K-rag all-in preflop. Then I built up a lead, lost it on AQ vs A-rag all-in preflop. Then I built up a lead, lost it on AK vs QJ all-in preflop. Then I almost built up a lead, and lost a coinflip to get second place.

Was luck involved? You do the math ;-)

2nd: Played against a lady who was very tight, and I slowly but surely C-betted my way from a 1-3 dog to a 2-1 lead. Then we both got premiums, all in, coinflip, I won. Had I lost she would have had a 2-1 lead, with the blinds increasing.

Any luck? Sure! How about skill? Yeah that too.

 

[BonScot]

Are we really having this discussion again? Luck vs skill? Didn't that get settled like...during the boom or something? Or even last week when I in another thread claimed that winning a tournament (note: singular form) takes luck, and some people thought I meant that skill isn't involved?

I think we're just misunderstanding each other. I think everyone agrees that there's both skill and luck, right?? So are we gonna argue exactly how much of each decides a single tourney? Let alone define it??

Look, everyone knows that skill prevails in the long run.

Read that ^ sentence again. In that very sentence you can deduce that the lesser the run, the lesser skill will prevail, i.e. luck can beat skill on single instances and one can even have lucky runs, but long lucky runs are unlikely. This is not ground breaking rocket surgery, this is simple math!!

I think we all have seen bad players win tournaments, even MTT, right!? Ergo: Short term luck!
I think we've all seen those same bad players lose that prize money on future tournaments without cashing. Ergo: Victims of long term skill (or plainly: they suck)

If you think winning a tournament is 100% skill, you just haven't played enough tournaments.
Search-replace /skill/luck/ and the sentence still holds true.


Yes, twice! I won 1 of them!

1st: Villain was too tight postflop, so I out played him. He was on the other hand veeery liberal on calling all in pre-flop, so I jammed (rather than trap) when I had strong hands.
Results:
I built up a lead, lost it on AK vs K-rag all-in preflop. Then I built up a lead, lost it on AQ vs A-rag all-in preflop. Then I built up a lead, lost it on AK vs QJ all-in preflop. Then I almost built up a lead, and lost a coinflip to get second place.

Was luck involved? You do the math ;-)

2nd: Played against a lady who was very tight, and I slowly but surely C-betted my way from a 1-3 dog to a 2-1 lead. Then we both got premiums, all in, coinflip, I won. Had I lost she would have had a 2-1 lead, with the blinds increasing.

Any luck? Sure! How about skill? Yeah that too.

I think someone once said it’s 80% skill 20% luck.
On saying that the number of times I get pumped out on a 2 outer it’s probably more 20/80

 

[upNdown]

Tournaments only reward survival, meaning passivity.

seriously?

 

[detroitdad]

but steer people away from the slightly more reckless play rebuys "should" encourage?

What is wrong with reckless play? The other players should be adjusting to it

 

[grebe]

I love this sentence.



A good explanation.





Agreed and to me cash is more interesting because there are many style differences and strategies that can be profitable.

Tournaments only reward survival, meaning passivity. Before heads up play, avoiding action is too often the best strategy.

Cash play can award different strategies.

This is just not true. Tournaments reward those that can adjust their play the best based on the added element of increasing blinds and payouts.

Those that get passive get exploited. Those that exploit well have better chances of winning.

If ya'll want to hate on tournaments, that's cool...I get it. I personally like cash games better as well. But calling them all luck, and anybody saying passivity is a winning strategy, it's just false.

 

[ekricket]

Are we really having this discussion again? Luck vs skill? Didn't that get settled like...during the boom or something? Or even last week when I in another thread claimed that winning a tournament (note: singular form) takes luck, and some people thought I meant that skill isn't involved?

I think we're just misunderstanding each other. I think everyone agrees that there's both skill and luck, right?? So are we gonna argue exactly how much of each decides a single tourney? Let alone define it??

Look, everyone knows that skill prevails in the long run.

Read that ^ sentence again. In that very sentence you can deduce that the lesser the run, the lesser skill will prevail, i.e. luck can beat skill on single instances and one can even have lucky runs, but long lucky runs are unlikely. This is not ground breaking rocket surgery, this is simple math!!

I think we all have seen bad players win tournaments, even MTT, right!? Ergo: Short term luck!
I think we've all seen those same bad players lose that prize money on future tournaments without cashing. Ergo: Victims of long term skill (or plainly: they suck)

If you think winning a tournament is 100% skill, you just haven't played enough tournaments.
Search-replace /skill/luck/ and the sentence still holds true.


Yes, twice! I won 1 of them!

1st: Villain was too tight postflop, so I out played him. He was on the other hand veeery liberal on calling all in pre-flop, so I jammed (rather than trap) when I had strong hands.
Results:
I built up a lead, lost it on AK vs K-rag all-in preflop. Then I built up a lead, lost it on AQ vs A-rag all-in preflop. Then I built up a lead, lost it on AK vs QJ all-in preflop. Then I almost built up a lead, and lost a coinflip to get second place.

Was luck involved? You do the math ;-)

2nd: Played against a lady who was very tight, and I slowly but surely C-betted my way from a 1-3 dog to a 2-1 lead. Then we both got premiums, all in, coinflip, I won. Had I lost she would have had a 2-1 lead, with the blinds increasing.

Any luck? Sure! How about skill? Yeah that too.

I’m going to start playing this new cash game thing where luck has been eliminated. Do they still have a river? Because in tournaments everyone hates that part.
Is there an Abby game card for this game?

 

[grebe]

I’m going to start playing this new cash game thing where luck has been eliminated. Do they still have a river? Because in tournaments everyone hates that part.
Is there an Abby game card for this game?

Make Limit Great Again! I'd be in heaven.

 

[Mr Winberg]

I’m going to start playing this new cash game thing where luck has been eliminated. Do they still have a river? Because in tournaments everyone hates that part.
Is there an Abby game card for this game?

Eh...I might be misunderstanding you now, but I hope you didn't assume that I somehow claimed that there's no luck i cash games?

Same thing applies to cash games and any other games: The more you play, the less of a factor luck is.

 

[Mr Winberg]

I mean this is just common sense, or statistics, or whatever you want to call it! I can't believe there's a debate!
Any skill based game can be beaten by luck. The more you play, the more the skill has a chance to make a difference. Hell, Sweden beat Italy and took "their" place in the 2018 World Cup (soccer). Let's replay that 10 times and see how it goes...

 

[ekricket]

Eh...I might be misunderstanding you now, but I hope you didn't assume that I somehow claimed that there's no luck i cash games?

Same thing applies to cash games and any other games: The more you play, the less of a factor luck is.

So if you play enough tournaments, your skill will prevail? In any SINGLE tournament luck may rule, just like in any SINGLE cash session?

 

[Mr Winberg]

So if you play enough tournaments, your skill will prevail? In any SINGLE tournament luck may rule, just like in any SINGLE cash session?

Yes, that sounds fair to say. Isn't that what I wrote?

Look, everyone knows that skill prevails in the long run.

Read that ^ sentence again. In that very sentence you can deduce that the lesser the run, the lesser skill will prevail, i.e. luck can beat skill on single instances and one can even have lucky runs, but long lucky runs are unlikely. This is not ground breaking rocket surgery, this is simple math!!

I think we all have seen bad players win tournaments, even MTT, right!? Ergo: Short term luck!
I think we've all seen those same bad players lose that prize money on future tournaments without cashing. Ergo: Victims of long term skill (or plainly: they suck)

If you think winning a tournament is 100% skill, you just haven't played enough tournaments.
Search-replace /skill/luck/ and the sentence still holds true.

 

[JustinInMN]

Make Limit Great Again! I'd be in heaven.

Well I agree with you on this much .

So if you play enough tournaments, your skill will prevail? In any SINGLE tournament luck may rule, just like in any SINGLE cash session?

I don't want to be misunderstood on this. I am not saying tournaments are "all luck." There clearly is skill involved, and over the long haul the money will go to the best players. The big cashes for tournament grinders are just fewer and far between, so it's a longer haul to realize EV. (Which I think is the point those that say tournaments aren't a good judge of skill are trying to make, and I think that's true of a single event. Really I think one would have to compare players that play thousands of events to truly get an idea of who the best tournament players are.)

What I am saying is that there are fewer winning strategies in tournaments than there are in cash games, especially the portion in between the start of the money and playing heads up, there is no denying the point of this part of the tournament is to avoid action and ladder up. I mean we can have strategy threads about spots to throw QQ and KK away preflop even for fear of being against a single ace. In a tournament, those spots exist because of the ladder jumps. The only way to throw these hands away in a cash game is a pretty good soul read.

Also, there is also no denying once the freezeout portion starts, the risk of aggression is much higher than the reward compared to cash games. So when I say there is a removal of strategy to play tournaments and that tournaments reward the passive, this is what I mean.

It's a skill game, the best players still win. The best players are just all doing these same passive things by and large. Obviously, there is some mix it up, I am sure you can find plenty of examples of TV hands, but the rewards are not as big in tournaments and they are in cash, that's my point.

 

[Taghkanic]

bah
what he said is totally true. you can try to dissect it if you want, but its true
(and tournaments arent more of a losing proposition long term, there are just a lot more losses that separate the occasional big payoffs)

A while ago I saw a YouTube video analyzing Sean Deeb’s amazing tournament results from about a decade ago. I can’t seem to find it now. But the gist of it was that he really ramped up aggression in the middle stages of the tourney, either building a huge stack or busting. IIRC the lesson seemed to be that to go very deep consistently requires a big chip advantage heading into the late stages; he preferred to go bust earlier than to muddle along with a mediocre stack. (Also may have been a way to improve his hourly rate—big tourneys take a lot of time, obv, so busting was less of an issue?)

 

[ekricket]

Well I agree with you on this much .



I don't want to be misunderstood on this. I am not saying tournaments are "all luck." There clearly is skill involved, and over the long haul the money will go to the best players. The big cashes for tournament grinders are just fewer and far between, so it's a longer haul to realize EV. (Which I think is the point those that say tournaments aren't a good judge of skill are trying to make, and I think that's true of a single event. Really I think one would have to compare players that play thousands of events to truly get an idea of who the best tournament players are.)

What I am saying is that there are fewer winning strategies in tournaments than there are in cash games, especially the portion in between the start of the money and playing heads up, there is no denying the point of this part of the tournament is to avoid action and ladder up. I mean we can have strategy threads about spots to throw QQ and KK away preflop even for fear of being against a single ace. In a tournament, those spots exist because of the ladder jumps. The only way to throw these hands away in a cash game is a pretty good soul read.

Also, there is also no denying once the freezeout portion starts, the risk of aggression is much higher than the reward compared to cash games. So when I say there is a removal of strategy to play tournaments and that tournaments reward the passive, this is what I mean.

It's a skill game, the best players still win. The best players are just all doing these same passive things by and large. Obviously, there is some mix it up, I am sure you can find plenty of examples of TV hands, but the rewards are not as big in tournaments and they are in cash, that's my point.

I think the same players that suck at tourneys suck at cash game. There’s no doubt there’s more money in cash, because I’ve never talked to a losing cash player. They are “even for the year” or “slightly up” or “on a small losing streak but up overall” so it seems to me the casinos are giving free money to cash players because no cash player is losing it.

“everybody knows” is always a catch all argument. Everybody knows you can’t beat the rake in the long term so I question the viability of cash play. There has to be tons of losers for a few to make profit. Kinda sounds like a tourney,