Tourney Should pot odds be very different in tournaments? (2 Viewers)

[ChaosRock]

This discussion makes me laugh at those who say "Holdem has been solved".

Michael Bowling, Neil Burch, Michael Johanson, and Oskari Tammelin (Science magazine, 1/9/15

C'mon, MJ!!! LOL!!!

I think you're being a little disingenuous here... What has been know for a few years, and what the article presents, is that HEADS-UP "LIMIT" HOLDEM was solved... That is such a minuscule part of the Holdem game it's not even a bleep on the radar, if a part at all!

Even when people talk about GTO, they always mention that is the best "attempt" at a non-exploitable strategy (not necessarily most profitable).

We are probably not gonna see, or there's only a slim chance of, Holdem being solved in our life time, mainly because of computing power. Having said that, frameworks have been and will continue to be develop to get closer and closer to solving the game (we are very far from it btw). We are at a time today, with GTO and other poker theories, in which players of years past would have absolutely no chance against current players.

 

[power13]

Yep, I get it. But here's my point: based on ICM, which gives different values to chips as opposed to face value, based on number of players, different stacks, each player in the hand stacks, payout structure, etc, etc. That value changes for each player, meaning the chips are worth differently for every player. So if you take Player A vs Player B and compared it to Player A vs Player C, Player B and Player C would have to have the same EV since the sum of EVs has to be 1. But based on the ICM, they are not. Which implies that Player A EV changes based on who he is playing against since the EV should add up to 1. The point: if you lower Player A EV you have to increase Player B and Player C's EV.

Also important to note that under ICM, everyone's EV is impacted by the outcome of the hand, not just the players in the hand. This is why the winner's EV will go up by less than the loser's EV goes down but total EV still adds to one: everyone else's EV not in the hand also goes up. For a clear example, if two big stacks end up duking it out, if they both have 30% chance of winning before the hand and one stacks the other, the loser's EV is now zero but the winner's isn't 60%, but everyone else at the table has now laddered up and has an increased chance of being the winner because there are fewer players left.

 

[power13]

In a 10-player winner-take-all tournament, your initial buy-in of $100 (say for T100, for simplicity sakes) is actually worth $100 -- you have a one-in-ten chance of cashing, which means 1/10 of $1000 (or $100). This changes if the top two spots are paid (say 80/20), because you can't win both top prizes -- you have a 1/10 chance of earning $200 ($20) and a 1/10 chance of earning $800 ($80), but not both combined. Your maximum return-on-investment chances are only 8:1 at best.

I don't think this is right. It's true you can only win one of the prizes, but at the beginning of the tournament you have all possible outcomes still in front of you. So you have a 10% chance of winning $800, 10% chance of winning $200, and 80% chance of winning zero, for an EV still of $100, same as the winner take all where you have a 10% chance of $1000 and 90% chance of zero.

It's definitely true that the chips you win aren't worth the same as the chips you have, and all the other conclusions being discussed, but I don't think this is the reason. It's kind of the same point in the initial post where it's defining your value only in terms of the potential first place prize, which again I think is incorrect. Otherwise a $100 STT entry tournament with 10 participants that paid $101 to for first and $99.89 for all 9 other players would be a terrible deal -- you only have a 10% chance of winning $101, but of course you're guaranteed to get almost all your buyin back so that counts for something!

 

[Poker Zombie]

C'mon, MJ!!! LOL!!!

I think you're being a little disingenuous here... What has been know for a few years, and what the article presents, is that HEADS-UP "LIMIT" HOLDEM was solved... That is such a minuscule part of the Holdem game it's not even a bleep on the radar, if a part at all!

Even when people talk about GTO, they always mention that is the best "attempt" at a non-exploitable strategy (not necessarily most profitable).

We are probably not gonna see, or there's only a slim chance of, Holdem being solved in our life time, mainly because of computing power. Having said that, frameworks have been and will continue to be develop to get closer and closer to solving the game (we are very far from it btw). We are at a time today, with GTO and other poker theories, in which players of years past would have absolutely no chance against current players.

My bad. For some reason I thought it was NL. I know the discussion I had with "the unnamed one" revolved around NL, as that was his rationale for not wanting to play any Holdem games at his meet-up.

I also disagree with the Limit being solved, but maybe that's because I'm such a bad player the computers (in the casinos) cannot beat me. We refer to them as our ATM machines.

 

[BGinGA]

I don't think this is right. It's true you can only win one of the prizes, but at the beginning of the tournament you have all possible outcomes still in front of you. So you have a 10% chance of winning $800, 10% chance of winning $200, and 80% chance of winning zero, for an EV still of $100, same as the winner take all where you have a 10% chance of $1000 and 90% chance of zero.

This is only true if one can win both first and second prizes. The math works out this way:

10% chance of winning $800 and winning $0 the other 90% of the time, ~or~ a 10% chance of winning $200 and winning $0 the other 90% of the time. It's not an 'and' (they don't get added together) because you can't do both -- you can only do one ~or~ the other. You are 10% to win a single prize, which in this example, is a maximum of $800, so the best you can expect is 8:1 on your investment.

The rake makes it worse.

 

[power13]

This is only true if one can win both first and second prizes. The math works out this way:

10% chance of winning $800 and winning $0 the other 90% of the time, ~or~ a 10% chance of winning $200 and winning $0 the other 90% of the time. It's not an 'and' (they don't get added together) because you can't do both -- you can only do one ~or~ the other. You are 10% to win a single prize, which in this example, is a maximum of $800, so the best you can expect is 8:1 on your investment.

The rake makes it worse.

I still don't think that's right. Under that logic you'd be indifferent to playing in a 100 buyin tournament that paid 800 for first (pocketing 200 in rake), and one that paid 800 for first and 200 for second (with no rake)? In both you have a 10% chance of winning 800 for first. But in the second tournament you also have a chance to win second in the event you do not win first. So I do believe they are additive.

 

[power13]

My bad. For some reason I thought it was NL. I know the discussion I had with "the unnamed one" revolved around NL, as that was his rationale for not wanting to play any Holdem games at his meet-up.

I also disagree with the Limit being solved, but maybe that's because I'm such a bad player the computers (in the casinos) cannot beat me. We refer to them as our ATM machines.

I do believe an AI program called Deepstack recently beat a bunch of human pros pretty soundly in heads up no limit. So not solved, and not full ring, but maybe our poker robot overlords are closer than we think.

 

[BGinGA]

I still don't think that's right. Under that logic you'd be indifferent to playing in a 100 buyin tournament that paid 800 for first (pocketing 200 in rake), and one that paid 800 for first and 200 for second (with no rake)? In both you have a 10% chance of winning 800 for first. But in the second tournament you also have a chance to win second in the event you do not win first. So I do believe they are additive.

They are absolutely not additive in their entirety, in the simplistic way you are thinking of just adding the two amounts together.

The actual formula for calculating the equity with two independent outcomes is:

0.5*(((0.1*800)+(0.9*0.1*200))+((0.9*0)+(0.1*0.1*200)))+0.5*(((0.1*200)+(0.9*0.1*800))+((0.9*0)+(0.1*0.1*800))) = 100

But regardless of accounting for the equity of the entire $100, your return is still limited to 8:1 at best in the given scenario.

 

[power13]

They are absolutely not additive in their entirety, in the simplistic way you are thinking of just adding the two amounts together.

The actual formula for calculating the equity with two independent outcomes is:

0.5*(((0.1*800)+(0.9*0.1*200))+((0.9*0)+(0.1*0.1*200)))+0.5*(((0.1*200)+(0.9*0.1*800))+((0.9*0)+(0.1*0.1*800))) = 100

But regardless of accounting for the equity of the entire $100, your return is still limited to 8:1 at best in the given scenario.

You are correct that the maximum you can win is 8x but from your formula it's clear you also have a chance to win the other amounts if you do not take first place -- all those plus signs in there are why I was saying they are additive and my simplistic statement that you also have a chance to win second place in the event you do not win first place.

If you want to get mathy, I think the best expression would be:

EV=Prob(First)*EV(First)+Prob(NotFirst)I*EV(NotFirst)
=0.1*800+0.9*EV(NotFirst)
=0.1*800+0.9*(Prob(Second)*EV(Second)+Prob(NotSecond)*EV(NotSecond))
=0.1*800+0.9*(.111*200+.888*0)
=0.1*800+.1*200+.8*0
=100

But however we get there, I think we are both agreeing that our EV on the tournament is the same as our buy-in, even though the maximum we can win is only 8x.

 

[Frogzilla]

Obviously the maximum roi is 1st place divided by buy in...why is this a topic.

Also important to note that under ICM, everyone's EV is impacted by the outcome of the hand, not just the players in the hand. This is why the winner's EV will go up by less than the loser's EV goes down but total EV still adds to one: everyone else's EV not in the hand also goes up. For a clear example, if two big stacks end up duking it out, if they both have 30% chance of winning before the hand and one stacks the other, the loser's EV is now zero but the winner's isn't 60%, but everyone else at the table has now laddered up and has an increased chance of being the winner because there are fewer players left.

For what it’s worth, your probability of winning the tourney is always your chips divided by total chips (then adjust for skill)..no ICM at all for probability of winning. From math point of view, doesn’t matter if it’s 99 stacks of 10000 or 1 stack of 990000. The ICM impact you reference is only driven by the increased profitability of the losses.

 

[power13]

Obviously the maximum roi is 1st place divided by buy in...why is this a topic.




For what it’s worth, your probability of winning the tourney is always your chips divided by total chips (then adjust for skill)..no ICM at all for probability of winning. From math point of view, doesn’t matter if it’s 99 stacks of 10000 or 1 stack of 990000. The ICM impact you reference is only driven by the increased profitability of the losses.

No I think ICM is based on the premise that your change in probability of winning the tournament is not linear with your changing chip count. If you have 5BB and triple up to 15BB your chances of winning the tournament or cashing at a higher position has increased much more than your chances have increased if you had 200BB and increased your stack to 210BB, even though in both cases your stack has increased by 10BB. Though obviously the 210BB stack has a much higher absolute chance of winning vs the 15BB stack of course. Your maximum ROI (which is capped by first place) and your equity in the overall tournament prize pool are different issues, maybe that's where the disconnect is?

 

[BGinGA]

however we get there, I think we are both agreeing that our EV on the tournament is the same as our buy-in, even though the maximum we can win is only 8x.

And I never said anything different.

For what it’s worth, your theoretical probability of winning the tourney is always your chips divided by total chips (then adjust for skill).

^^ FYP.

It's never been proven (or even close) that chip count percentage is directly related to winning chance percentage. Way too many variables (including, but not limited to, skill).

However, it's the best tool we have available atm.

 

[JustinInMN]

This is only true if one can win both first and second prizes. The math works out this way:

10% chance of winning $800 and winning $0 the other 90% of the time, ~or~ a 10% chance of winning $200 and winning $0 the other 90% of the time. It's not an 'and' (they don't get added together) because you can't do both -- you can only do one ~or~ the other. You are 10% to win a single prize, which in this example, is a maximum of $800, so the best you can expect is 8:1 on your investment.

The rake makes it worse.

You are correct that the maximum you can win is 8x but from your formula it's clear you also have a chance to win the other amounts if you do not take first place -- all those plus signs in there are why I was saying they are additive and my simplistic statement that you also have a chance to win second place in the event you do not win first place.

If you want to get mathy, I think the best expression would be:

EV=Prob(First)*EV(First)+Prob(NotFirst)I*EV(NotFirst)
=0.1*800+0.9*EV(NotFirst)
=0.1*800+0.9*(Prob(Second)*EV(Second)+Prob(NotSecond)*EV(NotSecond))
=0.1*800+0.9*(.111*200+.888*0)
=0.1*800+.1*200+.8*0
=100

But however we get there, I think we are both agreeing that our EV on the tournament is the same as our buy-in, even though the maximum we can win is only 8x.

I posted this earlier in the thread. @power13 's method of calculation is correct.

Here a bonus link on how to calculate ICM by hand.

http://www.pokerology.com/lessons/icm/

 

[Frogzilla]

No I think ICM is based on the premise that your change in probability of winning the tournament is not linear with your changing chip count.

It's never been proven (or even close) that chip count percentage is directly related to winning chance percentage. Way too many variables (including, but not limited to, skill).

However, it's the best tool we have available atm.

It’s literally the first assumption in the formula for ICM. First place equity is chip count percentage. Look up how ICM works. ICM isn’t perfect, but that part isn’t in dispute.

 

[BGinGA]

I know exactly how it works, and assumption is correct. It's never been proven.

 

[Frogzilla]

Of course it’s been proven. One ICM white paper here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.3100.pdf references the well solved problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_ruin of which this is a natural application.

 

[bivey]

T

Yet another way of thinking about it is this: The total EV of a certain heads-up hand should always equal 1. One cannot lower the EV of one hand without raising the EV of the other. It is impossible to adjust only one side of the equation. The total EV cannot be different than 1. Yes, sometimes people would give up EV because of a pay jump or a bubble but other players are picking that EV up by shoving wider or raising thinner. The sum has to be 1.

That sum is for that hand ONLY. The point is that at the final table of WSOP this year, there were $330 million CHIPS in place representing only ~$70 million actually paid out.

So heads up for the bracelet I could be al in with 50% equity with 170M chips in the middle and have an EV (in terms of cash) of only $2M real dollars (difference between 1st and 2nd X 50%).

Dan Harrington talks about the eroding “value” of your stack as tournaments move on in one of his two tourney books.

Basically, the mantra is stay alive.

 

[ChaosRock]

T


That sum is for that hand ONLY. The point is that at the final table of WSOP this year, there were $330 million CHIPS in place representing only ~$70 million actually paid out.

So heads up for the bracelet I could be al in with 50% equity with 170M chips in the middle and have an EV (in terms of cash) of only $2M real dollars (difference between 1st and 2nd X 50%).

Dan Harrington talks about the eroding “value” of your stack as tournaments move on in one of his two tourney books.

Basically, the mantra is stay alive.

That's why I stated some of those things change with ICM and big pay jumps and money bubbles. But even on that example, it is impossible for both players playing heads-up to have their EV lowered at the same time. And that's exactly what happens in the situations described above. One player wants to survive the bubble (or pay jump), so raising his EV threshold but at the same time, bigger stacks abuse those players but lowering their EV threshold and shoving or raising light. At the end, total EV (ethereal EV since the cards EV is always constant no matter the situation) must be the same by definition.

And I disagree with that mantra. Or better said, yeah, of course, if one wants to win a tournament one must survive, that's a given. What I disagree with is giving away too much EV for the sake of survival. That would translate into poor overall results compared to players who try to gain as much EV as possible (given the circumstance).

 

[ChaosRock]

And here is one quick and simple example @bivey :

Let's say you survived the tourney and are heads-up now. Both players have the exact same amount of chips. and are deep to the point the blinds/antes won't affect your odds to call much. Villain shoves his stack. You look at . But Villain shows you his and say call it if you want! (I know, preposterous)

Should you call?

Now let's extrapolate: let's say it is the first hand of the tourney. All players have the exact same skill level so there's no inherent edge anywhere.

Should you call?

 

[JustinInMN]

And I disagree with that mantra. Or better said, yeah, of course, if one wants to win a tournament one must survive, that's a given. What I disagree with is giving away too much EV for the sake of survival. That would translate into poor overall results compared to players who try to gain as much EV as possible (given the circumstance).

Tournaments do reward survival. I think everyone agrees that is why the strategy for tournaments is always tighter in some degree than in cash games.

But Chaos is asking the right question, at what point are you taking this idea too far and making serious EV sacrifices in the name of survival?

It's okay to try and avoid other big stacks, avoid coin flips and those things you just probably wouldn't do in a cash game. The ICM model helps identify where those adjustments make sense.

But when I see strategies that are so absurdly averse to risk you won't accumulate enough chips to avoid the spots where you are down to 5BB and have to pick a hand with no fold equity anyway.

And here is one quick and simple example @bivey :

Let's say you survived the tourney and are heads-up now. Both players have the exact same amount of chips. and are deep to the point the blinds/antes won't affect your odds to call much. Villain shoves his stack. You look at . But Villain shows you his and say call it if you want! (I know, preposterous)

Should you call?

Now let's extrapolate: let's say it is the first hand of the tourney. All players have the exact same skill level so there's no inherent edge anywhere.

Should you call?

First one is tougher for me, because you didn't mention skill level. If I figure I'm a 3:2 favorite over this guy I can pass if he shows me this. (Especially if I don't have to show the laydown, I certainly don't want to invite the bluffs that come with showing I can lay queens down, heads up.) I'm going to call or for sure.

Second one is a no brainer becuase you do specifically mention skill. I cannot turn down a 57% spot if I don't have an advantage on the other players.

 

[ChaosRock]

Tournaments do reward survival. I think everyone agrees that is why the strategy for tournaments is always tighter in some degree than in cash games.

But Chaos is asking the right question, at what point are you taking this idea too far and making serious EV sacrifices in the name of survival?

It's okay to try and avoid other big stacks, avoid coin flips and those things you just probably wouldn't do in a cash game. The ICM model helps identify where those adjustments make sense.

But when I see strategies that are so absurdly averse to risk you won't accumulate enough chips to avoid the spots where you are down to 5BB and have to pick a hand with no fold equity anyway.



First one is tougher for me, because you didn't mention skill level. If I figure I'm a 3:2 favorite over this guy I can pass if he shows me this. (Especially if I don't have to show the laydown, I certainly don't want to invite the bluffs that come with showing I can lay queens down, heads up.) I'm going to call or for sure.

Second one is a no brainer becuase you do specifically mention skill. I cannot turn down a 57% spot if I don't have an advantage on the other players.

I'm not part of the the "everyone" who agrees with the tighter is always better for tournaments. It is a simple Game Theory exercise. If a good player realizes everyone is playing tighter, what happens? That player will play looser. It should even out at the end. I think the mistake people are making is taking only one tournament and looking at that as the whole universe. That's not how it works. It is an endless exercise.

And you're right, I mentioned threre are some spots that one should pass on some thin edge EVs for other types of gain, being an edge in playing skills, a pay jump when a short stack is playing, money bubble and so on. So yeah, there's absolutely custcunstances in which "some" EV should be exchanged by some other "value*".

And as you might expect, the answer to those two question is a resounding YES**! LOL!!!! And yep, it's a large edge although not quite a 57% farorite, more like 54%. but most people think in terms of those situations as a coin flip and just pass on them.


* And some of that value might not even $EV. It might just be "i don't want to go home just yet, I love hanging out with my friends"

** Same skills on the heads-up scenario as well.

 

[bivey]

And here is one quick and simple example @bivey :

Let's say you survived the tourney and are heads-up now. Both players have the exact same amount of chips. and are deep to the point the blinds/antes won't affect your odds to call much. Villain shoves his stack. You look at . But Villain shows you his and say call it if you want! (I know, preposterous)

Should you call?

Now let's extrapolate: let's say it is the first hand of the tourney. All players have the exact same skill level so there's no inherent edge anywhere.

Should you call?

Most important part of your question is “first hand” comment. The closer your are to the beginning of a tourney, the closer your stack represents actual cash. So EV of tourney value of chips is most like EV of actual number printed on them.

While I agree that no one has ever folded their way to a title, I do think great tournament players build chip in two ways that others don’t (on a spectrum)

1. Stealing chips. EV +1 all day long
2. Avoiding highly volatile flip situations. “Kill Phil” was written to combat pros using both 1 and 2 against the amateurs. Whole book!

I guess my point is that I see so many good cash game players play no differently in tournaments and it clearly is not the same. There IS different math involved (even if I can’t expalin it) and hitting the felt is different in the two game modes.

 

[bivey]

Oh, if it’s WSOP, I also think differently than a 1 hour sit and go. Human behavior is what makes this so fun. I could choose to wait in a longer event to find KK or AA to take against that AK. Just thoughts.

 

[Frogzilla]

@ChaosRock The second one might be a no right? ICM considerations that 2x stack isn’t worth twice a 1x stack

I just ran through a calculator where 10 people are playing a tourney that pay 50/30/20. A starting stack of 10k with 10 left was $100. The 20k with the 9 left became worth $184. 54%*$184+46%*$0=$98...we are losing EV making that call. It’s very close though

 

[ChaosRock]

Most important part of your question is “first hand” comment. The closer your are to the beginning of a tourney, the closer your stack represents actual cash. So EV of tourney value of chips is most like EV of actual number printed on them.

While I agree that no one has ever folded their way to a title, I do think great tournament players build chip in two ways that others don’t (on a spectrum)

1. Stealing chips. EV +1 all day long
2. Avoiding highly volatile flip situations. “Kill Phil” was written to combat pros using both 1 and 2 against the amateurs. Whole book!

I guess my point is that I see so many good cash game players play no differently in tournaments and it clearly is not the same. There IS different math involved (even if I can’t expalin it) and hitting the felt is different in the two game modes.

Not familiar with the "Kill Phil" book and when it was written. To me though, the second reason is the actually the opposite: they accumulate chips because they do take small edges when tighter players don't. Yeah, they are going to bust out more often but they will have larger stacks more often as well, and on average, larger stacks than the tighter player.

I agree, some cash players are not as good in tourneys. But not because they player looser than they should, but because they do not recognize the nuances of the tournament environment and when to change that approach during the circumstances I described.

If you asked all the top tournament players nowadays, all of them will tell you they play tournament in the exact same way they play cash, again, with the exception of some of those circumstances discussed.

Oh, if it’s WSOP, I also think differently than a 1 hour sit and go. Human behavior is what makes this so fun. I could choose to wait in a longer event to find KK or AA to take against that AK. Just thoughts.

Yep, I can see that... But that's not a discussion on what is the right play or the wrong play, that's a discussion of your utility curve. It does not change if the play is right or wrong from a math perspective.

You'd take a coin flip for a $1 with a 1% edge any time. Would you take a coin flip with a 1% edge for your whole net worth? I hope you wouldn't LOL!!! But that doesn't make that decision mathematically sound...

 

[ChaosRock]

@ChaosRock The second one might be a no right? ICM considerations that 2x stack isn’t worth twice a 1x stack

I just ran through a calculator where 10 people are playing a tourney that pay 50/30/20. A starting stack of 10k with 10 left was $100. The 20k with the 9 left became worth $184. 54%*$184+46%*$0=$98...we are losing EV making that call. It’s very close though

It doesn't matter. The change in ICM is the result of your action, so yeah, when you double up your chips won't be worth as much. But that's the same weather you ran QQ to AK or AA to AK, although the edge on those two occasions differ.

Regardless, in the endless game of poker, being tournament or cash, what matter is the amount of EV one accumulates. You give up EV, someone else will pick that up.

 

[BGinGA]

Of course it’s been proven. One ICM white paper here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.3100.pdf references the well solved problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_ruin of which this is a natural application.

Lol, you just don't get it. It's just a theory, and one with known issues.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Maybe I don't get it - math is not my strong suit.

But in my mind, the ICM calculations aren't effectively telling us...

• Advantage of having a bigger stack
• Advantage of a table image, which if we are conscious of, are able to change and use to our advantage
• Advantage of being closer to the money if opponent is KO'ed, or stripping opponent of a chip lead.

Poker is both math and psychology, plus a whole lot of positioning. Making all decisions on math alone discounts a portion of the game (which I'm sure the mathematicians would ask what percentage of the game, but that's not how it works).

 

[glom]

Maybe I don't get it - math is not my strong suit.

But in my mind, the ICM calculations aren't effectively telling us...

• Advantage of having a bigger stack
• Advantage of a table image, which if we are conscious of, are able to change and use to our advantage
• Advantage of being closer to the money if opponent is KO'ed, or stripping opponent of a chip lead.

Poker is both math and psychology, plus a whole lot of positioning. Making all decisions on math alone discounts a portion of the game (which I'm sure the mathematicians would ask what percentage of the game, but that's not how it works).

I’ll take Matt Berkey or Doug Polk’s math based approach over any “feel” playerat this point. Their approaches factor in psychological concepts like pain threshold and leverage in a mathematical way. These guys are clearly at the top of the game strategy-wise.

In fact I’m a big enough believer in their math I’m currently working through the solve for why webinar primer before going to the academy in October.

 

[ChaosRock]

I’ll take Matt Berkey or Doug Polk’s math based approach over any “feel” playerat this point. Their approaches factor in psychological concepts like pain threshold and leverage in a mathematical way. These guys are clearly at the top of the game strategy-wise.

+1 (y) :thumbsup:

And I guess I should also add to those two names you mentioned, pretty much all the top tourney players in the world today. Even some old timers are studying with solvers nowadays, Nagreanu being one example.

That's not to say "white magic" should be completely ignored. One can adjust the math strategy "slightly" based on some read. Now, weather GTO is the most profitable (although still being un-exploitable) playing a $30 tourney is a different issue. The better the players one plays against, the better the GTO strat becomes.