The State of the Art

It is expensive when talking about computers. It is illusive when we’re talking about our game. A recent blog detailed a small tournament I played at TonyG with a huge overlay making it attractive. I thought I was State of the Art for that one. So, I went back to see just how big a fluke it was.

Again, an old blog that is just now seeing the light of day. You’ll be happy to know this ends the antiquities.

I never really got to find out. I did manage to double up and think I might have some success. The table was populated with pure gamblers. They were there to have their fun and bluffing is certainly one source of fun for all of us. Of course bluffing is an art along with all the other artful aspects of poker.

An example would be a hand with the blinds still quite low – Level 2 or 3 … don’t quite remember. So we had maybe T50 in the pot when an early position made a huge bet. It was raised and then re-raised all-in and all three players committed. The early better exposed 86o, the first raiser showed QQ, the third raiser to the all-in showed KxS. QQ actually won with a Q-high straight; but that is really immaterial. Poker was turned into rebuy craps.

I’ve seen this occur on a number of sites. It happens because occasionally anyone will see they can make the money or even win lightly populated tournaments. It is one place in the world of poker they feel they can compete.

Those who play bigger tournaments (bigger in all respects) might be amazed that people would play this way. They talk -EV and donkeyness and whatever. They see the same people play that way in even big guarantees and can’t figure it out there either. You’ll often see one of those ‘How in the gods name could…’ and never see that the approach of many is to ignore the odds and advisability and use poker for their gratification. His $300-30 buy-in might be as unimportant as the 5-.50 in the above tournament.

Little tournaments like these aren’t really horrid practice. At least as long as you don’t let it make you a poorer player in the process. I’ve seen $100 SnG’s play in a similar manner. If you play any form of poker you will get those tables from hell. They are playable. More prone to the suckout but still playable with a varied approach from one’s norm. And, that should be in our repertoire, too. All games are beatable, if you accept the variance they add.

In ring you can get the same situation. Of course in ring you can stand up at any time. And, that’s often your best option. The game above is a high variance situation. But the loss is the original buy-in. At ring the variance translates to your wallet.

I’m not knocking such play. From what I see of the play, it is alive and well at times on Live at The Bike. I recall chatting with JB who got stationed in California and got his normal game handed to him against such players. He had to go back to the drawing board and even ran simulations to see what worked. He came up with a modified game that was more successful. In a nutshell, you play more speculative hands from position.

No matter what the site, tables vary widely. And, you can see the tenor change on many without a change in players. So, we need to match up or walk at ring. Or make such changes or accept failure at tournament. If it takes over your home game, you’d better figure out what you need to do there too.

Will I intentionally play in such an atmosphere? Yes, but only on a selective basis. And with the thought in mind of why I am doing so. The overlay still makes it a better practice than most. I’m in it for the experience and must try to play a game that optimizes for the situation. Any other approach is detrimental. Poker doesn’t seek to accommodate the best players or provide the best situations at our choosing. And, the constant goal is still to be a better rounded player capable of adopting to the situation.

P.S. I’ve also played on the TonyG – home of the rebuy — site in very tight games that could be taken advantage of in the other direction. Generalities are always disprovable.

ADDENDUM:

I see Iggy’s latest has a number of stupid ways of dieing. We are an inventive group. There’s a site that discusses these kinds of deaths – improvements to the human gene pool. Stop by the Darwin Awards site to see just how inventive we are.

This entry was posted on Friday, February 16th, 2007 at 7:48 am and is filed under Journal, Poker Philosophy, Poker Thoughts. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.