PTF: any changes?

[Dogs]

Hi Arnold,

I'm a little late to the party, and have only just read The Poker Tournament Formula. It's been a couple of years since you wrote it, so I'd like to start with the obvious question: are there any sections that you would alter due to changes in poker in that time?

Thanks in advance: hopefully there will be some good discussions this month.

[Arnold_Snyder]

[Arnold_Snyder]

Hey, Dogs, I have been trying to answer your question about the Wolf Pack Instinct unsuccessfully since Tuesday! Twice I replied, and twice my response has not shown up! I kept thinking there must be some delay or something, but whatever...since I can see that my other post under this thread has appeared with no problem, I'll respond to your Wolf Pack post here.

I did read the threads you posted. Very interesting discussions. Here are my comments...

I do think that chapter in my book should have been expanded to include a lot of specifics. For example:

1. If a player is short-stacked at all and has premium or even semi-premium starting cards (say a medium pair or just two high cards, maybe even a bad ace depending on how short-stacked he is), then I think it would be making a big mistake for him to not push over the top of a desperate all-in player to try and isolate him. When you are short-stacked, you must do what you must do to pick up chips and since I specified in the Wolf Pack chapter that the player pushing all-in was desperately short-stacked, such a player may very well be pushing in on marginal cards. Looks like an opportunity for a short stack to pick up some much needed chips.

2. My major concern is with a player who has a hand like AK or AQ going over the top of the short stack to keep other potential callers out of the pot, and it's even worse if other callers have already entered the pot and the guy with AK pushed them all out. I once called a desperate all-in with QJs along with three other callers, then a big stack went all-in over the top and pushed everyone else out of the pot except for the desperate player who was already all-in. The all-in player turned over his cards to reveal pocket 66 and big slick never improved! The desperate player literally quintupled up on that hand because of all the prior calls to his all-in! Two of the players who were pushed out of the pot said they had mucked cards higher than six that would have paired on the board. What made this particularly irksome was that the desperate player who quintupled up was a very aggressive and skillful player who everyone at that table would have loved to have seen gone. Big slick is nothing but two high cards if it doesn't improve. A pair of deuces beats it and many desperate all-ins are made by small and medium pairs. Which leads us to...

3. I think it's way more important to gang up on a skillful all-in player than it is on a mediocre player. I don't really care if a mediocre player doubles up or triples up as he will likely redistribute his chips to the better players anyway.

4. I can understand a player pushing over the top with AA or KK, maybe QQ, but I don't think it's the smartest move with pairs smaller than these. If you go over the top with your JJ, you might find the desperate player just has a bad ace. An ace comes down and he doubles up or triples up or whatever, depending on if you pushed other callers out of the pot when you pushed in. You may have pushed out a player who had an ace with a better kicker. Again, I think this is more of a mistake if there are already other callers in the pot before you move in, and more of a mistake if the desperate player is a skillful player who can really use chips when he has them.

If I ever do a second edition of PTF, I'll be sure to expand on that chapter with these ideas. It may be too late to incorporate any of these ideas into PTF2 which is already written and comes out in June. But the threads on this topic here really got me thinking about how I could have expanded my thoughts on this. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Now, I hope when I hit the submit button, this doesn't disappear into cyber space.

Cool site you have here, Matt!

[Dogs]

Hi Arnold,

Thanks for both responses, particularly as you had to write the second one three times!

I find your Wolf Pack Instinct elaboration interesting. My biggest problem with that chapter was that it seems to place elimination of an opponent ahead of chip accumulation, which goes against the grain of the rest of the book (unless I've just misunderstood you completely of course, in which case you should probably send me to re-read!). Previously the only reason I would consider doing this was either at a final table if it was +EV to remove a player, or during a satellite. When the short stack is a superior player also makes sense, so I'll keep that in mind.

I'm still not quite with you on the way to play a hand like AK, and have been trying to work out why. In your example 2) above, I would probably have played the AK the same way as the big stack in the hand you describe. My thought process would be this: shortie needs to make a move, and will have a large range when first in - perhaps any pair, any A, any broadway depending on our read. Three people have then flat called, which doesn't show any strength on their part. That means there are a decent number of chips in the pot: I think I'm clearly ahead of shortie's range, and so want to isolate to give me a greater chance of winning those chips rather than facing a fight in 5-way action. If I were in an earlier position I would also want to raise, for fear of someone else coming over the top of a flat call. Reading your response, are you saying that shortie is far more likely to have a pair rather than a hand AK will dominate? And if so, is that the reason for this play?

My feeling at the moment is that whilst I can see a few occasions where a multi-way pot would be beneficial, I would have thought that it was the exception rather than the rule.