Thanks @love2eattacos, it is always great to hear your thoughts on any subject!
You make a good point and, in ring games, I do agree. I would be very sad if my suggestion was implemented regarding ring games but, having made the suggestion for tournaments, I thought it would be fair to include ring games because, I know, some players don’t realise the value of having gamblers in a ring game.
I quite obviously type faster than I think … I meant to be specific that I would only want this to apply to low stakes ring and below some buy-in, say 20k, for tournaments. Just some “barrier” to ensure that the low bankroll players have a decent chance to play against similarly bankrolled and, presumably, similarly (un)skilled players.
@1Warlock, many thanks for your words of wisdom!
I think that the variance would be significantly higher if some sort of limit was implemented but I could cope with that, emotionally, much better. Getting knocked out by some clown who truly doesn’t know that 93o is not a great hand to call a shove with is much more “acceptable” to me than getting taken out by someone who does know better and just doesn’t care.
In ring games, as tacos said, I would top up my coffee, top up my stack, make myself comfortable and start counting my profit! Tournaments, as we all understand, are a different animal though.
@AKFolds, thanks to you as well, you always add value to the discussion.
Yes, having under-funded players joining the table is always a cause for celebration! Once again, though, that is ring game specific.
You make a good point about being able to adapt to the style of play and I totally agree with you. The thing with tournaments, as you know, is that we don’t know if our opponent is a well funded maniac until immediately after they have cracked our AA with whatever rubbish happened to land in front of them.
Sure, we can make a note on that player but how does that help us in the future? Just because the player called with rubbish on this one occasion doesn’t mean that is a pattern. And, even if it was a pattern, do I want to risk my tournament life, a significant percentage of my bankroll, by opening up my range against this player? Do I want to miss out on value by playing stupid tight just because I know that player MIGHT call with rubbish?
What do I when it limps to me, on the button, and I’m holding Q6s, for example? I’m pretty happy to raise that most of the time but I know that old mate is going to re-raise a significant portion of the time and Q6s, in my mind, isn’t strong enough to 4-bet or call his 3-bet.
His 3-bet range is, quite likely, 60% or more of possible hands. I’m not a long way behind but he does have a 10% equity advantage. In a ring game, it’s entirely possible that I would, sometimes, 4-bet or shove over the top of him simply because I can reload and take him out with my KK at some stage. I just can’t do that in a tournament where the buy-in does have a real “value” to me.
I would love to get into this discussion and I think that @1Warlock has a great suggestion regarding reviving or starting an MTT strategy thread. I think my question, here, is a bit too far off topic for this thread.
Alan25main, thanks for your thoughts!
With a good sized field and with his skill advantage, Lund would be stupid not to play “small” stakes if there is nothing else happening! It is, as he told you, an opportunity to get outside of the “normal” range of players he meets which will surely help his game. Placing or winning certainly gives him more than enough to pay for his room and meals as well
The key, here, is, if there is nothing else happening. If there’s an equal time commitment required, I strongly suspect that we’d see Lund playing a $10k tournament in preference to $25!
Hey there SunPowerGuru, thanks for your comments!
I forgot to mention freerolls but, now that you have reminded me, if this suggestion could be implemented, I’d probably suggest a bankroll limit of 200k or something in that region. The point being that the amount to be won is a significant amount to someone with that bankroll so most players are going to take it more seriously.
I understand that you don’t care if you lose chips and, sure, chips here do not have a cash value. MY chips do have a value to me though. There is a significant time value attached to every one of them whether that is time in the game or time reading and learning.
Of course it’s fun to play otherwise we wouldn’t do it.
Walking the dog is fun and also has a time value to me. I can measure the “fun factor” of walking the dog by considering how beneficial the exercise is for both of us, the pleasure of seeing her chase shadows in the grass, the little chats we have with people and dogs we meet and so on.
The “fun factor” of pokering isn’t so simple though! Yes, I get the pleasure of interacting with some great people like you and the other contributors to this thread and I sometimes have some good chat at the table. I can do many other things that give me a similar amount of pleasure.
I enjoy learning to play better poker and that, of necessity, involves a decent chunk of time. Maybe I would enjoy learning to play chess or some other competitive activity and that, of course, will require a time investment. I have chosen poker, for the moment.
Our exam and assignment grades at school or university tell us whether our study time was a good investment. The absolute change and the rate of change of my bankroll tells me whether my “poker time” is a good investment.
So, I understand and respect that you see your chips as free, that is not how I value my chips.
I really appreciate the discussion to date and understand, mostly, the reasoning behind peoples objections to my proposal.
Maybe it’s just sour grapes from me because I am not funded for any tournament bigger than 500 chip SnG but played, and got knocked out of, a 7.5k tournament.
Having said that, it is something that I’ve been thinking about for a while so it’s good for me to have put my thoughts down and have this discussion.
I can see, now, that there are some very good reasons to not go with my proposal.
Many thanks to everyone!