A few days ago, in the Bankroll Builder 1K, I played this hand:
You have surely noticed my mistakes.
Mistake 1: I should have gone all-in on the flop
Mistake 2: I go all-in in a 30/70 situation at best (here 20/80 in reality)
Result: I double up and go to win the tournament.
In retrospect, this pot gave me the head-start I needed and allowed me to win more in subsequent hands (more on this later).
We like to think of ourselves as rational beings but sometimes an irrational move pops up apparently from nowhere. Or does it?
Don’t you hate it when you don’t see an explanation for one of your suboptimal play?
I think I can track the origin of the hunch I would catch my flush card on the river.
I remembered a similar move in the same tournament some days before:
Again a 80/20 situation where @Gggeorgi shouldn’t have paid my bet all-in on the turn.
Result: @Gggeorgi doubled up and gone to win the tournament with this huge head-start.
Bad moves call for more bad moves. Which sometimes get rewarded, one in five hands.
So I would like to point that in order to win a tournament, one has to get lucky: that is to win coin-flips, but also sometimes 40/60 or 30/70 or even 20/80.
I’m not advocating these bad moves obviously but these lucky double-ups are sometimes inevitable. And the earlier double-ups are the better. An early double-up means that each subsequent double-up will amount to more chips and so on, like compound interests if you wish.
I felt bad for @lazybob at the time and said so but it’s useless. No doubt we all have our lucky breaks, more often than we want to admit.
When I read this thread: How their bad calls can cost you chips - Implicit Collusion , I figure this is the type of thinking which allows for these situations at three players or more in a pot.