Some reflections on a parallel case

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.

A post was merged into an existing topic: How their bad calls can cost you chips - Implicit Collusion

Just an FYI

You cannot go all-in pre flop on bankroll builder, it is pot limit. Unless you’re in a late position, there is no way to eliminate players. This means more people with marginal hands will see the flop. That increases the chances of somebody hitting a stronger hand. Plan accordingly.

This statement is about as true as they get. No-one has ever won a tournament without running well at some point. That applies to games here and everywhere else. Does anyone think Scott Blumstein was the best poker player in the field when he won the WSOP Main Event last year? I think even he would admit he wasn’t in the top few hundred in terms of skill. He did however run well at the right times and was good enough to capitalize on his run-good.

I’m curious as to what you mean here. Knowingly making a mathematically bad play can sometimes benefit you for sure but I’m not seeing how this relates to Morton’s Theorem. Could you please clarify a bit? Was there something about the bet sizing or pot size in this hand that led you to the decisions you made? Do you think your play helped/hurt someone else in the hand who may have had the best hand at some point? Was there a 3rd or 4th player involved that affected your decision-making?