FULL TILT POKER BLOG

#933 – Tournament Preservation Strategy, Part II – David Sklansky

Posted by Editor | Filed under Uncategorized

In the end, I don’t have the “answer” to how risk adverse you should be when getting the proper odds to play a hand. Rather, I raised the issue in Part I because the concept is rarely discussed but undeniably important to tournament play. The remaining parts of this discussion will consist of pieces of information I have been able to gather from expert sources. Please keep in mind that so few people have considered tournament preservation in a methodical way that it’s almost impossible for me to summarize completely and accurately someone else’s ideas. The concept of tournament preservation changes at different stages of a tournament and based on the quality of the player.

In addition, in picking out these pieces of information on the subject, I can’t tell you how thesesources would apply their views to different situations, or even if they still hold these views. I simply think this is an important, rarely discussed, and poorly understood issue. I hope in presenting a series of views on tournament preservation that we can start to figure things out and stimulate other smart people to take up this subject.

The first explanation I ever read of the preservation concept came from David Sklansky’s TOURNAMENT POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS. When Sklansky came out with this book in 2002, it was practically the only thing out there on tournament strategy. With the explosion of tournament poker (especially NLHE tournament poker) just a few years later, my impression for a long time about this book was that it came out too soon. The ideas didn’t seem as polished as the other “Advanced Players” books or his THEORY OF POKER. Back in 2004-2005, if I graded THEORY OF POKER as A+ and his (and Mason Malmuth’s) Advanced Players LHE book as A, I would have given TOURNAMENT POKER something like a B-.

Naturally, I was wrong. First, for critical thinking purposes, it’s better to have ideas in the market place earlier than later. Even if David’s ideas were incomplete or flawed it was better that they be published to spark discussion and if appropriate, lead to better ideas, whether by Sklansky or by someone else. Second, the book contains some very good ideas. Even if I don’t agree with them – or, more important, better strategic minds than mine don’t agree with them – Sklansky is smart, persuasive, and not afraid to take a position. I assume he would write that book differently today, but I also want to give myself some blame/credit for being able to grasp his ideas better today than when I first read them.

On pages 19-21, Sklansky described the basis for what I call the “preservation strategy.” He explained how some prize-structure issues could affect strategy, and then says, “But there is another reason to eschew close gambles even early on. This reason has nothing to do with prize structure, and in fact is something you should be aware of even if the tournament paid only one winner. What I am speaking of involves the presumption that you are one of the best players in the tournament. That being the case, you should avoid close gambles, especially for large portions of your chips. It may seem that giving up a positive EV gamble can never be right. However, even from a purely mathematical standpoint, you sometimes should.”

He then provided the example of flipping coins under favorable circumstances. “For instance, suppose I knew that tomorrow someone would offer me $200-to-$100 on a coin flip. Meanwhile, today someone offers me $120-to-$100 on a coin flip. The problem is that I only have $100 to my name, and will not be able to play tomorrow if I lose today. If I take the first bet, I will miss out on the opportunity for the second bet, half the time.” He did the math and the EV of taking the first bet is $35, but the EV of turning down the favorable first bet for the more favorable bet tomorrow is $50.

Sklansky then provided two examples of how this was relevant to tournament play. Both are debatable but are accepted as at least generally valid. “For example, playing NLHE, if a player moves all-in with what you somehow know is Ah-Kh you would seriously consider throwing away 4d-4c getting barely above even money, if losing that pot would get you broke or near broke. This, in spite of the fact that two fours is a tiny favorite over A-K suited. Other close heads-up situations that you might opt to fold would involve getting pot-odds that are just a tad above that which you need to give you a positive EV. In other words, you might not take 4.3-to-1 on a 4-to-1 shot. Since saving a bet gives you more ammunition.”

I recommend that you read Sklansky’s entire section of his book, because I just excerpted it and he qualifies his explanations. For example, he makes it clear you should play this way only if you are one of the best players in the tournament. Also, I recognize that he was specifying early-tournament situations.

That was my starting point for understanding preservation strategy, both chronologically and theoretically. Several of the sources from which I’ll draw in the next few Parts explicitly or implicitly adopted or refuted these ideas.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Be Sociable, Share!