fallacy to this idea?

I'm posting this in the newbie corner despite the fact that it's a strategy question because I'm so new to the game that it seemed appropriate.

I'm wondering if there is a fallacy in my general strategy in EBJ tournaments.

I typically bet such that I minimize my investment in the outcome of the hand. For instance, on the first hand I will prefer to bet an amount that gives me the high against half of the players and the low against the other half (as long as this amount is within reason). On the subsequent hands I will do the same, taking into account only BRs that are near or above me (assuming the lowest hands will soon be eliminated). Betting in this way means that whether the dealer busts or hits a strong hand, I'm most likely not to care because I'll have the high on someone and the low on someone else.

Of course, as the game approaches its end I have to get down to brass tacks and start to worry about the people who are high above me. But, at least at the buy-in I choose, those who manage to build big bankrolls tend to lose them as quickly, especially if another player has done the same. And if it's just one player with a big bank roll, I can attempt to ensure a second place finish before taking aim at him.

In any case, my basic question here is: what is the fallacy in my thinking? How can I alter this strategy to make it better? It has been serving me decently in the games I play so far. But I'm sure there's some angle I haven't noticed.

 

Wump

I can't say how many other players use a similar strategy to yours - but it is one that I will sometimes use - both in ebj and at times in live tournaments - basically - if I read you right - you are putting down a bet that is designed to be the average (or mid-point) of the other players' bets -

what this strategy does - is, over the long run - likely to leave you sitting in the middle - neither high nor low - just with an average bankroll - the problem with this - is that usually 'average' is not good enough - and you still will need to make a move to get position to advance - exception might be when it is 4 of 6 or 7 to advance - then you will still be vulnerable to a swing by one player - of course, 'average' BR might be a good position to make a move from, as well - allowing you to use a multi-step move, instead of having to go all-in

you might want to try betting a little more aggressively or conservatively at first - trying to give yourself a better BR position - then moving to this average bet strategy after you establish yourself as BR1 or BR2 - and use it to hold your position - that is mainly how I use it - or - play a few hands this way at first - to 'hold even' while you see how the other players are betting - then move to a different strategy to take advantage of their betting tendencies -

if you are a very good tactical player - and can play your hands better than the other players at your table - then you might do better with this strategy - as you are placing 'average' bets - but getting better results from your hand play - by avoiding risky plays and choosing high probability plays - so may edge up bankroll positon gradually -

I have found that this sometimes works at online ebj in the cheap games - not because I am that good - but because so many of the players are that bad -

the drawback to an average bet strategy in ebj - is that to benefit from it - you need a long series of hands - and you don't get long series of hands in ebj -

keep thinking this way Wump - this type of thinking is how you become a winner at tbj/ebj

 

Thanks for the responses guys. The "middle of the pack ain't good enough" conundrum is one that I have been wrestling with. That's one reason that I tend to ignore the lowest hands in making my decisions.

I like the idea of starting out more conservatively. I like it better than starting out with bigger bets because if I happen to make those bigger bets, I give people a higher target to aim at. I'd rather be the target later in the game when fewer people are shooting (so there's less probability of someone making it).

Perhaps it's better to play the first two or three hands trying to keep myself just below the middle of the pack, then adopt my strategy once the button passes me so that I have the benefit of seeing the action (I tend to get more conservative in general when I am early to act). I'll work on this and see how it goes. Thanks again.

 

Wumpie, I am more likely to follow that strategy in a 3-advance or the rare 4-advance game than I am in a 2-advance. The big risk you employ in your strategy is the risk of overbetting. Your chips are your bullets, and if you shoot and miss early, you may have a hard time recovering, even when you stay higher than a couple opps.

Also, as I'm sure you have discovered, your strategy can run into a huge snag when the people who have been betting even more than you decide that it's desperation time, and they go all-in. You're still in better shape than they are, but if they bust out before hand 8, you're in an ugly place.

 

revised strategy

After having played 18 $1 sit'n'gos, I've only placed first once and second 5 times. Not a terrible showing in my mind, though it does leave me out $4.40 on the whole. I'm trying to revise my strategy.

I feel that toonces hit on a major problem with my previous strategy. If the dealer gets hot, it leaves me with nothing to work with. I think that that strategy puts me at the whims of the game just as much as it does anyone who throws their money around.

My new idea is to bide my time for as much information as I can get before taking any risks, and then taking the risks all at once when I do. I think that I'll bet minimum to begin with. If I end up ahead, I can margin bets. If I end up behind (likely, since *someone* usually ends up with a stack in the $1 games) I will wait until I have position just before an elimination hand and make a catch-up bet. My idea is that I want to have the tall stack on the elimination hand, but I can't make my big bet on that hand itself unless I have position. I feel like I'm expounding basics here, but this is all quite new to me ^_^ It seems like what I hear called "Wong style" betting except that I act like it's the end of the game every elimination hand unless I'm pretty sure not to get eliminated.

My other consideration is that it seems that I have an inordinate amount of 2nd place finishes. This isn't good, because second doesn't pay very well. My theory here is that I might see a rise in 1st place finishes (accompanied by a drop in general in-the-money finishes) if I moved up to the $5 games. This is because there are, austensibly, less players who risk everything all the time. This also means that there will be less uncatchable players as well. My only worry here is that I don't have a ton of money invested in this (and as we all know it's hard to move money around nowdays) and I don't want to crap out.

Any thoughts on this would be appreciated in general.


edit - Well, my first attempt at this strategy resulted in a 1st place finish.. can't be a bad sign. Obviously, more play will test it realistically.

 

Wump

the $5 games aren't that much better than the $1 ones - I have developed a tendency to bet very small if I am the opening better - or betting very early - or bet a little above the middle if I am one of the later bettors - but I also play a very conservative playing strategy - very few doubles and splits - lots of surrenders - which tends to preserve chips - general advice - try to counter bet the other players a little - when they are going small - go a little bit higher - when they are betting big - go a little bit smaller - that way you are positioning yourself to open up some space between you and the other players - if things don't go your way - then try to big move to take the lead - trying to play every elimination hand as a last hand, though can expose you to too many risks - you may hit one big move - but two or three per table? -

 

That's generally my MO when I have to catch up before an elimination hand and have position. Do you advise this even when I have the lead, or should I continue to correlate?

As for treating every elimination hand like the last hand, perhaps I misspoke. I'll treat every elimination hand in which I'm in danger if being beaten like a last hand. I won't shoot for 1st place, just for non-elimination. The real difference comes in the hands leading up to the last hand. That's where I'll try to position myself such that I don't have to make a wild bet on the elimination hand. It seems that in most of my tourneys I have to make one big hit to place in the money. The strategy I described at the beginning of this thread had me making too many big moves, so it wasn't sucessful. With this one I'm generally fine on the first elimination hand and only have to start worrying when there are only 3-4 players left. One big move there tends to be enough.

Last point. You mention that you play a lot of surrenders. Is this typically when you're betting larger? I would think that the best move with a min bet would be using BS to maximise EV. However, it does make sense to surrender more with a big bet to reduce risk of ruin. What types of hands will you give up? In what situations? I'm familiar with the use of surrender on elimination hands to guarantee safety, but I don't know what hands people will surrender if they've put out a big bet on just any hand. I'm always afraid to surrender unless it's BS or an elimination hand because the EV is so bad. But I'm sure there are hands for which the probability of a win is low enough as to justify it even with an EV drop. However, I'd like your opinion on what those hands are if you wouldn't mind ^_^

Thanks for the advice. I'm having a lot of fun considering these strategic possibilities.

 

[QUOTE=RKuczek;24333] I have developed a tendency to bet very small if I am the opening better - or betting very early - or bet a little above the middle if I am one of the later bettors - but I also play a very conservative playing strategy - very few doubles and splits - lots of surrenders - which tends to preserve chips - general advice - try to counter bet the other players a little - when they are going small - go a little bit higher - when they are betting big - go a little bit smaller - that way you are positioning yourself to open up some space between you and the other players - if things don't go your way - then try to big move to take the lead - trying to play every elimination hand as a last hand, though can expose you to too many risks - you may hit one big move - but two or three per table? -[/QUOTE]



Sounds like a "Wong" newsletter,the system you said you didnt play.

 

far away from Wong

actually - Wong just says 'bet minimum as long as possible, then chunk your chips out at the end' - that's pretty much of a non-strategy - you're just hoping that a couple players ploppy out and you get lucky - I don't play basic strategy in tournaments - no matter the bet size - too many basic strategy plays have too high a risk of ruin for tournament play - for most hands - I surrender much more frequently than bs calls for - double and split much less - but - when running a progression - or making a move - you need to shift to a different strategy - either bs or must win - or must not lose - whatever fits your situation - what I sometimes use for betting strategy is to mildly counter bet - when everyone goes small - I bet towards the top of the range - when everyone goes on big - I bet towards the bottom of the range - that's definitely not Wong - but the larger bets are safer, if you don't play bs -

I surrender 12 against 10,A; 13 against 9,10,A; 14 against 8,9,10,A; 15, 16 against 7, 8,9,10,A; and 17 against 8,9,10,A; also surrender 66 against 10,A; 77 against 8,9,10,A; and 88 against 9,10,A

but that is 'general rule' - obviously - you need to make decisions with other factors taken into account some times

 

I actually think this strategy actually makes very good sense, but with a little bit of clarification. Here's how I understand it to work. Tell me if I don't make sense:

In BJ in general, you can expect that your EV is negative. Thus, early in a tournament, you don't want to bet out. You want to maximize gain/minimize loss. In BJ that means playing BS with the min bet. Obviously, this won't win you many tourneys if you play that way all the way through because someone will beat the EV and go positive (since it's only 20-30 hands we're talking about). However, they reason you still want to min bet the whole time is that you want to do your big betting with the maximum amount of information at your disposal (why make a catch-up bet on hand 5 when he might drop back to where you are by hand 9?), and allow your opponents to do their betting with the minimum amount of information at their disposal.

Once you reach the final few hands, you get an idea of what chip count you need to win. You can shoot for that amount with a single progression (generally a 2-step or just a 1-shot) to have the best chance of winning it. In general, if you have to make an amount, you're better trying to do it all at once odds wise. And, to deprive your opponents of information, you're better off doing it later rather than sooner.

The only caveat I would make on this description of Wong's strategy is that you can't do it on the final hand all the time. The reason there is that if someone has a higher BR and you act before them, it's too late. They can take the high and the low on you and you can only play for the split. However, if you make your move near the final hand while you still have position on the player, your chances are good. You can make your big bet when you see him go small. That way either you bust out (always a risk, but we minimize the risk by trying to close the gap in a single progression) or have supremacy for the final hand to gurantee yourself either the high *or* the low at least.

If we assume that you'll have to win a 2-step progression to catch up and then win another hand having either the high or the low (this assumes you always end up in bad position on the final hand) you'll still have about a 38% chance to win, roughly estimating. That's much better than 1/6 or 1/7 (and probably much better than you can realistically hope for).

That's a winning strategy in classical TBJ , but in EBJ the elimination hands, and to a lesser extent the secret bets, change it all.

 

WUmp

that's a pretty good description of the 'theory' that people advance to justify Wong betting - but - what Wong betting really is based on - is the idea that the other players are so bad that a couple will ploppy out early on - thereby reducing the number of players at the table - and improving your odds of advancing - if no one bankrupts out - then Wong's betting 'strategy' is worthless - it gives you no advantage - Wong betting depends on the incompetence of your opponents - not the quality of your play -

 

I completely agree with you, Monkey. Well said!

 

Or even just the whole of page 38.

 

If one reads Wong's book like one would read a novel then one gets nothing out of it. Days, weeks, months must be spent analyzing, and in some cases memorizing, it's contents. It must be studied like a text book in school. If one thinks that all Wong says is bet minimum until the end of play then max bet at the end then one's grade, if in school, would be "F".

Sure there have been improvements in play since the book was written and natural evolution dictates that this will happen. Some of his strategies are now so well known that we apply them without even thinking that it was Wong who brought them to our attention, which is a tribute to the book. Modern strategies have their foundation on Wong's writings just as all card counting systems have as their foundation Thorp's writings. Ignoring Wong at this point in time is like trying to reinvent the wheel.

 

I've gone back to consult my copy so many times ...

that pages 5..64 have come loose and keep falling out onto the floor.

 

Yes, it happens to everyone who studies the book. This is due to very poor binding. I had to buy a second copy because of this problem. If someone has not experienced this problem then they are not studying the book.

Maybe Wong intended his book to disintegrate with use so one could gage how effectively one is studying the book.

 

You stated that the reason you wanted to bet min the whole time is that you want to do your big betting with maximum amount of information at your disposal. – What maximum information are you talking about? Cards, count, chips, opponents bets? I’m curious.

When do you determine what hand to “fire off” that single progression? Hand 23, 24 or 25? (assuming a 25 hand tourney?)

I agree with you, however single shots prior to the last hand aren’t exactly how I’ve interpreted Stanford Wong. For example on page 43:

 

LOL. My book fell apart when I first got it, as well. So what I did was make a copy of it. So now whenever I travel to a tournament, I can review and highlight whatever is pertinent for that particular competition. Much easier to travel with.