If you read the post about my recent Seattle trip you will know what's coming. Played 5 tournaments and had no trouble in the first round, but busted out in second round in all but the first tournament. I figure that I must know something about strategy to have consistent first round success, but am baffled by my second round failures. Perhaps my expectations are too high. Is there a different strategy in those intermediate rounds? Thanks for your advice.
Semi-finals Could just be random variance - I once went through a spell where I couldn't get out of the qualifying rounds - re-buys after rebuys - and many of these first round tables were 2 advance - so was playing the first round, with zero edge - but - once I got to the semis, when I did - which were all one advance - I won every one - six in a row - this was followed shortly after by a sequence where I won all my first round tables (no rebuys needed) - but couldn't win a semi for anyhing - lost five semis in a row - simple variance other possible cause - how many advance? are first round tables two advance and semis one advance? or vice versa?- any three advance tables? - you will want to alter your play a little to account for the different formats - maybe you're doing well with one format - but aren't playing a different format quite right
Thanks for the encouragement. Virtually all the tournaments were top 2 advance in each round. I noticed that betting was very conservative in first round but more aggressive in semi-final round and quite aggressive in the final round (I won my only money by basically flat betting in the finals and advanced as others busted ). I think my strategy was to play against the field - aggressive in round 1 when others were conservative, less aggressive in semi-finals, and least aggressive in finals. What often seemed to happen is that I got way behind in the semis and tried for a big bet recovery, unsuccessfully. Perhaps I should have been a better correlator in semis, but if I had had my big bet go well, I could have advanced in another 3 tournaments (bet all the losers say that!):laugh: Playing UBT online is probably not the greatest training for old-fashioned elimination tournaments as aggression seems to be the name of the game on UBT.
strategies kirbyk the probability that, with 6 players at a table, looking at the early hands, say first 11 hands, one of the other six players will win more than half their hands (assuming assuming a 44% win avaerage for the table), is better that 87%; that two of the other players will win more than 1/2 the hands, is better than 55% - over 11 hands - if you bet small initially in single advance or two advance tables - it is much more likely than not - that at least two players will accumulate more chips than you do - however if you bet aggressively, it is most likely that you will lose more hands than you win - that's quite the quandary - and - the essential problem in tbj - how do you deal with that many good players bet very conservatively at the start - in the hopes that at least one of the other players will crash out - then try to win it all with one bet - a valid but weak strategy in my opinion - but regardless of how you approach the early/middle hands - most tournaments come down to 'what happens on one bet' - or maybe two or three critical bets - I have gone into an elimination hand on UB many times - with a big lead - only to have everyone else go all in and I get swung by the whole table and eliminated - more often - a single hand where one is swung by a large number of players - and you fall behind, turns out to be crucial - and when you try to catch up - you hit a losing streak and things just get worse - or - they can go your way - either way - my humble philosophy here is : A. be aggressive on single and double advance tables - but conservative on three advance tables - and B. size your bets relative to the other players - it is where you are in the 'betting range' that is important - if the betting range is $100 to $1000, and the other players are betting $750 to $1000, then a bet of $600 is very conservative - the opposite - if the other players all bet $100, then a bet of $200 is aggressive - it is your betting position that determines aggression or conservatism - not the absolute amount - this is simplistic - as relative bankrolls also affect your betting - but you get what I am saying - still - it is usually the outcome of one or two hands that determines who advances - and that is simple variance - so - just trust that it will even out over time - your goal should be attaining a BR position that gives you an advantage when those crucial hands occur also - I will often play a counter betting strategy in the earlier hands - going conservative when the other players are aggressive, and aggressive when they are conservative - this can open up a gap - but either way - if it goes against you - then that's where a two-step progression can either put you in a good BR position or put you out -
Some Probabilities say you have a six person table, and we are looking at the first 11 hands - what would be considered the 'early hands' - if the probability of a player winning a hand is 44%, then the probability that YOU will win 6 or more of the first 11 hands is 34.1%, while the probability that at least one of the other five players will win at least 6 hands is 87.6%; and the probability that two or more of the other 5 players will win 6 or more hands is 55.5%; and the probability that three or more of the other five players will win 6 or more hands is 22.2%. of course, tables can run hot or cold - so - if the winning percentage (average) for the players at the table is actually 63% - then the numbers are : for you: to win 8 or more hands: 37.1%; for at least one of the other five players to win 8 or more hands: 90.2%; for two players: 61.2%; and for three: 26.9%. if the table runs the other way, say the players wins average to only 33% of the hands - then the probabilities are: for you to win 5 or more hands: 28.9%; for one or more of the other five players to win at least 5 hands: 81.8%; for two or more: 44.9%; and for three or more: 14.9%. betting conservatively at single advance and two advance tables will virtually assure that you will go into the middle and end hands playing from behind - a significant disadvantage - while playing conservatively at a three advance table will probably advantage you - the bottom line is, that regardless of the table running favorable or unfavorable for the players as a group - at least one, and very likely two, of the other players will win more hands than you do - that is very likely - it is unlikely that three of the other players will win more hands than you - it is always an advantage to be BR1, or, at least in a bankroll position to advance, and always a disadvantage to be in a BR position that will not advance - at any point in the game - so - you should play aggressively at single and two advance tables, and conservatively at three or more advance tables - as a general rule - and agression and conservatism should be weighed relative to the other players betting range - not simply large or small bets in absolute amounts - aggresion can also be counter betting - going against the trend of the other players - if they are betting very large amounts relative to bankrolls - remember that any individual player is more likely to lose a hand than win
more probabilities reversing the approach above - lets look at losing if the players lose an average of 48% of their hands - then you are likely (out of 11 hands) to lose 6 or more 44.6% of the time - while, at a six person table - the other five players are ALL likely to lose six hands or more only 1.8% of the time, 4 of the other five are going to lose six or more only 12.7% of the time, and 4 or more players are likely to lose 6 or more hands only 40% of the time - if the losing average is 63%, then you will lose 7 or more hands 61.5% of the time; while ALL FIVE of the other players do so only 8.8% of the time; four of the five will do so 36.3% of the time; and 3 out of the other five players will do so 70.5% of the time. For a table where the losing percentage is running only 33%, you will lose 4 or more hands (out of 11) 51.8% of the time; all five of the other players will lose four or more only 3.7% of the time; four or more players only 21.1%; and three or more players 53.3%. so, again, if you are depending on other players losing to put you in a good BR position at a single adance or two advance table - it is not going to happen very often - but - at a three advance table its a pretty good bet.
An intermediate player here. Possibly overestimating myself at that. I feel very comfortable when two advance. Semi finals are my downfall. Without getting technical, it seems obvious that more aggressive play is needed, even though it goes against my grain. I am gradually learning to pick the spots to apply more aggressive play. It would be nice to see more posts on this topic. I enjoyed reading RK's responses.
some thoughts I feel with single advance tables - and weak players - which since I play mostly smaller tourneys is my normal player environment - the probabilty of one player chunking out chips and getting lucky and running away with the table is very high - the probability that you will be that player - not so good - two advance makes it more reasonable - not nearly as likely that two players will be amazingly lucky - I keep edges by format - such as edge at single advance tables - edge at two advance tables - etc - and my edge at two advance is significantly higher than my edge at single advance - I would imagine that this is the case with any player with some skills - not just that two advance gives you twice the opportunity to advance - but - you actually play with a higher edge - as it is less subject to random variance impacting your advancement
