Paradigm Thinking on EBJ vs TBJT

In defense of conservative play

I have to come to the defense of conservative players on this one. Not that I’m trying to speak for all or any of them. My thoughts and ideas are my own but they may apply to other conservative players. I’m only going to talk about traditional BJTs – I don’t play EBJ.

I’ve made about a dozen trips to Las Vegas over the last 18 months and all to play in BJTs. I’ve seen the best (and I do mean the BEST), the worst and everything in-between. I fall into the in-between category. I’ve seen many seasoned players use conservative play very effectively. I’ve also seen a player or two who plays on a professional level use conservative play to advantage.

Conservative play to me reminds me of a hunter. A good hunter is patient. He lays in silence until his prey comes into view or the prey makes a mistake. Then he attacks. He always has a “target”. He doesn’t fire until a “target” is there. If he fires all his bullets too quickly, he doesn’t have enough for the next “target”. If he is hunting game that may attack him, he endeavors to keep himself from becoming a “target” at least until the time is right and he has enough bullets to fire to kill the prey before the prey kills him. Now read my next 6 points to truly understand this analogy:

1) I get very depressed if I’m eliminated from the table when more that 25% of the hands remain to be played. It’s just part of my physiological makeup, can’t change that. By staying conservative I get to stay to or near the end of play. I just feel better this way. Sure I’m not happy if I lose but at least I got to play more than 15 minutes and I get to fire at the “target” in the end game.

2) From the above quote: “in tbj you spend 75% of the hands on cruise control - why would you pass up 75% of the opportunities for skillful play?”. The answer to this is that BJ is a negative expectation game as everyone knows. By being more aggressive in the early hands you run the risk of earlier losses which often cripple your chances to win the table because you don’t have enough bullets to shoot at “the target”. Yes, the proponents of early aggression have their points and perhaps they do win more tables than the conservative player but it is also much more stressful to play aggressively. Stress I can do without.

3) I play BJTs as a hobby, a pastime if you will. I don’t want to spend the rest of my life trying to uncover or learn what play will give me another 0.001% advantage. Others may be interested in this and certainly if you play or aspire to play on a professional level you need to learn the intricate details which include being more aggressive early in the round. To me it doesn’t pay. Given the luck factor in BJTs and the limited tournaments I play, I don’t want to be bothered with details that will increase my chances only marginally. I don’t play enough tournaments to make that small margin make much of a difference.

4) From the above quote: “these early hands are just as important as the late hands”. Very often not. Usually the last hand is most critical, 2nd from last hand is the 2nd most critical, and so on. If you build up your lead early then you become “the target”. Four, five, or six players will be “gunning” for you in those last 5 hands. And because of the sheer numbers, at least one of them will probably hit “the target”. I’ve seen it happen over and over again. An example: I was at a table where a player doubled his bankroll on the very first hand. Now he became “the target”. There were 24 hands left to play. With cautious judgment play, 3 of us (I was one of the table winners) overtook him eventually. The point is: He made himself “the target”. If we did not have that target, we would not have ended up with larger bankrolls. So, becoming “the target” often results in one losing (because others must become more aggressive) instead of being an overwhelming favorite.

5) The luck factor becomes critical in those last hands. Luck can be either you getting lucky, your opponents getting unlucky or a combination of both. Either way, luck is critical. So if you play conservative in the early hands, you need luck at the end. If you play aggressive in the early hands, you need luck at the end but by playing aggressive too early may get you eliminated long before the last hand in which case you don’t have to worry about being lucky at the end.

6) I have my own saying (maybe it’s not mine but I use it anyway): TO WIN A TABLE YOU MUST BE THERE TO PLAY THE LAST HAND.
If you play conservative in the early hands you usually have enough bullets for those last critical hands. Playing aggressive in early hands will often run you out of bullets leaving you with nothing to fire at the end.

To summarize:
Playing conservative is less stressful, requires less skill, and only over the long haul will result in less winning. So I give up a little to make my life a little more enjoyable and less stressful. Is that such a bad trade off? I’ll take it. So the next time someone crucifies conservative play keep in mind we all play for different reasons. Conservative play in early rounds suites me and I’m happy with it. If someone isn’t satisfied with conservative play then he/she should find another way. BJTs can be played many different ways. Find your comfort zone. As I’ve said on other posts – DIFFERENT STROKES FOR DIFFERENT STROKES. And last, now you know I like to keep my bullets for the end game. So if you play aggressive and we meet on a table, you will become my “target” at the end game – uh, provided you get to the end game.

OK, I’m done – for a while.

 

No Defense Necessary

Toolman,

Great post to clarify my point and to underscore the title of this thread.

You posts about conservative play in TBJT (since you don't play on-line and I'm assuming you didn't go to St. Kitts) are just and true. What are you being apologetic about?

I agree with you, as does Wong, with regard to that conservative play.

I think the point that RK was making was related to EBJ, in particular hands 9-15 and hands 17-23.

There's nothing wrong with your thought process, I commend and applaud you for it. And you're right about how hard it is to gain that extra 0.5% edge.

My rationale for starting this thread is that many people who have played TBJ for some time, like yourself, think like that (post 61) and that type of play on EBJ will put you at a distinct disadvantage. You may be able to win but not for long (on EBJ) - just my OPINION.

It's nice to finally see a thread come full circle. Thanks for the excellent work and demonstrating my point much better than I could have!

 

fgk42,

Thanks for the complement. Just to clarify, I didn't mean to sound apologetic. I have nothing to apologize for. Conservative play has served me well and I'm comfortable with it. Of course EBJ is a different ballgame. I can't comment on that since I don't play.

 

my comment was meant to apply

to tbj - I too often play 'conservatively' in tbj early and mid hands - because it is a negative expectation game - I think ebj has to be played more aggressively - but I don't think 'conservative' means to minimum bet the first fifteen hands of a 20 hand table - and that doesn't mean you give up all strategy and go on cruise control - middle hands can be a great time to make a move - and you have the same odds of making it as in the later hands - even early hands can give you an opportunity -

and you can run progressions - and - if needed - adapt strategies to fit the developing situation - and as far as 'moving too early' because it makes you a target - that is just garbage - if you are the chip leader going into hand 15, you have a much better chance of being the chip leader in the final hand than if you are BRL going into hand fifteen - I had rather be the target than the dudes tossing up the hail mary passes -

I just don't think you can play a mechanical game and do as well as you can when you play a strategic game with adaptible strategies and varying levels of agression as needed - and if sometimes you go out early - that's repaid by the extra tables where you will be going into the final hand as the chip leader -

 

I respectfully disagree.

 

A little more on conservative play

Again, my comments refer to TBJ not EBJ.

To me, playing conservative does not mean betting nickles 'till the last 5 hands without regard to what's happening at the table. It means assessing the play at the table and making a timely decision of when to be more aggressive based on the play of others. Granted that this often results in me betting those nickles 'till the end game and I'll do that as I watch a player(s) dig himself a hole that he can't get out from. Also, making those no brainer nickle bets frees up my mind to assess the quality of play of my opponents.

In my live play, I've developed effective "camouflage". I adapt that to BJTs. I sit there betting my nickles and try to look like a ploppy which has the effect of making me look predictable. That's what I want. When I come out firing, my opponents are often caught off guard. Playing TBJ is fighting a war. The element of surprise is often critical. Aggressive players have little element of surprise. If you think I'm saying they become predictable - you betcha.

On the subject of becoming a "target":
One need only watch a live game or the 3 years or so that BJ tournaments have been on TV. Most everybody shoots at the "target". And usually someone knocks it down which makes that someone the new "target". Often when one becomes the "target", that player shoots himself in the foot defending himself and again the target falls. I prefer to watch this folly rather than partake, it's fun. But while I watch I try to keep an eye out for when to fire my bullets, if needed.

In summary:
I guess conservative play also means carefully selecting a time to fire one's bullets. I'd rather do that than use a machine gun approach which often uses up those valuable bullets much too early in the game. It's not how many bullets you fire, it's how well you aim your gun. Any hunter knows that.

 

All depends.....

Who uses bullets? Dye-no-mite!

 

conservative play

Toolman1,
I agree with almost all of your comments on the meaning of conservative play. My only disagreement is with your earlier post where you said that conservative play requires less skill.

I tell newbies, that don't have a strategy, to play aggresive in the begining, get way ahead and then bet the table average until the rest catch up, then be aggressive again to the end, or bust out.

My usual comment is, "aggresive play is better than no strategy."

tgun

"there's always a better strategy"