Besides Hellmuth, do the pros play too reckless?

[edingerlaw 0]

Besides Hellmuth, I've noticed a trend that in a large tournament, the pros tend to play too agressive (and reckless) to accumlate chips. Either they bust out within the first hour (with the blinds at 25-25) or they have a monster chip stack. I've noticed a lot of pros busted early at the WSOP Main Event.Is this a new trend or is this the only way to win a tournament nowadays?I am an average player, having played since last December 2004. I entered the WSOP Event #2, played average and lasted 3 hours. But I outlasted Erick Lindgren, Layne Flack, the Grinder, David Pham, Jennifer Harman, Gavin Smith, Phil Gordon, Antonio Esftandiari, the 2004 player of the year, Thomas Keller, John Phan, Barry Greenstein, Max Paescatori, Doyle Bronson, and Annie Duke. Obviously, the aformentioned are all better than me. But it just seems that these pros in the lottery tournaments are making calls and plays that the guys at the local Indian Casino would not make. Is this the only way to play the big tournaments nowadays?

[Blink20 0]

They aren't playing to just get past the bubble, they are playing to win most of the time, and to make it to the higher places (tournaments are usually prize heavy final table anyway)I could guarentee they aren't just being reckless. I'm sure they are making great positive EV and very profitable plays. They are making moves to accumulate chips. You may be outlasting some pros. But when you get down to the final tables, I'm sure you will see some of them with a much larger chip stack owning your tables :-)

[edingerlaw 0]

I understand the concept of winning versus survival. But it still appears to me that many of the pros are risking their tournament lives too early in a tournament. Example, Hellmuth almost never busts out within the first several hours of a tournament. On the otherhand, his critics would counter that he plays too tight and does not accumulate enough chips to pose a threat to win. But don't you have to survive day one to at least have a chance to play in day three, four, five, or six?

[Meatwad 0]

I understand the concept of winning versus survival.  But it still appears to me that many of the pros are risking their tournament lives too early in a tournament.  Example, Hellmuth almost never busts out within the first several hours of a tournament.  On the otherhand, his critics would counter that he plays too tight and does not accumulate enough chips to pose a threat to win.  But don't you have to survive day one to at least have a chance to play in day three, four, five, or six?

That's because he's usually showing up hours after the start!

[Ninjaballz 0]

I understand the concept of winning versus survival.  But it still appears to me that many of the pros are risking their tournament lives too early in a tournament.  Example, Hellmuth almost never busts out within the first several hours of a tournament.  On the otherhand, his critics would counter that he plays too tight and does not accumulate enough chips to pose a threat to win.  But don't you have to survive day one to at least have a chance to play in day three, four, five, or six?

The answer is simple, they are just two different styles to playing in large tournaments. Is either one better? No, they just work for different style of play.

[Guest Anonymous]

Positve EV is so overrated.

[teneight 1]

Positve EV is so overrated.

what????

[Socko669 0]

Yeah, winning and making money are overrated too...

[Blink20 0]

Positve EV is so overrated.

Whatever term you want to use to call it.I would say calling things overrated is so overrated ;-)

[Blink20 0]

Positve EV is so overrated.

Whatever term you want to use to call it.I would say calling things overrated is so overrated ;-)

Im responding to myself after thinking about my post.You most likely were joking, I thought you meant that term was overrated, but now Im thinking you probably meant making positive EV plays is overrated, meaning you probably were joking... whew...

[LongOdds 0]

Part of it is that some pros dont want to spend a ton of hours (in this case several days) only to get eliminated out of the money or to make a small cash. Think opportunity cost. If they can make serious cash in a side game, why not go for broke the first time your dealt QQ or the first time you flop better than TPTK? That way, they are either getting chips and getting serious, or they are on to the next profitable (hopefully) venture. Most players, on the other hand, like to get their moneys worth out of tournaments. I, for instance, would have no doubt that I would fold several hands that are favorites early on, just because if I am playing in the ME, I would like to at least spend some time actually playing. I cant imagine a fate worse than ponying up 10K and losing all my chips in the first orbit or two. You can tell me I am a 60-40 favorite, and I would still let that go because of the dire consequences. Pros, obviously, approach things differently.

[H8it4ya 0]

I didn't realize hellmuth played reckless. I think i remember reading a passage out of ss2 where doyle says that he once saw hellmuth fold an open-ended str8 flush draw b/c it was too early and he (hellmuth )thought he could get his chips in a better position. Maybe things have changed for hellmuth but i thought he was aggresive, just not maniacal.

[alf13 0]

I didn't realize hellmuth played reckless. I think i remember reading a passage out of ss2 where doyle says that he once saw hellmuth fold an open-ended str8 flush draw b/c it was too early and he (hellmuth )thought he could get his chips in a better position. Maybe things have changed for hellmuth but i thought he was aggresive, just not maniacal.

The biggest misconception by TV poker fans is that Phil Hellmuth is a conservative rock......He is not......He is in there mixing it up all the time.Phil likes to make small raises preflop to price weaker players into pots with him.....and then bring them along all the while holding the lead in the pots.....He plays ALOT of hands...when he is at his best.....The problem with Phil is that sometimes he gets SHELL shocked from bad beats and he goes into a shell.

[T_Mac 0]

yeah in this vein, can someone explain to me the logic of phil gordon going allin under the gun for 7200 with 7/8 suited when the blinds are 150/300? Seems just stupid and reckless...unless cardplayer got the action wrong. Same thing with Barry greenstein going allin under the gun with a/k...wtf? They got a bus to catch?

[Abbaddabba 0]

I understand the concept of winning versus survival. But it still appears to me that many of the pros are risking their tournament lives too early in a tournament.

Their prime objective isnt to survive in the tournament. Their objective is to win the most money. If you could multiple your chipstack by 2.1 or lose it all, each being a 50/50 shot, a dollar maximizing individual would accept that risk so long as they weren't approaching a significant bubble. You could argue that foregoing a profitable (but risky) situation in a tournament is reasonable if the alternative is an even more profitable (and less risky) situation later on down the road. It's true, if the tournament was an event independent of everything else going on in that pro's life. The truth is, their time is worth money - and there's no sense in waiting for the BEST possible situation in a tournament. They're much better off taking all the _good_ opportunities as they come. If they avoid a 2.1/1 pay for a 50/50 shot now, they MAY get a 2.5/1 pay for less risk somewhere down the road. Why should that matter though? In the time it they took waiting for that opportunity, they'll have missed out on equally profitable situations in a side game.A lot of players who dont have experience in high stake games, and who probably couldnt afford to play in a 10k buy in, are driven by a different goals. Rationality to them may not be maximizing dollar value. There is value to just sitting at the table and chatting with tv pros. Plus, in a more theoretical way, you could say that because the marginal utility of each dollar is progressively less, they're less drawn to the big payout (proportionate to it's value) than a pro is. $10,000,000 is less than 100 times more valuable to them than $100,000. They're more prone to trying to just make a bubble and scrape by than someone who is playing purely to maximize the dollar return.

[pockets 0]

yeah in this vein, can someone explain to me the logic of phil gordon going allin under the gun for 7200 with 7/8 suited when the blinds are 150/300? Seems just stupid and reckless...unless cardplayer got the action wrong. Same thing with Barry greenstein going allin under the gun with a/k...wtf? They got a bus to catch?

When I want to lose, I will usually go all in with AK.

[Deepkoncntrtion 0]

The answer is simple, they are just two different styles to playing in large tournaments.  Is either one better? No, they just work for different style of play.

yes, your answer is simple...only 2 different styles of play.... :roll:

[TraptSteve 0]

Positve EV is so overrated.

Whatever term you want to use to call it.I would say calling things overrated is so overrated ;-)

Im responding to myself after thinking about my post.You most likely were joking, I thought you meant that term was overrated, but now Im thinking you probably meant making positive EV plays is overrated, meaning you probably were joking... whew...

When you make a move for a large amount when your EV isn't that great, and say you were positive EV... that would be over-valueing EV

[Pokerghost2 0]

I didn't realize hellmuth played reckless. I think i remember reading a passage out of ss2 where doyle says that he once saw hellmuth fold an open-ended str8 flush draw b/c it was too early and he (hellmuth )thought he could get his chips in a better position. Maybe things have changed for hellmuth but i thought he was aggresive, just not maniacal.

The biggest misconception by TV poker fans is that Phil Hellmuth is a conservative rock......He is not......He is in there mixing it up all the time.Phil likes to make small raises preflop to price weaker players into pots with him.....and then bring them along all the while holding the lead in the pots.....He plays ALOT of hands...when he is at his best.....The problem with Phil is that sometimes he gets SHELL shocked from bad beats and he goes into a shell.

alf, that post is on point u r exactly right, both about phils style of play and peoples perception of his play. sometimes i think his style induces the bad beats he gets so often.

[Steppin Razor 0]

I think some pros looking very agressive is probably a combination of risk management, ability to read hands, and that 'fortune favors the bold'. Even if a play looks kind of ridiculous, like that 'Mizrachi is a fish' thread, upon reflection it's evident that he evaluated potential gain against the risk he'd have to take and had a dead on read.They bust out largely when that percentage of risk of loss hits. Eg. they get drawn out on, or the opponent catches their miracle card, or their read is close but not right.

[frazwood 0]

I think the posts about the economics of the game are more likely the correct answer. The fact is... the tournaments buy-ins are not expensive enough to make the really good, professional players respect the money at all. For example, Phil Ivey will play $4000/$8000 limit poker. The buy-in for the main event is only 25% more than a big bet. I play $0.50/$1.00 limit to as high $2/$4 limit. Ergo, Phil Ivey playing the main event is analogous to me playing a $5 buy-in tourney.