matros' cardplayer article

[doubleatrain 0]

I think one of the key points in the article is that if you double up early, and are a better player than your average opponent, you can expect to be able to use your larger chip stack (not to mention the image that you're willing to gamble like that), to gain more chips later. Factoring all that makes up your tournament equity is important.That having been said, some peoples' equity is because of different abilities, so perhaps that's not as big of an advantage to some.

[Aces_Up 0]

Jesse, you make a good point in mentioning that in a real situation you would never actually know what your opponet had, but I think you are missing the point of the article.Matt Matros allowing you to see the opponents cards is not a flaw in his thinking, it is to point out a flaw in the thinking of others. He is not trying to say that people who would fold the Q's without this information are wrong. He is trying to show why people who would fold even though they knew they were a favorite are wrong.Obviously since you would rarely, if ever, know this information, this situation does not translate directly to a real situation. However, the point is that if you are confident that you have the correct odds, you probably should be calling, as the evidence he presents shows that waiting for a better chance is probably not a good idea.

[Shizzmoney 0]

Good article, I always agreed that I would take a coinflip on the first hand of a tournament, especially online.

I actually had a coinflip on the first hand of a 10 dollar tourney on FT this weekend that I won where in SB vs BB...... I had 7's vs another opponents' AJs. He raised, I re-raised, and he put me all-in and deducted that it was AKs.......it ended up being AJs, but still similiar odds none the less.I wound up hitting a set and doubling up. I gotta say getting such a big chip stack, plus the instant added confidence of getting off to a good start, made the play worthwhile. I said to myslef, right after the first hand, "OK, time to win this thing". I was also able to use the big stack to push people around for preflop steals, as well as for some loose limps in position that enabled me to flop well consealed monsters. It's nice when you have 40+ BBs and have the confidence to see any pair from any position in the hopes of flopping a set without having to worry about a decent sized raise being a 3rd of your stack.The only kink I'd add to the agrument however is the buy-in and blind time ratio. I think if it was a deeper stacked, slower blind structure, higher buy-in tournament..........I would prefer maybe putting my money in the better spot or trying to accumulate chips via smaller pots rather than the immediate all-in because the structure would enable me to theoretically. It's much different in a low limit MTT where blinds go up so fast and you really gotta get chips sooner or later to survive - so might as well do it sooner than later where you might have to get it in with a more substandard hand. Plus, according to the big guns like Chan and Doyle, you have to survive at least 6-9 all-ins a tournament just to win or go deep the damn thing, so might as well get one out of the way lol.

[DB10-2 0]

MATROS IS RIGGED

[doublemeup 0]

Good article, I always agreed that I would take a coinflip on the first hand of a tournament, especially online.

I actually had a coinflip on the first hand of a 10 dollar tourney on FT this weekend that I won where in SB vs BB...... I had 7's vs another opponents' AJs. He raised, I re-raised, and he put me all-in and deducted that it was AKs.......it ended up being AJs, but still similiar odds none the less.I wound up hitting a set and doubling up. I gotta say getting such a big chip stack, plus the instant added confidence of getting off to a good start, made the play worthwhile. I said to myslef, right after the first hand, "OK, time to win this thing". I was also able to use the big stack to push people around for preflop steals, as well as for some loose limps in position that enabled me to flop well consealed monsters. It's nice when you have 40+ BBs and have the confidence to see any pair from any position in the hopes of flopping a set without having to worry about a decent sized raise being a 3rd of your stack.The only kink I'd add to the agrument however is the buy-in and blind time ratio. I think if it was a deeper stacked, slower blind structure, higher buy-in tournament..........I would prefer maybe putting my money in the better spot or trying to accumulate chips via smaller pots rather than the immediate all-in because the structure would enable me to theoretically. It's much different in a low limit MTT where blinds go up so fast and you really gotta get chips sooner or later to survive - so might as well do it sooner than later where you might have to get it in with a more substandard hand. Plus, according to the big guns like Chan and Doyle, you have to survive at least 6-9 all-ins a tournament just to win or go deep the damn thing, so might as well get one out of the way lol.

Ok just for the sake of arguement lets say you lost that coinflip. Now what do you say to yourself? "Why did i lose a tournament in 30 seconds?" What if that guy had a real hand? A higher pp or even a rediculously bad hand but won the pot and busted you? How would you feel then? Now you just wasted a tournament because you decided you were in the mood to gamble on a coinflip. The other thing that i'm a little perplexed on is this. How did you know you were in a coinflip situation if this was the first hand and you hadn't played with this opponent? Plus it was online so you couldn't get a physical tell on him.

[ForRealDD 0]

Ok just for the sake of arguement lets say you lost that coinflip. Now what do you say to yourself? "Why did i lose a tournament in 30 seconds?" What if that guy had a real hand?  A higher pp or even a rediculously bad hand but won the pot and busted you? How would you feel then? Now you just wasted a tournament because you decided you were in the mood to gamble on a coinflip.

How would I feel if I got busted out of a gambling tournament because I decided to gamble ? I would feel like a gambler !

[alf13 0]

54% to win (we have QQ and we know villain has AK)....you start with $10,000 and you got $50 invested in the pot....you have to call for your whole stack....Mattros is an idiot.Again.....tell me why I am supposed to listen to a guy that Annie Duke, Phil hellmuth and Daniel Negreanu all deduced was a tell bag about MTT strategy.Mattros should stick to limit holdem theory....at least he knows what he is talking about in that instance.....This is just dumb.....wow...and so he can somehow make a mathematical point he has the villain expose his hand....STFU Matt.

[Jesse Jersey 0]

Jesse, you make a good point in mentioning that in a real situation you would never actually know what your opponet had, but I think you are missing the point of the article.Matt Matros allowing you to see the opponents cards is not a flaw in his thinking, it is to point out a flaw in the thinking of others. He is not trying to say that people who would fold the Q's without this information are wrong. He is trying to show why people who would fold even though they knew they were a favorite are wrong.Obviously since you would rarely, if ever, know this information, this situation does not translate directly to a real situation. However, the point is that if you are confident that you have the correct odds, you probably should be calling, as the evidence he presents shows that waiting for a better chance is probably not a good idea.

Aces_Up, I see what you are saying. If you know that you are a favorite it makes some sense to go ahead and try to accumulate the chips so you can exploit your skill advantage later.Again, the only problem I see in reality is that it would require that you have a very accurate read on your opponents to be sure you are actually ahead slightly instead of way behind. Given the nature of NL tourneys these days with the increase in online players who have gotten in cheap to major tourneys, this type of thinking may gain in value. However, early in a tournament with little knowledge of how opponents play, it would be questionable to make this kind of play.Now in a $2000 or less buyin where the blinds will eat you up within 3-4 levels, this makes sense. But with $10K in chips and blinds at $25-50, it seems to make more sense to be sure you have the best of it before committing your tournament life.

[doublemeup 0]

Ok just for the sake of arguement lets say you lost that coinflip. Now what do you say to yourself? "Why did i lose a tournament in 30 seconds?" What if that guy had a real hand?  A higher pp or even a rediculously bad hand but won the pot and busted you? How would you feel then? Now you just wasted a tournament because you decided you were in the mood to gamble on a coinflip.

How would I feel if I got busted out of a gambling tournament because I decided to gamble ? I would feel like a gambler !

Playing poker, not playing the slots. In poker you have some control of how you do. Not all luck and i reeeeeally hope you don't think so.

[ForRealDD 0]

I guess you're right. There is no gamble in poker.....and I thought we were talking about slots ....

[Timdog1010 0]

If I knew my opponent had AK, I might think long & hard about calling, I'd be really tempted to double up early. But if I couldn't see his cards, then I have to fold. I'd have to put him on AA or KK there....Then again I'm not a very good poker player...

[doublemeup 0]

I guess you're right. There is no gamble in poker.....and I thought we were talking about slots ....

Theres a lot of gamble in poker but its just stupid to put that much unneccessary money on the first hand on a coinflip at best.

[SuM827 0]

This means that if you calculate your chances of doubling up 10 times, you will calculate your chances of winning the event. Now let’s say that you have a 53.8 percent chance of doubling up whenever you get all in for your stack. This means that your chance of winning the tournament is .538 to the 10th power, or about 0.203 percent. The average player’s chance of winning the tournament is 1÷1,024, or about 0.098 percent. So, if you consistently get your chips in with a 53.8 percent chance of winning, you will be more than twice as likely as an average player to win the event.

I think his argument is flawed. When you consider how much dead money finds it's way into tournaments, and the fact that the pros probably only make up 20% or so of most starting fields, the argument starts to border on the absurd. The "average player" in these tournaments is pretty bad, and I'd say that anyone with a clue as to how to play poker, would probably be better served waiting for a better spot than a coinflip.

[HCarl 0]

I don't see how the long term edge factor can be considered in tournaments. Granted, if you do this repeatedly over time you'll win this situation more than you lose it, but if you lose it you're out of the tournament and that has to be considered. I guess what I'm trying to say is that this play should be made in a cash game every time, but in a tournament, it doesn't make sense to me.

[ForRealDD 0]

I guess you're right. There is no gamble in poker.....and I thought we were talking about slots ....

Theres a lot of gamble in poker but its just stupid to put that much unneccessary money on the first hand on a coinflip at best.

Opinions are always welcome....but to say it's stupid, is just.....stupid

[goose 0]

54% to win (we have QQ and we know villain has AK)....you start with $10,000 and you got $50 invested in the pot....you have to call for your whole stack....Mattros is an idiot.Again.....tell me why I am supposed to listen to a guy that Annie Duke, Phil hellmuth and Daniel Negreanu all deduced was a tell bag about MTT strategy.Mattros should stick to limit holdem theory....at least he knows what he is talking about in that instance.....This is just dumb.....wow...and so he can somehow make a mathematical point he has the villain expose his hand....STFU Matt.

while I don't share your venom, I agree.Who writes an article based on the assumption the villain's going to show their hand? Maybe the next one will assume we know what the flop's going to be.

[PoppinFresh 0]

54% to win (we have QQ and we know villain has AK)....you start with $10,000 and you got $50 invested in the pot....you have to call for your whole stack....Mattros is an idiot.Again.....tell me why I am supposed to listen to a guy that Annie Duke, Phil hellmuth and Daniel Negreanu all deduced was a tell bag about MTT strategy.Mattros should stick to limit holdem theory....at least he knows what he is talking about in that instance.....This is just dumb.....wow...and so he can somehow make a mathematical point he has the villain expose his hand....STFU Matt.

while I don't share your venom, I agree.Who writes an article based on the assumption the villain's going to show their hand? Maybe the next one will assume we know what the flop's going to be.

Did you guys even read the article? He was trying to make a point about taking coinflip situations(small edges) early in a tournament. The villain showing his hand was just to simplify the situation.And alf, why don't you actually refute some of the points in the article made instead of mindlessly bashing the author?

[PoppinFresh 0]

Ok just for the sake of arguement lets say you lost that coinflip. Now what do you say to yourself? "Why did i lose a tournament in 30 seconds?"

Better to lose it in 30 seconds than spend hours playing and bubble. You don't waste a tournament by taking a coinflip early and losing, because when you win the coinflip you're better setting yourself up for success later in the tourney. 1 1st place win and being the first out 49 times is better than 50 barely in the money finishes.

[goose 0]

The point alf was making is that you're never sure that you have that kind of edge preflop, save for the exceptionaly rare (.00001^1000) instance when someone does show you their cards.

[ForRealDD 0]

The point alf was making is that you're never sure that you have that kind of edge preflop, save for the exceptionaly rare (.00001^1000) instance when someone does show you their cards.

But the kicker in this thread is that you "have" seen your opponents cards and you do have the information in this hypothetical situation.

[doublemeup 0]

Ok just for the sake of arguement lets say you lost that coinflip. Now what do you say to yourself? "Why did i lose a tournament in 30 seconds?"

Better to lose it in 30 seconds than spend hours playing and bubble. You don't waste a tournament by taking a coinflip early and losing, because when you win the coinflip you're better setting yourself up for success later in the tourney. 1 1st place win and being the first out 49 times is better than 50 barely in the money finishes.

So what you're saying is that you'd rather put lose a tournament in 30 seconds if at BEST you're in a coinflip situation or most likely dominated then actually play poker to get chips and put your money in when you're a favorite? Another thing, most people who play this reckless and think that they need to double up early to win a tournament most likely don't win because a tournament doesn't last 30 seconds. Doubling up on the first hand is only a confidence booster but other than that, it means nothing because the blinds are so small that it won't even afftect your play.

[Shizzmoney 0]

How did you know you were in a coinflip situation if this was the first hand and you hadn't played with this opponent?

By the betting. Folded around to the blinds, he raised 5x's the BB from the SB, a sign in my estimation that he has a hand that doesn't want to get called from out of position: like an A-high hand. If he had a big PP like JJ or up, he probably would have just doubled the bet, and try to "sucker bet" me (if you play online tournaments alot this is a common tell on when someone has a good hand, they just double the bet hoping for a re-raise). I re-raise him back another 4'xs the BB, trying to represent a big pocket pair......I feel if I had gone all-in immediately right there, he might have put me on a hand that doesn't want to get called and figure, "geez, this guy must have a hand that wants to get called - he just doubled my bet". I find that only about 25-30%% of the players who have AA (or even KK) go all-in after they are re-raised preflop, especially early in the tournament. They make another smallish to medium raise, again trying to sucker their opponent into the trap with the pre flop nuts. If you read Harrington's books, the one key that he stresses is that "When you have the best hand, you don't want to be the one going all-in, you want your opponent to go all-in".

Plus it was online so you couldn't get a physical tell on him.

Very true - but there are tells online. Read some of the internet poker books out there that are written by some internet pros. It's mostly through betting patterns and amounts, which DN said himself is usually the #1 thing he looks for for LIVE play, never mind on the 'net.My opponent also then waited about 10 seconds before he went all-in, and I didn't think he was hollywooding. Usually some players on the 'net use this tatic to ruse on the appearance that they are weak (making them strong). But this time, I just sensed weakness. And remember, HE was the one who risked his tournament life on just AJ high - it wasn't even AK.

Ok just for the sake of arguement lets say you lost that coinflip. Now what do you say to yourself? "Why did i lose a tournament in 30 seconds?"

Well, I wouldn't have been mad because at least I went down with the best hand pre-flop. I play tight, but very aggressive. Even T.J Cloutier once said to Phil Hellmuth, "Sometimes you just gotta take a small pair like 5's or 7's, build a fort with it, and make a stand and show the table that you won't be bullied around". If I go down, as long as I have the best hand, I am happy with my play. If I had lost the race, or ran into a bigger PP.......it would have sucked but I would have at least made the aggressive play. I play to win, and sometimes than means sticking with a read and shoving your chips in even when you have crap, and sometimes that means donkin off my chips. But I have gotten enough fold equity over my short poker life than I find being the aggressor works. The best play in my mind in poker is to get the other guy to fold.I had the made hand, knew it, and wanted the guy's chips - and even made more money in the hand because if I had just smooth called his bet, and then hit my set, I probably wouldn't have gotten his whole stack (unless he donked off his chips to me with AJ-high on a 762 board).

So what you're saying is that you'd rather put lose a tournament in 30 seconds if at BEST you're in a coinflip situation or most likely dominated then actually play poker to get chips and put your money in when you're a favorite

Now, I don't rush to double up my stack wicked early like some do (or in $1 tournaments)....I just feel that you eventually have to win a coinflip sooner or later to give yourself a chance to win. Plus getting that big stack much earlier DOES allow me to play more post-flop poker because I can now see more flops, chase, and play a super aggressive style. I can change gears and be comfortable. In order to win NLHE tournies, you have to win with A-K/Q/J, and beat A-K/Q/J preflop. Plus, with the made hand, you are a favorite - a 55-45 favorite, but still a favorite.Sometimes, dude, you just have to stick with a read and go for it. You can't play scared. Some might play for 30th, but I play for 1st. I fight for pots and I have a gameplan that I feel helps me to win, that's all.

[ForRealDD 0]

This thread has gone bad....the topic now seems to be "Yeah, but you could be dominated and be in really bad shape."This is not the case. The thread is hypothetical and in this instance, you KNOW that you are NOT dominated but have a small edge....carry on

[alf13 0]

And alf, why don't you actually refute some of the points in the article made instead of mindlessly bashing the author?

There is no point to be made.Mattros says that the chances of winning for the average player is 1 in 1,024 (the number of entries)....that is flawed.But lets just say for arguements sake that he is right.....Then I could argue that you are correct to call with 32 offsuit in that spot.He tries to make a mathematical point...but his numbers really don't add up....WHY? BECAUSE HE MADE THEM UP.....to suit his arguement of course.The villain revealing his hand is just....well....stupid.

[doublemeup 0]

How did you know you were in a coinflip situation if this was the first hand and you hadn't played with this opponent?

By the betting. Folded around to the blinds, he raised 5x's the BB from the SB, a sign in my estimation that he has a hand that doesn't want to get called from out of position: like an A-high hand. If he had a big PP like JJ or up, he probably would have just doubled the bet, and try to "sucker bet" me (if you play online tournaments alot this is a common tell on when someone has a good hand, they just double the bet hoping for a re-raise). I re-raise him back another 4'xs the BB, trying to represent a big pocket pair......I feel if I had gone all-in immediately right there, he might have put me on a hand that doesn't want to get called and figure, "geez, this guy must have a hand that wants to get called - he just doubled my bet". I find that only about 25-30%% of the players who have AA (or even KK) go all-in after they are re-raised preflop, especially early in the tournament. They make another smallish to medium raise, again trying to sucker their opponent into the trap with the pre flop nuts. If you read Harrington's books, the one key that he stresses is that "When you have the best hand, you don't want to be the one going all-in, you want your opponent to go all-in".

Plus it was online so you couldn't get a physical tell on him.

Very true - but there are tells online. Read some of the internet poker books out there that are written by some internet pros. It's mostly through betting patterns and amounts, which DN said himself is usually the #1 thing he looks for for LIVE play, never mind on the 'net.My opponent also then waited about 10 seconds before he went all-in, and I didn't think he was hollywooding. Usually some players on the 'net use this tatic to ruse on the appearance that they are weak (making them strong). But this time, I just sensed weakness. And remember, HE was the one who risked his tournament life on just AJ high - it wasn't even AK.

Ok just for the sake of arguement lets say you lost that coinflip. Now what do you say to yourself? "Why did i lose a tournament in 30 seconds?"

Well, I wouldn't have been mad because at least I went down with the best hand pre-flop. I play tight, but very aggressive. Even T.J Cloutier once said to Phil Hellmuth, "Sometimes you just gotta take a small pair like 5's or 7's, build a fort with it, and make a stand and show the table that you won't be bullied around". If I go down, as long as I have the best hand, I am happy with my play. If I had lost the race, or ran into a bigger PP.......it would have sucked but I would have at least made the aggressive play. I play to win, and sometimes than means sticking with a read and shoving your chips in even when you have crap, and sometimes that means donkin off my chips. But I have gotten enough fold equity over my short poker life than I find being the aggressor works. The best play in my mind in poker is to get the other guy to fold.I had the made hand, knew it, and wanted the guy's chips - and even made more money in the hand because if I had just smooth called his bet, and then hit my set, I probably wouldn't have gotten his whole stack (unless he donked off his chips to me with AJ-high on a 762 board).

So what you're saying is that you'd rather put lose a tournament in 30 seconds if at BEST you're in a coinflip situation or most likely dominated then actually play poker to get chips and put your money in when you're a favorite

Now, I don't rush to double up my stack wicked early like some do (or in $1 tournaments)....I just feel that you eventually have to win a coinflip sooner or later to give yourself a chance to win. Plus getting that big stack much earlier DOES allow me to play more post-flop poker because I can now see more flops, chase, and play a super aggressive style. I can change gears and be comfortable. In order to win NLHE tournies, you have to win with A-K/Q/J, and beat A-K/Q/J preflop. Plus, with the made hand, you are a favorite - a 55-45 favorite, but still a favorite.Sometimes, dude, you just have to stick with a read and go for it. You can't play scared. Some might play for 30th, but I play for 1st. I fight for pots and I have a gameplan that I feel helps me to win, that's all.

Ok a few points here:1.) On the first hand of an online tournament against a player you've never seen before, there is no way to get a "read" on him. I said there was no "physical" tells in poker. If you can find one, please let me know.2.) You don't know stuff on this guy..... its the first hand.You're convincing yourself to believe that you have the best hand and playing it accordingly. If this was a while into the tourney then you have played with your opponent a bit then thats totally different. 3.) If your whole goal is to make the other guy fold then you're in BIG trouble. 4.) Finally, having a gameplan is a really bad idea when playing poker. You have to adjust to the players and the situation. Unless your gameplan is to just win then thats fine.