When you know you're not the best player at the table

MGrah

Picked up from the Irish Open Satellite thread, the obvious thinking that if you are the best player left at the final table of an mtt you can legitimately give up slight +EV all in situations as your ability to outplay the others will give you a better advantage over a greater number of hands. (I guess that makes the +EV situation actually -EV, hmmmm, anyone ever find a way to work the relative abilities of the players into an EV calculation?)

Anyway, my question is, does this logic follow: that a player who knows they are not the best player at a table should seek such situations to get their money in, as, in the long run, they are likely to be outplayed by the more skillfull player?
Would this actually make the play against Nicky in that qualifier a good play by the villain?

RoundTower

If you are not the best player at the table and you are playing NL, then yes, there is definitely a lot to be said for moving in early in the hand and hoping to get lucky.

Culchie

Absolutely ... introducing 'Kill Phil' poker.

Looking forward to Negreanus ingredients to be thrown into the mixer as well next month.

The C Kid

According to Blair Rodman and Lee Nelson, then yes.

Ste05

MGrah wrote:

Would this actually make the play against Nicky in that qualifier a good play by the villain?

I would say it would all depend on what he actually had.

But there's a book that basically preaches the exact thing you are getting at in your post. It's called Kill Phil, and it suggests that the best way for a player who is outclassed is to get the money in the pot as early as possible and actively seek 50:50's etc. The only time a more skillful player has an edge over you is post flop. So by pushing in you destroy this edge and the more skillful player is reduced to playing at your level, instead of you trying to come up to their level.

At your level you have a decent chance of winning, at their level you have a terrible chance of winning.

RoundTower

Ste05 wrote:

The only time a more skillful player has an edge over you is post flop.

Well this clearly isn't true, but the idea is still sound.

Ste05

RoundTower wrote:

Well this clearly isn't true, but the idea is still sound.

Well assuming you at least know the value of starting hands then it is true. And I don't think the OP is referring to a monkey from Dublin Zoo sitting down at the Irish Open and playing...

MrPillowTalk

The best player will usually be correct to throw away a hand if he/she feels they are in a race situation, assuming that losing the race would leave them shortstacked or knocked out.

If you feel you are playing better players then getting your chips in in a race situation makes perfect sense.

handsfree

IMO being the best player at the table means that you create situations against other players when you are a clear favourite to win.


what i'm trying to say is being the best player means having a strategy against each player at the table which gives you a pychological advantage as well as a skill one. I think that it is far too easy for someone to say that they are the best when clearly they didn't have a strategy to play against this player.

MGrah

handsfree wrote:

IMO being the best player at the table means that you create situations against other players when you are a clear favourite to win.


what i'm trying to say is being the best player means having a strategy against each player at the table which gives you a pychological advantage as well as a skill one. I think that it is far too easy for someone to say that they are the best when clearly they didn't have a strategy to play against this player.

This is an interesting idea to me. Where I think this is heading is if you are aware of the fact that someone is a 'better' player than you, and adjust your game accordingly, you automatically have an edge. As different posters have mentioned the better player will avoid races, but can't an average/poor player avoid situations where post flop play will be key just as easily? As in there only post flop play is fold or all in? (maybe not)

What I think that leaves you with is a situation where for one player a particular move is major -EV, and for another the same move in the same situation against the same opponent would be +EV?? So I'm back to the question of how can you account for you own and your opponents playing ability when deciding whether a move is correct or not?

Ste05

It would take a book to describe this MGrah, luckily enough it's already been written and referred to above. "Kill Phil" it's all about how to play against the Phil's, (Ivey, Laak and Hellmuth, et al) if your a beginner or amateur. Basically written for the on-line amateur who has won a satellite into a WPT event or the likes.

MGrah

Ste05 wrote:

It would take a book to describe this MGrah, luckily enough it's already been written and referred to above. "Kill Phil" it's all about how to play against the Phil's, (Ivey, Laak and Hellmuth, et al) if your a beginner or amateur. Basically written for the on-line player amateur who has won a satellite into a WPT event or the likes.

Wouldn't say I'm just beginning Ste, more interested in this theory than anything else, it's something I haven't thought about before. We all know about playing the man and that, but to actually change your entire approach to the game based on who's sitting at the table with you is another thing altogether in my mind (maybe that's naive). Anyway thanks and I'll check out Kill Phil and see where it takes me. Either way, even sitting down with the best in the world I think I'd play to what I thought was the best move at the time, rather than try and turn it into a lottery and learn nothing. As I say, it's more the theory that interests me.
I guess it's similar to the description of a World Series entry in Super System (I think) where the lady is told something like any premium hand, all in preflop anything else fold as a strategy. Removes skill from the game in so much as possible, of course it's the other players skill in deciding when to call that makes the difference then.

Ste05

MGrah wrote:

Wouldn't say I'm just beginning Ste, more interested in this theory than anything else, it's something I haven't thought about before.

Didn't really mean you were just beginning, just meant that it's designed as a strategy for how to play against the best players in the World, so I think most of us are pretty much guaranteed to be out classed by these fellas. Sorry for the mix up.

MGrah wrote:

We all know about playing the man and that, but to actually change your entire approach to the game based on who's sitting at the table with you is another thing altogether in my mind (maybe that's naive). Anyway thanks and I'll check out Kill Phil and see where it takes me. Either way, even sitting down with the best in the world I think I'd play to what I thought was the best move at the time, rather than try and turn it into a lottery and learn nothing. As I say, it's more the theory that interests me.

I'm pretty much the same, and TBH it's not the best book, I bought it thinking I wouldn't mind seeing what it's all about, but got pissed off with it fairly quickly and haven't looked at it since.

MGrah wrote:

I guess it's similar to the description of a World Series entry in Super System (I think) where the lady is told something like any premium hand, all in preflop anything else fold as a strategy. Removes skill from the game in so much as possible, of course it's the other players skill in deciding when to call that makes the difference then.

I think if your referring to Sklansky's advice to a woman who went quite deep in the WSOP one year, and it's kinda where Kill Phil originated from, I can't remember the details of it, but it's in the book.

NickyOD

I think once you begin to take this defeatist attitude to the poker table you let yourself down not just as a poker player but as person who should believe he is capable of anything. The Kill Phil theory is like football teams who throw 11 men in the six yard box hoping to ride it out and maybe get to penalties to sneak a win.

When I sat beside Micky Wernick in Vienna, I didn't know who he was. For 3 hours I sat on his left, and could see through his hole cards. I don't think I've ever reraised another player more in any tournament I've played. Then at the break Fatboydim tells me he's European player of the year. Huh? Had he told me this earlier I'm not sure I would have had the balls to reraise him preflop with J-T for a quarter of my stack.

I think no matter who is at your table you should convince yourself that you have it in you to outplay every player in front of you. There are no better or worse poker players just players who use there energies in different ways.

MGrah

Ste05 wrote:

Didn't really mean you were just beginning, just meant that it's designed as a strategy for how to play against the best players in the World, so I think most of us are pretty much guaranteed to be out classed by these fellas. Sorry for the mix up.

No offence taken mate, you're right about Sklansky I'm sure, been a while since I dipped into either book. I'd have to agree with Nicky as well, once you apply this theory you commit to never improving as a player and might as well walk away. Personnally as I said I'd rather pay for the lesson and move on.
Still though being a bit of a geek, I find these theories fascinating.

corblimey

Isn't this like the video that was doing the rounds a few months back of a guy purporting to be a "brand new system". He was using some sort of poker odds calculator to determine the top 10% of starting hands, then all in every time, anything else fold. I believe it was savaged by a lot of the boardsters as a terribly defeatist way of playing.

If I remember correctly, I tried it on a couple of $5STTs at the time, and came out even, but without learning anything in the games themselves.

Ste05

I also agree with Nicky, I only posted the Book in reply to your question, if I make it to the WSOP I certainly won't be playing like it says in the book, experience is the prize I'd take from playing if I had my ass handed to me (even though I don't think it would ) but as I said I had to put it down fairly quickly. When it first came out I had heard it was a new system and the book was compared to Harrington, so obviously I got it, but it's basically written for someone who had never played Poker before and had a day or an hour to try and pick up some hope of playing in the tournament. a la the Sklanky story.

However, I do think that it is a good strategy for someone who is CRAP at Poker, obviously if you harbour any ambitions to improve your game (as in anyone basically that reads or posts on Poker forums so anyone who reads this doesn't count) then it's not the way to go, but there might be the odd little tit bit in there for the uber-read Poker afficionado.

RoundTower

Ste05 wrote:

Well assuming you at least know the value of starting hands then it is true. And I don't think the OP is referring to a monkey from Dublin Zoo sitting down at the Irish Open and playing...

I reckon I have an edge playing say 20BB freezeouts against one of the guys in Nicky's thread, even if the rule is push or fold preflop. What do you mean by "know the value of starting hands"? Is it enough to know AJ beats K8, and so on? Or do you have to know, say, how does A2o match up against the top 25% of your opponent's hands? I can't see many people being able to answer that question.

Ste05

RoundTower wrote:

I reckon I have an edge playing say 20BB freezeouts against one of the guys in Nicky's thread, even if the rule is push or fold preflop. What do you mean by "know the value of starting hands"? Is it enough to know AJ beats K8, and so on? Or do you have to know, say, how does A2o match up against the top 25% of your opponent's hands? I can't see many people being able to answer that question.

Where's your edge exactly??

Is it the willingness to gamble, play position etc. etc., if your facing an All-In raise or re-raise with a top 5% or 10% hand range how can you outplay your opponent?? This move negates nearly every move you can make.

If you even skim the book (hurts to read too much) you'll see what he's getting at.

RoundTower

I know what he's getting at, and I do think the principle is OK. But it is taking it too far to say there is no skill factor in picking hands to play preflop.

Here's an example. Suppose you have Q9o and your stack is 10BB and your opponent's is 30BB. He is first to speak and pushes. Suppose you've forgotten everything about how your opponent plays (most opponents will push too many or too few hands here, giving you a further advantage if you can get the hang of how your opponent plays). Do you call?

If no, what is the minimum hand you should call with here? If yes, how bad would your hand have to be to fold)? Do you think it is a matter of taste and that neither option would be wrong?

I don't know the answers to the first two questions, but I believe there is a right answer. And even if I'm just guessing I expect to be right more often than some guy who knows a bit about the hand rankings.

Lee Jones (same guy who has some connection with Pokerstars) has done some work on answering these questions and got quite precise results. I don't have a link but you can probably find one somewhere on 2+2 or on Cardplayer or maybe on Pokerstars. Maybe Kill Phil even reproduces some of the results, I don't think so.

Hectorjelly

20bbs is plenty to have a big edge over players, In most tournaments the avg stack is less than 30bbs once 3/4 of the field is gone.

Ste05

RoundTower wrote:

Here's an example. Suppose you have Q9o and your stack is 10BB and your opponent's is 30BB. He is first to speak and pushes. Suppose you've forgotten everything about how your opponent plays (most opponents will push too many or too few hands here, giving you a further advantage if you can get the hang of how your opponent plays). Do you call?

This isn't really relevant TBH, (a) if you're forgetting everything about how your opponent plays, then where is the skill?? A Kill Philler is praying for a call from Q9o...

The edge a better player has is in playing through the streets..

Culchie

Yeh, principle is the 'Phil' will play small ball poker through the streets and his skill will win out, the 'Kill Phil' player is having none of that, it's big ball poker or no poker, something 'Phil' won't fancy too much unless he's hold premium hands preflop.
It's just a tactic to blunt their edge.

btw... The book really isn't an enjoyable read at all, pretty poorly laid out....and what the valuable messages of the book contains, you could write on the back of a postage stamp.

RoundTower

Ste05 wrote:

This isn't really relevant TBH, (a) if you're forgetting everything about how your opponent plays, then where is the skill?? A Kill Philler is praying for a call from Q9o...

The edge a better player has is in playing through the streets..

Why not? It would still be a mistake for me to fold AK or to call with T2o. If I never make this kind of mistake and my opponent sometimes does, then I have an edge. Of course I can have an even bigger edge if I don't have to play push or fold but my opponent does, or if I get used to how my opponent plays. But even in the extreme situation I gave I expect to have some edge.

Ste05

RoundTower wrote:

Why not? It would still be a mistake for me to fold AK or to call with T2o. If I never make this kind of mistake and my opponent sometimes does, then I have an edge. Of course I can have an even bigger edge if I don't have to play push or fold but my opponent does, or if I get used to how my opponent plays. But even in the extreme situation I gave I expect to have some edge.

This is the whole point of the strategy, the Kill Philler is given a list of hands.
List 1 says if noone has entered the pot Push with these hands...
List 2 says if there a limper in before you Push with these hands....
List 3 says if there's a raiser before you Push with these hands...
List 4 says call All-In with these hands....
And List 5 says if you get down to x No of BB's push with these hands...

You are the one that is calling for All the chips, and so a Kill Philler will not make these mistakes, they are playing to a formula.

There is no mistakes to make, the only risk is that they get a bad run of cards or lose one of their races. Races that the "Phil's" will try to avoid if possible.

P.S. There are actual lists that can get bought that set out exactly what hands to play. So actually if one of the monkey's from Dublin Zoo can be taught to read a card listing hand rankings, and then push if the criteria fits, then they can basically play this way.

RoundTower

And you think this formula is unexploitable? I don't.

Ste05

RoundTower wrote:

And you think this formula is unexploitable? I don't.

OK, how do you exploit it??

RoundTower

OK to simplify things: suppose we each had a million big blinds and you have to push or fold each hand. I am going to call you if and only if I get aces. What hands can you profitably push?

Ste05

Can you answer a question or do you just always ask another one??

And it's probably best to keep things in reality, I can't see many tournaments where you have a million big blinds.

The strategy isn't All-In or fold regardless of the blinds, but there is no real subtlety in it, play certain hands if you hit on the flop then All-In, the only way to outplay this strategy is to get better cards. End of story.

Please explain to me where you think you can get an edge over this player without getting better cards. Your EV might be higher for the tournament overall. But you cannot outplay this particular player without better cards.

If you disagree then please explain how??

RoundTower

I said a million big blinds just to show an extreme case. With a million big blinds I probably win 75% of the time or more. With 3BB each then I probably win 50% of the time. With 20BB or 100 I win somewhere in between.

Suppose we are playing a 40BB HU freezeout. You have to push or fold every hand. Since your strategy is unexploitable, I should not be able to exploit it even if I know exactly what it is.

This is my strategy to exploit your strategy:

When I am in the BB my strategy will be to call if my hand is 55% or better against your range.

When I am in the SB I will either minraise or fold every hand. If you tell me which hands you are pushing against my minraise, I can tell you which hands I will minraise with and which hands I will minraise and call a push. I can't work this out exactly without knowing your exact pushing range here, but it should be clear that either a) you are bleeding away chips by folding too many hands or b) you are pushing too many hands and when I call, I will be a substantial favourite (say 66% or better) to get all the chips.

RoundTower

Ste05 wrote:

The strategy isn't All-In or fold regardless of the blinds, but there is no real subtlety in it, play certain hands if you hit on the flop then All-In

Isn't this how everyone plays?

Again with deep enough stacks you will be either folding too many hands, or getting the money in as a substantial underdog most of the time.

Ste05

RoundTower wrote:

When I am in the BB my strategy will be to call if my hand is 55% or better against your range.

This is basically what a Kill Philler is playing for, he is actively seeking races, it's the only chance he has in the tournament. The likes of Phil Hellmuth, Ivey, etc. try not to get into races for their tournament life, because they can outplay most opponents on the flop, turn or river. Hence why it is effective, it negates the skill (or edge) a better player has against them and they are forced into race situations that they don't want to be in. This player could be pushing with AA or with 78s, you just have to be willing to gamble with them.

Although, it's not really a heads up strategy in general, there's another slight variation for HU play, so discussing it in that context is a waste of time.

What it's designed for is examples such as this. Just say you're playing in the WSOP and at your table is Phil Laak, Phil Hellmuth, Phil Ivey, Doyle Brunson, Gus Hanson, Andy Black, Chris Ferguson, Internet Qualifier A (a Kill Philler) and yourself. Say you all have between 60 - 100B's.

Now how do you outplay this player without getting better cards than him?

RoundTower wrote:

This is my strategy to exploit your strategy:

This isn't my strategy, I don't like it, all I'm saying is that it effectively reduces the edge a better player has over a novice. I haven't read the whole book, because I don't ever plan on playing like this, so I can't comment on the minute details of the strategy, but the generality makes sense to me

RoundTower wrote:

Isn't this how everyone plays?

I certainly don't, do you routinely over bet flops??

NickyOD

Ste05 wrote:

This is basically what a Kill Philler is playing for, he is actively seeking races, it's the only chance he has in the tournament. The likes of Phil Hellmuth, Ivey, etc. try not to get into races for their tournament life, because they can outplay most opponents on the flop, turn or river. Hence why it is effective, it negates the skill (or edge) a better player has against them and they are forced into race situations that they don't want to be in. This player could be pushing with AA or with 78s, you just have to be willing to gamble with them.

This is just muddled thinking. Firstly a bad player adopting this strategy isn't even good enough to recognise when he is in a race situation. For example A player raises with Jacks bad player reads him wrong and goes all in with 7s and gets called.

Also a good player is likely to be able to put the bad palyer on AK/AQ and and would quite happily accept a race with pocket Tens. It's a good palyer who will find these edges and exploit them not avoid them.

RoundTower

Ste05 wrote:

all I'm saying is that it effectively reduces the edge a better player has over a novice.

No, that is what I was saying. You were saying

Ste05 wrote:

The only time a more skillful player has an edge over you is post flop.

and I disagreed, and I gave an example of how I could outplay you if you insisted on only pushing or folding preflop.

To outplay this "Kill Philler" at the WSOP table of Doom you don't have to get better cards than him, you just play big pots when you have better cards and you don't play at all when you have crap cards. That should be Poker 101.

Ste05

NickyOD wrote:

This is just muddled thinking. Firstly a bad player adopting this strategy isn't even good enough to recognise when he is in a race situation. For example A player raises with Jacks bad player reads him wrong and goes all in with 7s and gets called.

Also a good player is likely to be able to put the bad palyer on AK/AQ and and would quite happily accept a race with pocket Tens. It's a good palyer who will find these edges and exploit them not avoid them.

Firstly he doesn't call or re-raise with 77.
Secondly he doesn't need any skill he has cards that tell him what to do.
Thirdly there's no reading other players, he just plays according to a formula. Then picks a spot on the felt and stares at it. Glasses and Hoody up tight.
Fourthly The whole point of the strategy is to get into these races. If he wins them then he has a hope, but if he doesn't take them then he doesn't have any chance.

RoundTower wrote:

No, that is what I was saying. You were saying

and I disagreed, and I gave an example of how I could outplay you if you insisted on only pushing or folding preflop.

To outplay this "Kill Philler" at the WSOP table of Doom you don't have to get better cards than him, you just play big pots when you have better cards and you don't play at all when you have crap cards. That should be Poker 101.

OK, what I was saying was that you couldn't outplay this player, just accept races or not. the "Phil's" have no need to race, because they can outplay most people through the streets.

I still haven't seen how this strategy can be outplayed without accepting possible races.

And you can't play big pots with this player unless the chips are All-In fairly early in the hand.

Again, I don't think this strategy is all that great, but I think it does what it says on the tin...