Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Tough games and game selection

Random Shuffle has an interesting post that touches on the idea that even tough games are good games if the dead money is deep enough.

At higher stakes the good games tend to have just one or two players who can be counted on to piss off a whole bunch of money. At lower stakes a good game tends to be one that has a bunch of players who can be counted on to piss off at least some money.

It's not really worthwhile to pick a game based on some rigid concept of how tough the lineup is, it's really just all about the amount of money that will be left on the table, not about how tough the lineup is.



Blogger phlash74 said...

It is an interesting post, although I think there's an additional element to Eli's decision to skip the tourney.

He may still think he's +EV, but that in order to get to the money against a tough field he'd have to grind it out and wouldn't have the same ability to accumulate chips quickly or bust out early as in a WSOP or WPT tourney with lots of dead money, so it's not worth his time. On the other hand, as long as there's dead money in a cash game, he would be well served to play as long as possible.

I suppose the cash game analogy would be when there's only one weak player and the good players have to jump in the game fast in order to get their share of his money. Are you saying that as long as the weak player's money is on the table, even if the other strong players have it, it might still be a (marginally) profitable game? That is, the extra money figures to be somewhat evenly distributed among the strong players in the long run?


11:01 PM  
Blogger Gary Carson said...

A poker game isn't a Saturday night dance, the money doesn't belong to who brung it, it belongs to who has it right now.

12:03 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home