Small Buy-In Tournaments - Part III

I have always maintained that one of the best ways to improve at poker is to read about it. Don't read poker books like mystery novels, zipping along to find out "who done it." It is important to approach each new poker book as if it's a combination of a puzzle book and a textbook. The puzzles are the hands and situations the author discusses. Your job is to try to find your own solutions, compare them to his, and then evaluate who is correct. The text is really the author's theories and logic of what is correct and why, but unlike most textbooks, there will be some errors. It is up to you to learn from the areas in which he is right without being misled by the areas in which he is wrong.



As I mentioned in Part I, Arnold Snyder's new book The Poker Tournament Formula has a large section on rebuys and add-ons, which triggered some threads on the TwoPlusTwo forums. While Snyder is a well-known blackjack author, who has limited expertise in poker, he has made a sincere effort to cover the decisions that must be made to play in the proliferation of daily small buy-in tournaments. Many of these situations also occur in some big tournaments. The World Series of Poker has rebuy events in no-limit hold'em, pot-limit Omaha, and deuce-to-seven lowball. If you are going to play in events with rebuys and add-ons, you definitely should devote some thought to these situations.



He is the first to discus purchasing "dealers bonus chips." I have seen these only in some of the local small tournaments. The money spent on these chips doesn't go into the prize pool, but to the dealers. These chips are sold at a big discount, making them an attractive purchase. Snyder correctly recommends their purchase. (They present an interesting exercise in game theory. Overall, if no one bought them, all players would pay less juice, and maintain equality. Once some players abandon this cooperative strategy, everyone should abandon it. Players buying these "cheap" chips have an advantage over those who don't. The other reason to buy them is that it is a cheap way to see that the dealers receive some tokes in these tournaments.)



There are generally two types of rebuy tournaments: unlimited rebuys allowed for some time period, or a limit (usually one). Some tournaments allow rebuys whenever your chip stack is less than or equal to the starting stack. In these events, you can rebuy before you play a hand, and if you go broke, you can get a double rebuy. Others allow you to rebuy only when your chip stack is less than your starting stack, and in these events, you can't rebuy until you have lost some chips. Snyder basically recommends rebuying whenever you can. In fact, he even suggests that in those tournaments in which you can rebuy only with less than the starting stack, you might do well to lose a small pot so that you can rebuy at once. While I wouldn't go that far, I certainly would agree that a superior player (with an unlimited bankroll for the size of the tournament) in an unlimited rebuy tournament should rebuy as soon and as often as he can. This is especially true if his reasons for playing include nonfinancial factors like seeking glory or winning a bracelet. While it is not a major factor, you also should remember that in small buy-in tournaments, juice (the fee for the house) is charged on your initial buy-in only. Therefore, rebuys and add-ons are proportionally cheaper.



What if only one rebuy is allowed? Should you make it right away or wait until you lose all or most of your stack? A similar question comes up occasionally in tournaments in which you are allowed to take your starting chips in two installments: Should you take them all at once or wait before taking the second half? The vast majority of players believe that it is best to wait, and they do so. Usually, they wait until they are broke or extremely short before adding the second bullet. A few, like Howard Lederer, assume that they are the better players, will make good decisions, and will benefit from having a deeper stack; therefore, they put everything on the table at once. Snyder agrees. I try to evaluate my table and decide on the best time to augment my chips based on my evaluation.



Snyder also recommends adding on the maximum allowed, with one possible exception. The possible exception is when you are severely short-stacked. His advice is the exact opposite of conventional wisdom, which suggests skipping add-ons with very large stacks and always taking them with small stacks. In my opinion, his recommendation is clearly wrong. Chips are worth more to a short stack than they are to a big stack. If you're one of the better players, it is always correct to add on with a short stack. There is, however, a point at which your stack is so large that the cost of an add-on outweighs the slight increase in winning chances that it provides. This is even more likely to be true in supersatellites, where a seat is the maximum prize. (It is not worth $200 to raise your chance of winning a $10,000 seat by 1 percent, which would be worth only $100.)



Assuming that your motives for playing are purely financial and that you want to maximize your equity (not your return on investment), when should you add on? My advice is, always add to a short stack, usually add to a medium or fairly large stack, and sometimes add to a big stack. How do you decide? Evaluate your table. If you are at a good table, one where bad players have a lot of chips, always add on. If you are at an average table, generally add on, unless your stack is very large compared to the average stack. The most common situation in which you should consider passing up the add-on is when you have at least an average stack, but are unfortunate enough to be at a bad table, one that's full of superior players with a lot of chips. When the best players with the biggest stacks are located to your left and have position over you, be even more inclined to pass up the add-on. This is also the situation in which I try to postpone making my single rebuy or taking the second half of my stack in tournaments using that format. My goal is to survive, hoping that the composition of my table will change for the better as players tap out and tables break. Then, when the situation is more favorable, I will augment my stack.



Steve "Zee" Zolotow, aka The Bald Eagle, is a successful games player. He currently devotes most of his time to poker. He can be found at many major tournaments and playing on Full Tilt, as one of its pros. When escaping from poker, he hangs out in his bar, Nice Guy Eddie's on Houston and Avenue A in New York City.