Poker Fallacies

I keep in close touch with my co-author of Middle Limit Holdem Poker, Jim Brier. Here is something interesting he sent me about some common poker “wisdoms” that he considers to be fallacies. (The first paragraph after each fallacy contains his comments, and the second paragraph contains mine.)

Fallacy No. 1: A tournament with a smaller buy-in and larger prize pool is better than one with a larger buy-in and smaller prize pool.

JB: This came up in discussing the $110 daily tournament at one poker room (Room A) versus the $65 daily tournament at another poker room (Room B). It was pointed out that not only does Room B have a smaller buy-in, it has a larger prize pool, because it gets about 100 players versus only about 10 players for the tournament in Room A. But this argument neglected to point out that in Room A, only $10 is taken by the house, with the other $100 going into the prize pool, while in Room B, $13 is kept by the house and only $52 goes into the prize pool. Thus, the tournament “juice” in Room A is only 9 percent ($10 ÷ $110), while that in Room B is 20 percent ($13 ÷ $65).

BC: Most poker players dream of making a huge score by winning a prize so big that their life is changed. I agree that in terms of equity, having a tiny chance of winning a big payoff is not necessarily superior to a much better chance of winning a much lower payoff. It goes against my grain to go for the moon and be disappointed (I would not buy a lottery ticket even if there were no juice), but many others like the possibility of a transformative opportunity.

Fallacy No. 2: Casino A’s freeroll of $350,000 is better than Casino B’s freeroll, which is only $100,000.

JB: Since a freeroll tournament has no buy-in for those who qualify, this seems like a plausible argument. The problem is that there will be about 2,000 players in Casino A’s freeroll and only about 300 players in Casino B’s freeroll. Setting aside individual skill levels of the players, the expected value for Casino A’s freeroll is $175 ($350,000 ÷ 2,000) versus $333 ($100,000 ÷ 300) for Casino B’s freeroll. Another consideration is how many hours you have to play in each casino in order to qualify. Casino A may require more hours of play than Casino B. Furthermore, one casino may offer better, more easy-to-beat games than the other.

BC: I definitely agree with Brier on this one. There is a lot more to evaluating the value of a freeroll tournament than the size of the prize pool. For example, if there was a cardroom that had a bad-beat jackpot of a million dollars, but you had to lose with a queen-high straight flush to win it, would you spend a lot of time trying to become a millionaire? I hope not.

Fallacy No. 3: In limit poker, for a given blinds structure, you want the game that builds the biggest pots.

JB: Big pots are generated not just in tight-aggressive games, but also in loose-aggressive games, especially those with a kill button. This is common in small-stakes games like $4-$8 and lower. There are enormous fluctuations in players’ bankrolls when they play in these games, and a much larger bankroll may be required. For example, one cardroom spreads a $4-$8 limit Omaha game, high only with a half-kill to $6-$12. The pots are enormous, with six or more players taking a flop and frequently five or more going to the river. But this game may require a bankroll as big as that for a $10-$20 game, in which fewer pots are raised preflop and fewer opponents go to the river. A player could run bad and get wiped out before his skill could manifest itself. In small-stakes limit hold’em, the best games are not necessarily those that generate the biggest pots, especially when there are a lot of semibluffs and check-raising. A better game might be a passive one in which you can be the “bully on the block.”

BC: Although I do not like playing in a game that is squeaky tight, I do not care for a game in which nearly all of the pots are raised or reraised preflop. The game I like best is the one in which opponents charge you a pittance to see a flop, call your preflop raises, and pay you off when they flop top pair. Unfortunately, at the stakes I like to play, such games are few and far between. I am happy if one or two of the players give that sort of loose action.

Poker Hall of Famer Puggy Pearson, when talking about whether the ante for a $100-$200 limit seven-card stud game should be $25 or $50, said that while both games could be beat, you could win more with the smaller ante.

Fallacy No. 4: No-limit is better than limit, because you can protect your hand.
JB: By “protecting your hand,” I am assuming that you have more fold equity. This may be true in the bigger no-limit hold’em games, like $2-$5 and higher. The vast majority of no-limit hold’em games are $1-$2 with small, capped buy-ins ($40-$200). Typical preflop raises are three to five times the big blind. At this limit, you still get several callers who want to see a flop. Furthermore, some players in these small no-limit hold’em games have caught on to the Sklansky “short-stack” strategy, so they are perfectly willing to go all in either preflop or on the flop, and simply buy in again for the minimum when they get stacked. These players leave when they double up.

BC: I do not care for a short-stack game; no professional poker player does. All-in artists ruin a game for you if you’re a good player, because when you pick up a hand like a pair of sevens and start to dream of a double-up, here comes Mr. Short Stack, trying to win a pittance by moving in with just enough money to make calling a bad proposition.

Fallacy No. 5: A novice tournament player should spend his time playing in small buy-in tournaments and then use his winnings to play in bigger tournaments.

JB: This may make sense for cash-game players, but winnings in small tournaments may not be too much. The problem is that the juice in small buy-in tournaments is frequently 30 percent or higher.

BC: If you are relying on poker for a major portion of your income, remember that your winnings have to be more than enough to cover your living expenses, so don’t play too cheaply. If you are an amateur, it is OK to keep your poker expenses low. But it is quite difficult to build up a poker bankroll by playing in cheap events that have a large amount of juice going to the house. When you play in only small buy-in tournaments, you are playing strictly for entertainment.

As you see, Jim Brier is an excellent mathematical analyst who looks at far more than just the buy-in and projected prize pool when deciding whether or not to enter a poker tournament — and so should you. ♠

Bob Ciaffone has authored four poker books, Middle Limit Holdem Poker, Pot-limit and No-limit Poker, Improve Your Poker, and Omaha Poker. All can be ordered (autographed to you) from Bob by e-mail: [email protected]. Free U.S. shipping to Card Player readers. Ciaffone is available for poker lessons at a reasonable rate. His website is www.pokercoach.us, where you can get his rulebook, Robert’s Rules of Poker, for free. Bob also has a website called www.fairlawsonpoker.org.