GT-NO: Two Tournament ‘Toy’ Situations

Should you pass up a slightly good bet if a better bet is on the horizon and losing the first bet means you can’t make the second? More generally, should you risk going broke in a poker game if going broke means that you miss out on better spots to risk your money?

Many players wonder about this especially early in a (non-rebuy or re-entry) tournament. A similar situation might occur in a cash game when you have very little money in your pocket.

It may be that you know you are a lot better than your opponents. It may be that you are at a bad table that will soon be broken up. It may be that your edge increases when stacks are smaller in comparison to the blinds which happens in a tournament.

Whatever the reason, the answer is not a flat yes or no. It depends on HOW MUCH better you expect future bets to be. It also depends on whether winning the first bet allows you to bet more on the second bet.

Say that you have a hundred dollars in your pocket, and someone offers to bet that hundred, even money, on something where you know you are 60% to win. The problem is that tomorrow you have the chance to bet a hundred on an 80% shot. And if you lose today, you can’t do it because you can’t replenish that hundred in time. Should you take that first bet?

If you don’t, you will wind up with an average of $160 via that second bet which is a profit of $60. (You figure to win 8 of 10 bets for a total profit of $600.)

If you do take that first bet, you will wind up with nothing 40% of the time, wind up with your original hundred 12% when you win the first bet and lose the second, and wind up with $300 the 48% of the time when you win them both. You walk away with an average of $156. A $56 profit.

So, it’s better to wait. (But ONLY because you can’t bet your winnings. If you could, there would be a 60% chance you could bet $200 as an 80% shot which would mean that your bankroll would average 60% of $320 or $192. $92 average profit. The bottom line would be to never wait for the second bet if the first bet is good and you can bet it all when you win, on that second good bet.

But what if the second bet is not that much better? Say it’s 70% rather than 80%. Waiting means an expected bankroll of $140. Making that first 60% bet means zero 40%, $100 18%, and $300 42%. That’s $144. Thus, you should make that first bet in this case. Don’t miss out on that first good bet if the one down the road is only a little bit better.

The second “toy” situation has you one out of the money in a tournament with an unusual pay schedule. (I am using it because it makes the calculations a lot easier while not seriously changing the best strategy as compared to a normal payoff schedule.)

The unusual thing about this tournament is that there are only two kinds of prizes. (Similar to a satellite.) First place and surviving the bubble. In this example we will say that the chip leader has half of the chips. Say he has 5K in tournament chips, the first prize is $10,000, and everyone else gets $500.

One more player needs to go broke for you to make the money. And if no one gets involved in a hand it will almost certainly be player X who is down to less than one big blind. Now say a different player raises enough to put you all in and possibly cost you an otherwise virtually sure $500 and the possibility of $10,000 if you call and lose.

Whether you should call him depends on how much you have and what you deem your chances of winning the hand is.

I won’t make you do a tough algebra problem involving x and y but I will give a precise hypothetical number. You have $700 in tournament chips. About what chance do you need to beat the pusher to make it right to call? (Assume everyone else is out of the hand).

Answer: If you fold your EV is about 7% of $10,000 and 93% of $500. Thats about $1,165.
If you call and win you have an EV of about 14% of $10,000 and about 86% of $500. That’s about $1,830.

Ignoring the blinds, you are risking $1,165 to win $665. So you better be about a 9-5 favorite at least.

And notice that if you had only about $200 it is even worse. You go from 2% of $10,000 and 98% of $500 to 4% of $10,000 and 96% of $500. $690 to $880. You risk $690 to win about $190. Now you need to be about three and a half to one favorite which usually would mean you need to have aces or maybe kings. (And if your stack was not that much larger than player X you hopefully realize that even aces should be folded.)

David Sklansky is the author of The Theory of Poker, as well as nearly two dozen other guides on gambling, poker, and other games. The three-time WSOP bracelet winner’s latest book, Small Stakes No-Limit Hold’em: Help Them Give You Their Money, is now available on Amazon. You can contact Sklansky at [email protected].