The best LOSING poker I ever played.

[Alan Mendelson]

I know that many poker players don't want to talk about their losses, but I am kind of proud of losing a tournament yesterday (Saturday) at The Bicycle Casino near Los Angeles.

I haven't played tournaments (except for occasional charity or benefit tournaments) for about a year. But yesterday I was tempted to play the noon tournament at The Bike which was a $40 buy-in with no add-ons or rebuys. In other words: the maximum risk was $40. There wasn't much reward either as the guaranteed prize pool was only $2,000. So simply, this was a chance to have some fun playing poker for cheap in a tournament setting.

I played very well and I was very proud of how I played, even though I lost.

I am sitting in seat #7 and the button was on seat #9. It was a ten-handed table so seat #1 was the Big Blind. The big blind was 50, small blind 25. We started with 6,000 in tournament chips.

On the very first hand I was dealt pocket queens, which is a darn good starting hand.

The blinds are posted.
Seat number two calls the big blind with his 50 chips.
Seats three and four fold.
Seat five calls the 50.
Seat six folds.

I am in seat 7 and with QQ I raised to 300.
The big and small blinds fold.
Seat 2 calls my raise to 300.
Sear 5 calls my raise to 300.

We see a flop.

The flop comes 4, 5, K.

Seat 2 bets 500.
Seat 5 calls the 500.

Because I only have a pair of queens, I fold thinking one or both of those players has a king. Well, I was wrong. Neither one of them had a king. Seat 2 had pocket fours and flopped a set, and Seat 5 had pocket fives and flopped a set.

On the next round of betting both players were all in. Pocket fives won. My queens never improved.

While I folded because of the king on the flop and neither had a king, I made the correct play anyway.

The next 3-thousand chips were lost to rising blinds and folding when it was obvious my hands were beat. Fortunately, I still had about 2,000 chips left when I was the big blind (400 chips) and I was dealt Q7.

The flop came Q-ten-deuce. There were two other players in the pot. I was first to act and with the Q showing on the flop I pushed all in. The first player after me folded, but the player on the button called. He showed AK for a gut shot draw, but he also had two overcards. I went all in hoping to keep a player with over cards from calling, but the player on the button was willing to take the chance. Luckily for him, he caught a king on the turn and I was out.

I lost but I played it right. And that's why I hate tournaments. You can be "right" all tournament long but if another player gets lucky and you get unlucky it can all be over.

[arcimede$]

Just like most gambling you can make all the right plays and still lose on any given day. That is why advantage players focus on simply playing well. Over time a higher percentage of good plays will win and you will show a positive return.

[Alan Mendelson]

Just like most gambling you can make all the right plays and still lose on any given day. That is why advantage players focus on simply playing well. Over time a higher percentage of good plays will win and you will show a positive return.

That's not necessarily true in tournament poker which is why you rarely see the big names in poker -- the professionals and the experts -- make the final tables. It's more of a lottery because of the fixed bankrolls and the rising blinds and antes (mandatory bets). If luck isn't on your side and you don't get the good cards at the right time, no matter how good you are you will lose.

[arcimede$]

But you won't lose as much as most other players who aren't as good. And, when fortune is on your side you will do a little better.

A single tournament is not that different from a VP session. You really can't see that skillful play makes much difference since most sessions are losers. However, the good players know the difference when they count their money at the end of the year.

[Alan Mendelson]

But you won't lose as much as most other players who aren't as good. And, when fortune is on your side you will do a little better.

A single tournament is not that different from a VP session. You really can't see that skillful play makes much difference since most sessions are losers. However, the good players know the difference when they count their money at the end of the year.

Actually, Arc, tournament poker is totally different from playing sessions of video poker or even live poker games. This is because in tournament poker, usually only the top 10% of the entrants are paid any money. And if you don't finish in the top 10% you get zero return on your money.

In a losing session of video poker you can still get back some of the money you started with. In a losing cash game session of poker you can leave with a portion of your starting bankroll intact. But in tournaments its either "zero" or some percentage return for 10% of the players who enter the tournament.

I've also played in tournaments where fewer than 10% of the players are paid anything.

You want to believe that the better players will rise to the top of the heap, but in tournaments luck is an overwhelming factor. And this is why most of the "big names" in poker actually make their money from playing cash games where you don't have to fight the clock, or rising blinds and antes and you do have time to play your game the right way.

[arcimede$]

Alan, all the things you stated simply increase the variance, larger wins and larger losses. My point still stands, it just takes a little longer to average out. The math is still the same.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, all the things you stated simply increase the variance, larger wins and larger losses. My point still stands, it just takes a little longer to average out. The math is still the same.

Thanks Arc, I'll keep telling myself that everytime I bust out of a tournament because I was "card dead". "It will average out. The math is still the same."

[arcimede$]

If you don't play in enough tournaments it may never average out. However, you could lose many, many times and then win just one. That would likely bring you up to even or better. That is the problem with variance.

I used to play BJ tournaments a few years ago because the entry was covered by a promotion that doubled my points for the day. I never won a single cent. However, they only did this for one year so, while I was a bit unlucky, it was within the range of expected results.

I've also played in several VP tournaments. I understand that tournaments require different approaches and you need to cash in only a small subset to make a profit.

[Alan Mendelson]

If you don't play in enough tournaments it may never average out. However, you could lose many, many times and then win just one. That would likely bring you up to even or better.

That is certainly true. If you win just one WSOP championship for $8-million you'd be pretty set.

Let's see, if you one for $8-million and there was one $10,000 buy in tournament per month in the USA and one $1,000 tournament every week in the USA, how long could you go before exhausting your new $8-million bankroll (not factoring in taxes)??

[arcimede$]

8,000,000/172,000 = 46+ years. Of course, that's assuming you never used the money for anything else.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, if there are on average 3,000 players per tournament, what are your chances of being the winner of the 8-million dollar prize?

correction: let's use 7,000 players for the big tournament.

[arcimede$]

How many at each table? Let's assume 10 to make it easy. There would be 700 tables with 10 players each. There would be 700 players left after the first round and you would have beaten only 9 individuals. Now there are 70 tables and when you beat the other 9 guys there are only 70 players left. Now you form 7 tables and once again beat 9 other players. You are now among the 7 finalists and you only have to beat 6 other players. All told you only have to beat 9+9+9+6 or 33 other players.

That must mean the odds are only 33 to 1 against you.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, I don't know if this affects your math or not, but the tables are not "static" meaning that you only face 9 players per table. As players are eliminated from a table, a new replacement player could move to the table from another table. Or the remaining players at a table could be moved to other tables. At the other tables your relative position could be greater or worse depending on the chip stacks at the other tables. So when you say you have to beat 33 players you could be way off. You might have to beat hundreds of other players depending on table positions and how often you are moved to other tables.

[arcimede$]

Tongue in cheek, Alan. That's what the smiley was for.

[Alan Mendelson]

Well, thank you for that. I once played in a major bounty tournament in which you collected a bounty or payment for each player you knocked out of the tournament. Well, I made the final table in that tournament. In fact, I finished fifth in that tournament. Fifth out of more than about two hundred players. And even though I finished fifth out of more than two hundred players I never collected a bounty. Yes, I never knocked out another player.

[arcimede$]

Did you win anything for 5th?

As for the odds, all one can say is you have a one in 7,000 chance. That's assuming all players are equal and all face the same level of competition. Naturally, that's not really true so there's no real way to set the odds.

BTW, did you see the fallacy in my TIC reply?

[Alan Mendelson]

Yes, I won money for 5th place. The tournament was large enough that the last two tables, about 20 players, all finished "in the money." But those who collected "bounties" along the way got extra money.

About a month ago I played in another bounty tournament, but while I busted out relatively early, I did knock out one player and the bounty paid $10 while the tournament cost $60 to enter.

I missed the "fallacy." Please point it out. thanks.

[arcimede$]

My goal in the response was to provide a scenario that seemed logical at first look. This was to provide something that is very similar to what Singer does. Make it sound reasonable even though it is nonsense.

My 33:1 odds was achieved by slipping in a view that the number of people you beat somehow constitutes the actual odds. It does not. It's like saying I have a 1 in 2 chance of flipping two heads in a row since I only have to beat one tail each time.

You actually have to multiply to get true odds the 1 in 2 odds of flipping the first head has to be multiplied by the 1 in 2 odds for the second head giving the correct answer of 1 in 4. This is also true for the poker tournament. You need to multiply the odds of winning each round. It comes out to (1/10)(1/10)(1/10)(1/7) giving the correct answer of 1 in 7000.

I did this hoping people would fall for my trick wording. Now, you know how Singer advertises his system. He makes many statements that sound good but are simply false. Most of his special plays do the exact opposite of what he claims. They reduce the odds of hitting a big winner. Win goals are another deceptive trick in that they do not provide any advantage at all. These things sound good but a deeper analysis shows they don't do what Singer claims they do.

Sometimes a person needs to spend a little time understanding the basics before accepting something at face value.

[Rob.Singer]

All day away, and he cannot get me (or my royals ) out of his head!

I would bet big bucks that he's called Deb Rob on more than one overnight occasion

[Alan Mendelson]

My goal in the response was to provide a scenario that seemed logical at first look.

Actually, Arc, none of your comments regarding poker or poker tournaments are logical. (Big smile)

But I am always interested in whatever kind of math you come up with as it is interesting and provides an interesting perspective.

Anyone who plays poker knows that you can actually advance to the final table and finish in second place without ever winning a pot or a hand... you just let everyone else do all the "work" for you. Of course that is an unlikely scenario, but it can happen, just as I made the final table and once finished 5th in a "bounty tournament" without busting even one of the 200+ players who busted out before I did.

And as we all know, there are lies, damned lies and statistics. So before you jump all over Rob for his statements, take a step back and realize that a lot of the math even about video poker is meaningless to players who, for example, never drew a royal flush when dealt four to the royal or never had a profitable session even on a positive expectation machine.

As we say at poker tables, "it's poker and anything can happen." In fact the other day at my table in a tournament a player with pocket aces lost to an all-in short stacked player who held the worst starting hand in poker 7-deuce. The flop came 7-2-2 which was a full house. Do the math on that one!