Pokerwiner.com → Within poker principles
To me, the skill of basing poker strategy on one’s stack size in relation to that of others, while somewhat interesting, is a distraction from more interesting aspects of poker. However, the premium put on aggressive play, avoiding confrontations, and other I am not an expert on tournament strategy, and so am not positive of this statement. Evidence, (including the live game playing styles of a number of well known tournament pros) does point in that direction.
Some might argue that the big name tournament players who play with a hyper-aggressive style do not actually win very much in the long run. Their style simply produces enough first place wins to make their names well known. I do not think anyone has shown this assertion to be either true or false. distinct tournament strategies seems a quirky phenomenon in which I have little interest. My interest lies in poker well played, not in the exploitation of these odd little tournament-specific factors. The difference in skills required for poker tournaments and live games also provides one reason why few top tournament players are known also to be excellent players in live games. (Another reason is simply the better hourly rate attainable in higher limit live games ).
Many of the most prominent tournament champions are, in fact, well known as “live ones” in ring games. They try to do in the live games what works for them in tournaments, only to have it backfire on them in live play. Of course there are a select few players who have done well in both tournaments and live games. This is because they have made the effort to develop the skills each requires. They are not good at one merely because they are good at the other. That said, I would argue that it should be easier for a good live game player to become a good tournament player than the other way around. I believe a tournament player whose overall poker skills are merely decent, but whose understanding of and abilities in specific tournament tactics is excellent, can do reasonably well in tournaments.
Clearly though, such a player would struggle in live games. Success at live games requires the full development of a broad array of poker skills. These can be quite difficult to master. On the other hand, the skills unique to tournaments are not terribly complex or difficult to acquire. Thus, it should be a simpler task for a skilled live game player to become proficient in the limited set of additional skills required for tournament poker play, than for a tournament specialist to gain expertise in the large set of skills needed for success in live games. Tournaments differ from live games also in their short term chance element. It is well known that there is usually a lot of luck involved in winning a given tournament. Sometimes a player has a lucky streak of tournaments, and wins several in a short period of time.
Alternatively, even an exceptionally good tournament player can play a great many events without ever placing in the money. (For more see the essay, “Is Your Wallet Fat Enough for Tournaments?” in Sklansky’s poker, Gaming & Life ). Playing the “circuit ” as a professional tournament player, going for months at a time with no income at all, perhaps seeking backers, living in hotels, hoping for that next big score to tide me over is, to me, hardly an appealing notion. In live game play something resembling steady income is quite likely for a very good player. Nothing of the sort can be had on the tournament circuit, even for the very best players.
Are They Bad for Poker?
Finally, I have to agree with those who have suggested that, on the whole, tournaments may be bad for poker. When someone wins a large tournament a sizable chunk of money is suddenly removed from the poker economy. Yes, sometimes it may find it’s way back if the tournament winner uses it to play live games or more tournaments, but that will not always happen. Frequently especially with players who are not professional tournament players that money will be spent on expensive items, never to be converted into chips again. When a player wins the same amount in live poker game it will generally be in smaller pieces over a period of time. Those small pieces are much more likely to be put back into play.
A $30,000 tournament win might buy a new car, but a $1,000 dollar win in a ring game will more likely buy some more buy-ins. (*This argument is similar to the one mike Caro has used in analyzing the cost of jackpots to the poker economy ). Although any tournament may bring a few people into a cardroom who might not go there otherwise, I think this benefit is outweighed by the problem I have cited. I therefore suspect that poker might be better off without so many tournaments. I do however, think that both very small buy-in tournaments and events big enough to attract the media may help bring new players to the game. Thus, it is the scores of medium sized buy-in tournaments that I would contend hurt poker.
I have also observed that many tournament specialists play very little in live games. I have to wonder how many more live games there would be if tournaments were not there to distract players away from them. I understand that many players very much enjoy tournaments, and I do not mean to disparage their efforts or skills, but as a live game player I am concerned about the degree to which they remove players and money from regular poker games. That is my bias. Could a tournament player turn the tables and criticize live games for taking money and players away from tournaments? Perhaps. But were it not for live games, the foundation of public poker, would tournaments even exist?