CasinoGaming.com


	Sundays: Inside Gaming Tuesdays: Video Poker Wednesdays: Off the Shelf Fridays: Richard Eng, Player's Edge Saturdays: Pocket Aces

POCKET ACES

Columns

• Back to Maryann's index

• Back to columnists' index

Maryann Guberman has been a writer and editor with many gaming publications, including Sports Form, Card Player, Poker World, Player's Panorama and Systems and Methods. She also has written and edited numerous books on gambling.

Jan. 13, 2007

One Point, Two Views, and Your Bankroll

The curse of modern times is, that almost everything does create controversy. -- Horace Walpole (1770)

After reading Susie Isaacs book (Ms Poker: I'm Not Bluffing), I began to wonder about tournament strategy in a new light. To me, poker tournaments are a way to pass time in a delightfully competitive atmosphere. I prefer live action but I enjoy tournaments. Having won a relatively small number of tournaments, I was happy to finish in the money often. Sure, I would prefer the brass ring but there's only one hand allowed per ring so preference takes a back seat to accomplishment.

Susie is a poker pro who specializes in small to medium buy-in tournaments, of which she has won many. Of course she competes in the big events and in past years, she won her share of them. She believes her goal in any tournament is first to get in the money and then to move up in position. I happen to like this plan.

Recently, Warren Karp wrote an article (in Card Player magazine which I no longer have so I can't cite the issue) a piece that agreed with Susie's philosophy. Think about the money and how it can be used. If you call a big raise, will you risk losing the purchasing power of your chips? I happen to agree with Warren.

To some, including talented pros like Daniel Negreanu, this is utter nonsense, a loser's perspective about poker. Daniel wrote a rebuttal to Warren's article illustrating how a player might shortchange himself by holding back. He went on to indicate that a person who plays this kind of Òlet's cashÓ tournament is little more than dead money. I happen to agree with Daniel.

How, you ask, can I agree with two divergent points of view?

It's easy because I have a different perspective on the word professional. Daniel is a poker pro, a tournament specialist whose goal is to score at the top of the heap. While he certainly won't throw his second-place money in the trash, he will pocket it with a bit of disappointment that he didn't come in first. He has a dual goal - to compete aggressively and to emerge the victor.

As for folks like Susie and Warren, I think of them as journeymen pros. They hit the big events but they make their bread and butter on the junior circuit (the term given to baseball's American League before it merged with the National League). I'm inclined to believe both players are more aggressive at this level and less aggressive in the majors.

Sure, nobody prefers to be runner-up but the guy selling you the new SUV doesn't know or care how close you came to buying an entire fleet. The fact that you can fork over the cash (if you're inclined) is a big plus.

I'm pretty sure I'll have people agree and disagree but then that's why this column opened with Walpole's quote.

And while I'm on the subject, there's one more tournament ploy I'd like to see bite the dust and that's the crying call, the act of putting more money into the pot just because you are getting the right odds. It seems okay when you have a decent hand but when you are in possession of two cards that won't beat the high card on board or when you are absolutely positive you're beat, why not save the money? To me, that contribution is akin to the sprinter who suddenly realizes there's a cliff in front of him. He should pull back but he has such a good head of steam and a lot of training invested in this race. Besides, there's a very (very) slim chance the drop won't be so steep that it hurts him so he plunges ahead.

I'm pretty sure the pros in the big leagues would jump on this very point of view if they happened upon it but that's the way I feel about it. Even though poker is a great way of life, and maybe (maybe) it's a metaphor for life but it isn't all there is to life so why not play to live another day.

I think that's enough controversy for one installment.