Q&A #73: Are Some Poker Games Not Worth Playing Because There’s Too Much Luck?

Yes! Good one, Ed. I play a lot of low-limit hold ‘em, and I get so tired of people complaining about how bad the other players are. It’s especially irritating when these A-holes berate the bad players and bully them into playing tighter. A lot of people just don’t get it.

Thanks!!!

Ed,

Can the structure of a tournament turn it into a crapshoot? I recall reading in Arnold Snyder’s tournament book that if the tournament plays too fast, that is, if blinds rise too quickly, then the tournament is reduced to a crapshoot. He reasons that since the blinds go up so fast, players are continually forced to take shots at the pot with mediocre hands or next to nothing just to survive; moreover, these shots usually leave the players all-in. He thus concludes that they are seldom worth playing.

Your thoughts?

A network I’ve been playing on has started to offer what they call “Mad Tilt All-in” sit’n'gos with a $1+$0.2 buy-in and a T60 starting stack and T10-T20 starting blinds. Not that such format is in any way relevant, but they seem to be relavitely popular.

I think that even in that format, if that would be the only game in town, you could have a tiny edge by knowing and understanding the jam-or-fold theories.

But more generally, I think purely recreational players want their games to be more of gambling than skill. That’s where then fun is in poker, that’s what draws people to the game. Making a profit with hard work and skill can be rewarding (other than in pure cash) in some sense, but mostly it’s just grueling and stressful.

One of the rooms I play in offers ‘pro Lotto’ satellite to a 100K tournament. Buy-in is $5, T100, blinds T10/T20. As far as I remember correctly the field is small.

I am a U.S. expatriate living in Lima, Peru. There are a few casinos here offering Hold Em tournaments. Here is the structure that all seem to share: T2000, 10 minute blinds starting at 50/100. If I start in the cutoff or on the button we are usually in the 2nd level by the time I get the BB. It’s hilarious. I usually play the $10 buy in satellite at The Marriott just for entertainment value. Most players speak no English and are absolutely the worst I’ve ever seen and it’s still hard to get to the top 10 if you don’t get lucky. So I think I have truly found a tournament that removes nearly 100% of poker skill. Be that as it may I will continue to play every week just because it’s only $10 and I like B&M poker.

The Tain network briefly had coinflip headsup holdem tournaments in which there were no decisions and therefore no skill. They did rake them, but their bonus was more than 100% rakeback equivalent, so in that sense they were beatable.

I seem to recall Ongame doing something similar.

Since this is kind of a newbie question, it’s also worth nothing that while all regularly spread poker games are beatable with skill, there are a lot of table and machine games that call themselves “poker” that aren’t. If you’re playing against the house, it’s not poker.

Hi Ed,

I am being a little bit unlucky lately. I play for fun but I am ambitious and after reading the excellent “No Limit Hold’em Theory and Practice” and the two Volumes from Dan Harrington I think of myself that I understand the game somewhat. I must confess that there is a major difference between understanding and applying this knowledge in practice. However, my question to you is the following:
Most of the time I am playing full ring sit and go’s with stacks of 2000 and 20/40 blinds. Blinds increase every 10 minutes. 30/60-50/100-100/200-200/400-300/600-400/800-600/1200 etc.
Getting even starting hands with your opponents in the short run is, I think, reasonably balanced. However, whats more important is that, when you get a hand, what kind of hand does your opponent get? Do you have a very strong hand but your opponent has an even stronger hand. Lets say, you have pocket 5 and your opponent plays with 95 suited and the flop is 995.. you are gonna lose a lot of money in that hand, at least I will. In my opinion you can not defend against these kind of hands but they do make the biggest profits or losses and the luck or unluck factor is in my opinion nearly 100%. Especially on the internet where I find it harder to read my opponents.
My conclusion to this must be that the excellent player must make his profits on the small and medium sized pots. Do you agree?
Can you exactly pin point where the excellent player must make his profits?

Further to my comment above. What do you think of the luck factor in the structure of play of the sit and go I have described above?

Greetings Pim
Amsterdam