Sunday, 23 January 2011

DTD Grand Prix II

This weekend I played in the Dusk Till Dawn Grand Prix II event held at the DTD club in Nottingham. A three-day tournament, it started on Friday and I decided to play Day 1b on Saturday alongside 405 other players (thus making 810 entrants in total and a first prize of 20k Euro).

In terms of my performance I didn't play badly, at least compared to my often common mistake of letting the pot get too big in live tournaments. Part of the reason for this may have been the paucity of decent starting hands I received. Throughout the event, the highlight was AK, a hand I have lost so much money with online in recent weeks, it was only ever going to cost me chips, and 88 twice, but no bona fide monster hands. When the pots were small to start with I rivered a flush once, and turned a full house another, but these were the hands that were never going to make or break me, unfortunately.

As the tourney progressed and the blinds grew, I started to feel the pressure and had to take a back seat and hope that when I did get a decent spot, they would hold up. This happened to some extent but instead of getting me back in it, I just bumped along the bottom. Ended up with two split pots and a couple of blind steals but that was about it. When I did get it all in with a similar sized stack, I had A4s and he had A5s - I hit the 4 on the turn but he caught the 5 on the river. After another steal to bring me up to 5k in chips (the blinds were 600/1200 by now), I picked up 67s under-the-gun so shoved and had three callers, who checked down every street. This was good to see as I had paired the 7 on the turn. Unfortunately, the board also contained four hearts and one of the guys had a Qh to send me home in 119th (out of the 405 on the day) and after seven hours of poker.

Oddly for a live tournament, I stayed at the same table for the duration, and due to watching quite a lot of individuals play could separate the good players from the average ones. Two in particular - Zafar Aslam and Mark Newman caught the eye (the latter, who was the guy with the Qh who knocked me out, is still in the tournament as I type and down to the final 4).

Also special mention to Tom Piccirilli (aka Tom Pich, aka FezioJnr on GNF), a fellow forumer who eventually finished a very impressive 12th in the event and took home over 800 Euro).

After sleeping much of the day away on Sunday, I played a few rush tournies online, including one with over 1600 entrants, in which I eventually ended up coming 20th. This major feat was rewarded by a seemingly paltry prize of $56. I know online tournies are top-heavy and I should be happy with winning 5x my buy-in, but still....

Sunday, 2 January 2011

Rush On Demand Tournaments - A love and hate thing

Recently, a number of people who frequent the GNF Forum have been posting up some really good results on Full Tilts 'Rush Poker On Demand' tournaments. This led me to spend a great deal of time over the xmas break grinding this format of game to see what the fuss is about. I thought I would share some of my initial thoughts here.


For those that don't know, Rush Poker is the innovative format of poker whereby instead of being allocated to a table, you form part of a large 'pool' of players who are allocated a table on a hand-by-hand basis. Therefore if you are done with your hand you 'quick fold' and are instantly reassigned a table and receive a new hand. This creates fast and furious action all the way to the final table, which reverts to normal structure. This has been around some time now, however the latest advancement is the concept on Full Tilt of 'On Demand' tournaments, which are essentially Sit-and-Go tournies, that start when a predetermined number of people register but crucially allow a period of late registration (like regular MTTs). This creates larger player pools and thus larger prize pools. The vast majority of these tournaments running at the moment are $4 or $11 buy-in (with the occasional $24 one), and whilst they start with 45 players, they usually end up with 150-250, and generally complete in around 2hrs.


From playing them over the holiday period, I have found them frustrating and fun in equal measure, and whilst I have doubts over their validity for skill improvement of players, I can see how they can be profitable (especially if you run good!). But it is a bit of a love/hate thing, so thats how I will break it down...


Things I love about Rush On-Demand


1. Availability. The On Demand format has seemingly constant stream of tournaments. I have yet to find a time where I couldn't jump into one. That, naturally is both a good and bad thing. Good from a time management perspective, but bad from a bankroll perspective if you are running particularly badly or are tilted.


2. The speed of the tournament. The format and structure means you can get deep (or get knocked out) fairly quickly. You tend to know if you are going on a deep run before the first hour is out. Contrast with normal tourneys where you can play for 3 or 4 hours and leave with nothing. The game slows down when the FT is reached of course, and can often take as long as the preceding 'rush' element. Not that you mind at that stage however, as you are in the money.


3. Lack of chatbox action. Refreshing lack of shit-talking in the chatbox as there is no time as the table changes, and besides as soon as people have folded their avatar is still displaying but they are away on another table in their next hand. This does make a welcome change from all the rubbish usually spouted during a tournament!


4. You are harder to pick up on. No history (until near the FT), makes stealing and aggresion much more profitable and less likely to be picked up on, and whilst I believe online tools for stat gathering/display do exist for rush tournaments, I find it hard to see that most will be able to make any sensible use of this before the final table due to the pace of the game.


5. Lots of mistakes. Less time for decisions forces people into big mistakes against concealed hands and the sheer number of available games makes people 'gamble' a lot more. This is very much evident during the first 50% of the tournament but evens out later. Whilst this is a good thing, it can also be frustrating as the amount of suck-outs and rivered winners seems far higher than in a regular tournament.


6. Quick chip accumulation. If you can build a big stack quickly, accumulating chips seems rather easier than in a regular tournament. Partly I think because, with people being more selective about hands to play, they will be quicker to shy away from a confrontation with an aggro big stack than in a regular tourney where they may not get another opportunity for some time. The counter argument also exists - if you play too tight, or get decimated by a lost pot, then you will face almost constant aggression and you will be forced to gamble sooner than you may like.


Things I hate about Rush On-Demand


1. Tilt! It is far too easy to tilt with this format. There is precious little time to re-group thoughts and composure, especially after losing a pot to a bad beat or making an erroneous big call. For this reason, the format can be a big money-spewer....in many ways the opposite to a 'double or nothing' tournament format (although you would have to be lobotomised in order to be able to withstand the boredom of grinding that format, in my opinion).


2. Big Blind Shenanigans. I have had situations where I have ended up on the Big Blind multiple hands in a row. This has only seemed to happen when I have been relatively shortstacked, and when the blinds are higher this can be immensely frustrating. In a regular tournament you can strategise in terms of picking your moments to push, but this is impossible here. Conversely, the times I have done well I seem have to have been in mid/late position a lot when I receive the good hands. I'm guessing it is supposed to balance out ultimately, but it never feels like that at the time.


3. High Variance. Variance is VERY high, partly due to the turbo structure, partly because you don't build up any knowledge of your table, partly due to fish shoving all in at any chance they get in earlier levels and partly because of the mechanism (lots more hands and people can be more selective) resulting in big hands such as AA,KK,QQ clashing more often. This does make the format feel like a video game sometimes.


4. Not 'real' enough. The feeling that no matter how much you play it, or how well you are doing, that you simply are not playing 'proper' poker. The real skill edge in poker is post-flop, and through much of these tournaments, you are not exposed to these in the same way you are with deepstack poker. It can certainly help you get better in some aspects of the game, but after playing this structure for a number of days, I was yearning for a long-haul deepstack game to slowly chip up in.


5. Addictive. This format is extremely addictive. Far more so that regular poker, where the time investment can often decide when a session ends. This is bad enough when you don't have a problem - but some people do.


So, to summarise - Rush Poker On-Demand tournies are a great deal of fun, and can be very useful if you are on a limited time schedule, however the variance can be brutal and it is often too tempting to play larger games than your bankroll allows for. This is one of my big leaks in general. I am absolutely sure that if you deploy good bankroll management, then this format can be profitable long-term, however from a personal perspective, I'd prefer to keep this game as a sideline to MTTs/STTs to help blow off a bit of steam. Your mileage may vary.


Kudos to Full Tilt for introducing something that is genuinely innovative into the poker landscape though.

Precipice Averted

As most will know by now, the proposed US legislative move to 'legalise poker' in the States, which would have had serious knock-on effects to the whole poker landscape (covered in my last blog entry in December), didn't get passed. Which I personally think is great news for poker in general. Of course, the concern is still there in the sense that any future legislation may use a similar approach, and I think people - especially the PPA - should be alert to the wider picture next time and at the very least push for a more palatable deal. I'd also like to see a more global focus on the poker world, especially from organisations that purport to represent the interest of players. But thats probably a pipe dream...