one way to really have this tournament or any other tournament test a player's skill is to change the betting structure..have it pot/limit or limit the size of the bet to the size of the big blind on the preflop/flop/ and the turn..then make it no limit on the river..that way, it'll force the players to read the hands alot more instead of just going allin preflop or on the flop..
I think you would take away the essence of NL if you did that. I mean think about it this way, say you have a set and you are pretty sure your opponent is on a flush draw. In limit or even pot limit it can be hard to get the opponent out, but maybe you want to keep him in there. That balance of what move to make and how much you can get out of your opponent is what the game is really all about. Yeah the shotgun is there if you just want to blow him out of the pot, but the best players don't just go all-in every time they have a good hand. They still have to bleed off their opponents chips and if you get rid of the NL until the end you take away that very important piece of skill. Don't believe for a second this game is all about the all-in bets because lesser hands played for smaller stakes are the ones that often determine winners and losers.
And believe me, the skilled guys wouldn't want your suggestion in a million years. The best players like NL because bad players always make mistakes and in NL one mistake could be the one that knocks you out. So really what you argue for is something that the guys hoping to get lucky would ask for, not something that would make it more skillful.
And believe me, the skilled guys wouldn't want your suggestion in a million years. The best players like NL because bad players always make mistakes and in NL one mistake could be the one that knocks you out. So really what you argue for is something that the guys hoping to get lucky would ask for, not something that would make it more skillful.
wildbill
in your example, if you go all in on the flop, a player ( assuming he has a flush draw) like Ivey will never call, and a player like Moneymaker will call no matter how much is bet..and now, you're just leaving your faith in the hands of the poker gods..the way they've got the betting structure rite now, the biggest difference between your "skilled" players and a rec player: is that the "skilled" player has alot more patience because he's been playing for a longg time and he knows he'll get alot more hands to see(if not in this tournament then in the next tournamet)...see how much reading is really involved the next time you watch a poker tournament..the reason why the best "skilled" players don't want this suggestion is it would force them to really read what his opponent is holding on the river..if he has a bad read, he's toast..now, even with a bad read he can still be saved...
in your example, if you go all in on the flop, a player ( assuming he has a flush draw) like Ivey will never call, and a player like Moneymaker will call no matter how much is bet..and now, you're just leaving your faith in the hands of the poker gods..the way they've got the betting structure rite now, the biggest difference between your "skilled" players and a rec player: is that the "skilled" player has alot more patience because he's been playing for a longg time and he knows he'll get alot more hands to see(if not in this tournament then in the next tournamet)...see how much reading is really involved the next time you watch a poker tournament..the reason why the best "skilled" players don't want this suggestion is it would force them to really read what his opponent is holding on the river..if he has a bad read, he's toast..now, even with a bad read he can still be saved...
Trust me it isn't true. Top players read others better than anyone. Limit poker takes the reading skills out of the game because all too often it just comes down to pot odds. Look at the mistake though you talked about Ivey folds correctly and Moneymaker doesn't. That is exactly what a poker pro will point out. The bad player will be willing to gamble with the worst of it, the good player looks for other spots where he isn't relying on luck as much as just having his better cards hold up on the hand. You can't get rid of the luck though, at some point during the tournament you are always going to have to have some hands hold up and maybe catch a card to win others, that can't be removed by changing the game.
Yes WildBill is absolutely correct.
In your example you say "a player like MoneyMaker will call no matter how much is bet"
If he only has about about a 1.9 to 1 shot to complete his flush on the turn or river and someone goes all in on the flop, if he's putting alot of money in then in the longrun he will not be a winner. He might draw out on him that time but in the long run he will lose money with that play.
That situation you described is exactly why it is a skillful game.
In your example you say "a player like MoneyMaker will call no matter how much is bet"
If he only has about about a 1.9 to 1 shot to complete his flush on the turn or river and someone goes all in on the flop, if he's putting alot of money in then in the longrun he will not be a winner. He might draw out on him that time but in the long run he will lose money with that play.
That situation you described is exactly why it is a skillful game.
tekari, i agree that a drawing hand will go broke more often than a made hand..that's why the pros won't play the hands that look attractive to a rec player (suited connector)...my suggestion is a way to induce more readings during the hand..
wildbill, i agree that limit poker is all bout odds..but that's only true for live action..in tournament, in the example, i doubt alot of people would fold (it depends on your chip situation also)..i just think it'd be nice to force players to read from pre-flop to the river card...
wildbill, i agree that limit poker is all bout odds..but that's only true for live action..in tournament, in the example, i doubt alot of people would fold (it depends on your chip situation also)..i just think it'd be nice to force players to read from pre-flop to the river card...
Dutch is an extremely gifted NLH player. He understands and clearly explains concepts that many including myself tend to overlook. The play Dutch made against Moneymaker with the K,Q was superb, it was just against the wrong guy. It didn't work and looked to the novice like "freak stuff". I agree the psychological stare down ploy was "freaky" in that situation. The last thing you want to do is give someone a chance to pick off your bluff in that spot. That being said, if you call all in on the flop, as Chris did, with a pair of 3's, you aren't going to last long in NLH tourneys.
