Question on tournament selection

pkrooster

Hi all

You have an opportunity to play a poker tournament. Moderate buy-in so bankroll issues do not arise. You know nothing of the tournament structure except it is No limit holdem. The only thing you do know about the tournament is that the three previous winners are players you consider to be weak, inexperienced or otherwise poor tournament players. Knowing only this would you be more or less inclined to play in the tournament figuring the last three winners are players you know you could beat?

Welcoming any thoughts
Paul

ScottyZ

There are two general explanations why weak players win tournaments. Basically, it boils down to skill or luck. That is to say, either

Skill) The tournament field is so weak that most of the field is actually less skilled than the three winners you have observed.

or

Luck) The tournament's blind structure is such that skill is not a large factor in the tournament.

Knowing nothing else (and assuming that for some reason I was unable to examine the blind structure myself), I would go with the latter explanation and be less inclined to play in the tournament than usual.

However, the data you have provided (namely the outcome of three particular tournaments), particularly taking into account a heavy amount of of observer bias (that is to say, would you have even noticed if three players of the "usual" skill had won the last three tournaments?), would have little effect on my overall tournament decision making process.

If it was four tournaments, now we're talkin'.

ScottyZ

beanie42

I'm still learning, so most of the tournaments I go into I'm one of the weaker players. However, I would choose that anyway, as I think I will get more/better experience losing to good play, than winning a tournament of bad players.

I'd like to expand/comment on Scotty's skill/luck description. You obviously need to be a bit lucky to win a tournament, but when a bad player wins, it's not always all luck. I won the recent Bristol, which has a pretty decent degree of competitiveness (especially considering how new I am). IMHO, I won due to really skillful play on 2 specific hands during the tournament, making my really bad plays early in tournament (during rebuy period ), and basically being mediocre the rest of the game.

A poor player will make more bad plays than good ones, but timing is everything. A bad play early doesn't hurt so much, while a good play late can really set you up to finish well. Just because a player is generally strong/weak doesn't mean always. A weak player will occasionally play a hand perfectly, because they've been studying that situation or have an epiphany, etc. Likewise strong players will occasionally have brain-farts by totally misplaying a hand that cost them all their chips.

So, I guess I would say that Scotty's list would be a little more complete if it were skill/luck/timing

DISCLAIMER: When I describe my "skillful" play at Bristol, I literally mean 2 hands. I don't think I played better then everyone there (some yes, but not the majority), or that I am better than anyone there, so hopefully I don't offend anyone. Please take my comments above in context - I don't want to be the new "Lee"!