thinking about switching to Tourneys as my discipline

[Ragnar4]

So when I went to vegas, I played in a couple of tournaments up there.

Ended up doing fairly well while I was playing, but I suffered the inevitable "loosened up too much with hands that are only mediocre, and got stacked being left in the untenable position of being shortstacked."

I got AJ AI vs J9. and AK vs QQ and couldn't win either hand about 30 minutes from the bubble.

I understand M, and understand that tournament play is patience, and doing everything you can to take chips without risk, or by presenting as little risk as is possible.

But in trying to improve my game, everything I find seems to be nebulous and skirting the point. So I pose this question to you:

If you could only suggest 3 books to read to improve a game... what would you suggest?

[drmcboy]

say more about the risk thing because my first reaction was "this guy will hate playing tournaments" but maybe I'm not following you. Tourneys have the risk built right in to the structure and the people that don't get that are the same ones who think they never win coin flips.

HOH 2

Kill Everyone

The Poker Mindset will help get you in a good place for the downswings.

ToP should be read by all poker players, hopefully you already have that covered.

I liked the Rizen/PJ/Apesyles book a lot also so if you really understand M I guess replace HOH 2 with that. Or just read 4 books?

[baudib]

"In order to live, you have to be willing to die" -- Amir Vahedi

There are times you have to put your stack at risk with marginal holdings and there's really nothing you can do about it. To quote chardrian, you have to "make them eat it." If you're not comfortable with that, remember that your J9s will beat AA 20% of the time.

I think if you are a beginning player, you should read HOH1 as well, and Phil Gordon's books are decent reads, although most of it is fairly basic. Avoid anything written by Hellmuth, they're worthless.

I have to get Kill Everyone myself.

[Sprayed]

HOH 1 is a good framework, but Kill Everyone ftw. This will sound crazy, but I believe that Kill Phil is a great book for beginners to read. This book helps to get the idea across about when to shove. I think that its a great primer before you read Kill Everyone.

[mcatdog]

Some good suggestions in this thread, but Step 1 is to lose the belief that it's possible to build your stack without variance.

[Deanglow]

I would definitely shy away from Phil Gordon's books. And yeah get ready for serious variance

[dthorne04]

I would definitely shy away from Phil Gordon's books. And yeah get ready for serious variance

Yes to both. Phil Gordon is not good, and I'm assuming his advice won't be either. Especially with the fact there are a ton of books out there that will undoubtedly be better.

[swiggidy]

I would definitely shy away from Phil Gordon's books. And yeah get ready for serious variance

Yes to both. Phil Gordon is not good, and I'm assuming his advice won't be either. Especially with the fact there are a ton of books out there that will undoubtedly be better.

He can't even beat a girl at poker, so take this cum grano salis

[dthorne04]

I would definitely shy away from Phil Gordon's books. And yeah get ready for serious variance

Yes to both. Phil Gordon is not good, and I'm assuming his advice won't be either. Especially with the fact there are a ton of books out there that will undoubtedly be better.

He can't even beat a girl at poker, so take this cum grano salis

[Ragnar4]

On Risk:

It seems to me that tournament players seem to find a push/fold mentality at the end of the tournament in order to gain more chips. They also use aggressive blind stealing techniques when their opponent have folded their last million and a half blinds to previous steal attempts.

I may be way off base here, but I understand the concept that a poker player would rather commit 99% of both stacks PF then have his opponent fold for the rest of that 1% shove than get 100% of the stacks all in preflop where at best he's on average a 5-1 favorite.

I've also read TOP.

Good tournament play seems to emphasize these points.

[DemonDaze]

I would definitely shy away from Phil Gordon's books. And yeah get ready for serious variance

I think they are ok for a very basic intro to Holdem, don't bother if you have already read Harrington though.

I quite enjoyed Synder's Tournament Formula's 1&2, especially 2 which stresses the importance of chip utility over ICM in deeper stack events. The Rizen/Apestyles/PearlJammer book is also very good.

[mcatdog]

On Risk:

It seems to me that tournament players seem to find a push/fold mentality at the end of the tournament in order to gain more chips. They also use aggressive blind stealing techniques when their opponent have folded their last million and a half blinds to previous steal attempts.

I may be way off base here, but I understand the concept that a poker player would rather commit 99% of both stacks PF then have his opponent fold for the rest of that 1% shove than get 100% of the stacks all in preflop where at best he's on average a 5-1 favorite.

Nothing that you wrote has anything to do with minimizing risk, only about making +EV plays. If you steal blinds there's always the risk that someone will wake up with an un-foldable hand but the equity of your own hand + the chance that everyone folds can make your steal +EV. In the last example you just have a higher EV when they fold after investing 99% of their stack, again it has nothing to do with minimizing variance.

[bjsaust]

You just need to realise that you can play perfect tournament poker and still place OOTM 20+ tournies in a row. Its a different kind of variance to ring games.

[Ragnar4]

On Risk:

It seems to me that tournament players seem to find a push/fold mentality at the end of the tournament in order to gain more chips. They also use aggressive blind stealing techniques when their opponent have folded their last million and a half blinds to previous steal attempts.

I may be way off base here, but I understand the concept that a poker player would rather commit 99% of both stacks PF then have his opponent fold for the rest of that 1% shove than get 100% of the stacks all in preflop where at best he's on average a 5-1 favorite.

Nothing that you wrote has anything to do with minimizing risk, only about making +EV plays. If you steal blinds there's always the risk that someone will wake up with an un-foldable hand but the equity of your own hand + the chance that everyone folds can make your steal +EV. In the last example you just have a higher EV when they fold after investing 99% of their stack, again it has nothing to do with minimizing variance.

Yeah, you're right.

[baudib]

You just need to realise that you can play perfect tournament poker and still place OOTM 20+ tournies in a row. Its a different kind of variance to ring games.

Actually, I don't think this happens too often...I mean, for one thing, maybe mcat and drmc and chardrian have played perfect tournament poker from time to time...I don't think the rest of us can ever really achieve that.

More to the point, if you play very well you will rarely finish OOTM 20 times in a row. The problem is you can play very, very well, finish in the money and get back double your buy-in or less. Or you can play very, very well, have a lot of luck, and still bust out before the FT (real money).

[bjsaust]

Its an extreme example, but it could happen .

The point is that variance in ring is losing a few flips or getting coolered/beat a few times and dropping a few buyins. In tournaments, its entirely likely to drop a bunch of buyins which you hope will be made up for with big cashes later.

I dunno. I find it different. I used to play almost purely tournaments and didnt mind variance, now if I fire up 4-6 and bubble everyone of them after getting my money in as a favorite I start thinking how many buyins that is just due to silly variance. You have to get used to bigger (or more regular) swings in your BR in tournaments imo.

[mcatdog]

I certainly don't play perfect poker. The moment you decide you've got this game figured out, you're in for a big downswing because other people will improve and leave you behind if you aren't trying to get better.

[Poker Orifice]

I would definitely shy away from Phil Gordon's books. And yeah get ready for serious variance

Yes to both. Phil Gordon is not good, and I'm assuming his advice won't be either. Especially with the fact there are a ton of books out there that will undoubtedly be better.

Have you heard this before... Assuming.. makes an 'ass out of u & me'
So you're assuming that Phil Gordon's books will have advice that is not good. Actually they are both very well written books and for someone needing to get a decent grounding on NLHE they are pretty good reads.
Phil Helmuth books.... for sure total garbage.
Harrington On Holdem Serives (Vol 1-&2.. & 3 ) (if you haven't read them already... if you haven't.. then read them first for sure!!!).
Winning Poker Tournaments - One Hand At A Time (Jon Turner, Eric Lynch, Jon VanFleet) is a good book.. but read HOH first.

I haven't read 'Kill Everyone'.. yet.. but many recomend it

[Deanglow]

I would definitely shy away from Phil Gordon's books. And yeah get ready for serious variance

Yes to both. Phil Gordon is not good, and I'm assuming his advice won't be either. Especially with the fact there are a ton of books out there that will undoubtedly be better.

Have you heard this before... Assuming.. makes an 'ass out of u & me'
So you're assuming that Phil Gordon's books will have advice that is not good. Actually they are both very well written books and for someone needing to get a decent grounding on NLHE they are pretty good reads.
Phil Helmuth books.... for sure total garbage.
Harrington On Holdem Serives (Vol 1-&2.. & 3 ) (if you haven't read them already... if you haven't.. then read them first for sure!!!).
Winning Poker Tournaments - One Hand At A Time (Jon Turner, Eric Lynch, Jon VanFleet) is a good book.. but read HOH first.

I haven't read 'Kill Everyone'.. yet.. but many recomend it

No I haven't read his book, because I am a much better than tournament player than him, as are most competent people on this forum.

I certainly don't play perfect poker. The moment you decide you've got this game figured out, you're in for a big downswing because other people will improve and leave you behind if you aren't trying to get better.

QFT. Every so often I go back to tournaments after a long hiatus and find myself far behind the loop. The games changes often and keeping up is like BR management and table selection these days.

[Poker Orifice]

No I haven't read his book, because I am a much better than tournament player than him, as are most competent people on this forum.

???? so how would you know whether or not his book is good or not, especially for someone who 'appears' to be just starting out?
Phil is actually a good writer and personally I had zero respect for him prior to reading his books and the preface of it which has some good stuff written there by Ferguson & others. Phil comes across as a good person (something many players are lacking in) and he has a gift for putting his thoughts into words & concisely laying out a decent foundation of the game for someone who is just starting out. He dosn't claim to be a great player (or even a good one). Many coaches in athletic sports actually suck at the tame,... but as far as coaching goes.. they excel at it. I think same goes for how Phil has written his books. I know I'm not alone in this as they come highly recomemended by many.