Well, here we are again in the middle of the World Series of Poker. The richest sporting event in the world is spreading 61 open gold bracelet events ranging from $1,000 to $1,000,000 in buy-in. By far the most popular events at the WSOP are the standard No Limit Hold'em fare; 18 of the 61 events are in standard full-table No Limit Texas Hold'Em format; another 10 are special variations thereof (heads-up, 6-max etc.)
These NLH events are so much more popular than any of the other games spread that although the prize pools are huge, defeating a field of 3,000+ players is incredibly difficult - no matter the game and no matter your skill level. That's just a heck of a lot of people to try to beat. Thus, while talented professional players often take down the NLH events, any individual professional in one of these tournaments has very little chance of finishing in first place and taking home the bracelet. So much as making the final table of such events pays at least $30,000. First place will commonly take down half a million dollars or more. The all-time record: At the 2006 WSOP Main Event, unknown Jamie Gold took it down for a cool $12 million dollars - with all $12 million in cash sitting on the table between him and runner-up Las Vegas Pro Paul Wasicka. Notably The Big One for One Drop promises to overthrow Jamie's record; the $1 million buy-in event promises to be the ultimate super-high-roller event. The prize pool could be as much as $43 million and first place could exceed $17 million dollars!
But trust me: If your goal is to win a WSOP gold bracelet, the Big One for One Drop is probably not the one to aim for. Large buy-in tournaments cause costly swings in your bank roll. It would take most of us an awfully long time to grind up $10,000 that could be lost on the turn of a single card at any moment in the Main Event. Large prizes are available in less expensive events, so us regular Joe's usually prefer to play in the $1,000 or $1,500 events - maybe $2500 - possibly $3,000. Which puts us into the most difficult of NLH tournaments - thousands of opponents - plenty of them highly skilled - and with just enough total donks putting wicked suck-outs of players left and right. It all adds up to a very unlikely road to WSOP gold.
So here's my theory: For those of us of modest bankroll, WSOP events with smaller fields in somewhat less popular poker variants may well be easier to win (or go deep in). So for the last four years I have been playing the $1,500 Fixed Limit Hold'em event. The first year I busted early-ish on Day 1; the second year I busted late on Day 1. Last year I bubbled about 12 off the money on Day 2, and finally this year just before dinner on Day 2, 80 other players and I cashed! Not long later I got my short stack all-in with QQ against 33, and he flopped his set. Min cash. Oh well. Maybe next year.
Having finally cashed in a WSOP event, I am beginning to feel vindicated in my belief that I could do well in the World Series of Poker by dedicating myself to the study of a less-popular poker variant. For this purpose I had carefully selected Fixed Limit Hold'em. The advantages that FLH offers to its devotees are:
1. FLH is deceptively simple. NLH players are forever getting themselves in all sorts of trouble in FLH tournaments. Tournament series which include FLH normally have it sandwiched in among many NLH tournaments. This encourages lots of all-but-dead-money. Most NLH players view FLH as a game for sissies, children and simpletons. I encourage all such non-believers to get in touch with Crazy Mike. He'll be waiting for you at Aria - anytime. The big blind is $4,000. I predict he'll make a believer out of you.
2. People can't really bluff in FLH. Fixed Limit games are not bluffing games. It will almost always be so cheap for your opponent to call you down that a bluff will rarely fold anyone off. This ineluctable fact is one of the less appealing aspects of the game. FLH tournaments simply don't afford the opportunity to make the same kind of daring moves that NLH tournaments do. But that said, there are excellent bluffing opportunities in FLH and devotees of the game will have a significant advantage in knowing which bluffs are actually +EV.
3. There is no book. Dan Harrington's three volume set on NLH tournament strategy is an outstanding landmark in the field of poker strategy. The books have proven to be so good, that the entire game of NLH has been made considerably harder by virtue of their publication. But no such books have ever been written on FLH as a tournament game. There are a number of books on FLH as either low or middle limit cash games, but none directly on the subject of tournament play. Of course, the same is basically true for just about any game other than NLH.
4. FLH is a highly logical game where an understanding of the unrelenting mathematics of FLH can give you a significant edge over those who are less savvy. But here again, this is true of all FL games.
I am really happy with my choice of game. I wish there were more FLH tournaments spread every year, but the WSOP remains steadfastly committed to including a full slate of FLH events. There are only about 8 live FLH tournaments each year oustide the WSOP. PokerStars is the only online operator with any real commitment to FLH tournaments. This make is extremely difficult for very many players to have significant experience in playing fixed limit tournaments.
In the FLH tournament world, the WSOP FLH events are 90% or more of all prize money available all year. So serious pros do not spend a lot of time focusing on FLH tournaments. Don't get me wrong: The serious pros are absolutely all over the FLH WSOP events, but those tend to be the only FLH events they ever play. Although their FLH skills may be outstanding (i.e. as to the tactics to employ in the play of each hand - check-raising, donk-betting, three-betting from the button etc.), these same pros may know almost nothing about how to factor in stack size considerations in Fixed Limit Hold'em. This is a very significant opportunity to get a huge advantage over the pros and indeed over the whole field.
But for all the benefits of FLH tournaments, I actually think there might be an even better choice: Razz. The WSOP spreads just one pure Razz tournament annually - a $2500 affair which is without question the de facto world championship of Razz. In a typical year there might be one or two other live Razz tournaments in the entire world. And those will be $100-$200 events. Razz tournaments are also quite scarce online. And if there is one game which is MORE rigorously logical and mathematical than FLH, it's Razz.
Hold'em is said to be a game that takes minutes to learn, but a lifetime to master. This is simply not the case with Razz. Because Razz is a stud variant, for most of the hand the strength (or possible strength) of your hand is readliy seen by a thinking opponent. This makes Razz relatively easy to play; sniffing out bluffs and dodging bad beats is about all there is too it. Also Razz has a number of seductive pitfalls which experienced players can often easily avoid.
One real disadvantage of all Fixed Limit tournaments at the WSOP is that by the time the unpaid 88% of the field has been eliminated, the remaining 12% of the field tends to be fairly thickly populated by very serious FLH players, which makes the post-bubble play very tough. The final tables of such events often star-studded, though several unknowns make it every time. Look at the last couple of Razz bracelet winners:
2012: Phill Hellmuth Jr. - his unprecendented 12th WSOP gold bracelet - his record
2011: Las Vegas Pro Rep Porter
2010: Las Vegas Pro and WSOP Player of the Year Frank Kassella
2009: Italian online and live cash game Pro Jeffrey Lisandro
2008: California Pro Barry Greenstein
2007: German online Pro Katja Thater
So maybe Razz isn't the best choice either . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment