Tournament Poker: None For Me, But Thank You For Asking
The tournament is a bad format for playing poker.
Here's why: In a given hand of poker, one player, by virtue of his cards being better than everyone else's, is at a great advantage. That advantage is tempered by some information being concealed, and by cards being progressively added to the mix. There's also skill involved (though it's mostly in remembering your opponents' patterns of play, not — as some would have you believe — in being a steely-eyed bluffmaster). But the advantage held by the player with the best cards is undeniable.
Since one player has a massive advantage in any given hand, the way good players win over time is by choosing which starting hands to play, and which to toss. Know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, as Our Man Kenny tells us. Good players must make lots of decisions correctly, when the circumstances of play present them.
But tournament poker shortens things, which forces you to make decisions based on what time it is, not on what plays are best. It compresses a game best played on an infinite timeline into a very short span. The reductio ad absurdum is to imagine a tournament based on a single hand of one-card stud. Your decisions become meaningless because you're forced to play even when it's stupid to play.
Of course, some people like to have their decisions limited. They're the same people who like playing limit poker short-stacked, so they can go all-in all the time and not have to make decisions in later rounds of betting. But giving up decisions defeats the point. To play a game is to make choices; if you're going to give up your choices, you might as well put your money in a slot machine.
(Corollary: To design a good game is, among other things, to present interesting choices.)
If you still want to like and play tournament poker, that's your right. You'll even find me playing in tournaments every once in a while. Just realize that we'd all be playing a better game if we didn't.
(Aside: The other thing people find attractive about tournament poker, and the thing that makes it interesting to televise, is that it's got an end, and thus, can make a good story. We'll discuss whether having a good story is a desirable quality in a game some other time.)
(Aside 2: The other other thing people like about tournament poker is that it winnows the game to a single winner. People like to know where they stand.)
Comments
I disagree.
I had a whole comment lined up, but I was not doing my thoughts justice and so for now I leave it at that.
I'm interested, so as long as I get to hear it eventually...
I think the aspect you miss in your analysis is that tournament poker is very often (but not always) big bet poker, i.e. no-limit or pot-limit.
The reason this matters is that a given poker hand doesn't have to be the best to win. The combination of a given poker hand and the bet made have to be good enough to either beat an opposing hand or force an opponent to fold.
So the advantage of being dealt the best hand is limited by the size of one's chip stack and one's position relative to other hand/stack combinations.
I think the aspect you miss in your analysis is that tournament poker is very often (but not always) big bet poker, i.e. no-limit or pot-limit.
I'll grant that's possible. I'm not a very good no-limit player, so I don't play it often. (I wonder if there's a connection...)
The analysis, I think, contains two statements; that a tournament is a bad format for playing poker and that regular poker play is a better game than tournament poker. I agree with one and disagree with one.
As to a game, I think tournament poker is a far better game than regular poker play. As a game, poker itself is bad. It is made interesting only because there is money involved. I think that you could play tournament poker as a game with no money. I do not think you can play regular poker as a game with no money.
As to format, I agree. I think regular poker play is a better format than tournament poker. As Mr. Tidball describes, playing poker involves a number of things which are distorted when playing in a tournament format.
Having said all that, I actually prefer to ignore the game mechanics and just play the game.
Is a tournament "timed" in the sense that blinds are going up, or simply because you can't cash out and leave whenever you want? Because you can't wait forever in non-tournament play either, assuming there are blinds and/or antes. Your decisions are somewhat restricted.
Of course, I love tournament poker for many of the reasons I shouldn't (big bets, knowing where I stand, some decisions limited) but the main reason I prefer it over the so-called "ring game" is that there's no cashing out, which means no hassling over making change. Now, if everyone would show up for a ring game with his Paypal account at the ready...