Playing 'Not to Lose' is No Way to Win by Negreanu

I recently read a column in Card Player written by Warren Karp. In it, he explains that when playing tournament poker, you should think in terms of "dollar for dollar." When faced with a bet of $20,000 in a tournament, you should consider how much $20,000 means to you. He goes on to say, when pondering a bet, "Is this hand worth the cost of a kitchen upgrade? Can this hand win me the cost of a car?" and so on.

Well, if you've read Super/System - the book written by Doyle Brunson that is considered to be the bible of poker - you've gotten an alternate view. And it's one with which I tend to agree. In Doyle's book, he explains how it's important not to think about the money involved when making decisions. He goes on to explain that it's important to just go ahead and make the best decision you possibly can, based on the information you've obtained about the hand you are playing, with no fear.

So, who's right? Well, let's first examine Warren's theory that thinking "dollar for dollar" is the way to go. Your typical tournament pays anywhere from 35 percent to 40 percent of the prize pool to the winner. Let's say you bought in to a $1,000 tournament, as did a total of 100 players. So, in the prize pool we have $100,000, and there is $100,000 in chips in play.

According to Warren, you should be thinking in terms of dollar for dollar, though. Something doesn't compute. You see, if you win all $100,000 in chips, you'll receive only approximately $37,000. Well, if you were thinking in terms of dollar for dollar, you just got shortchanged about $63,000!

That alone should explain why you don't want to think in terms of dollar for dollar when playing tournament poker, but I'm not done yet.

In closing, Warren wrote: " … remember the things you want most in life and relate them to the pot you're in." Well, that would almost be the exact opposite of what Doyle Brunson would suggest you do. Doyle would rather have you concentrate on the poker game and leave your kitchen upgrade worries where they belong - at home.

Dr. Max Stern - a champion poker player in his own right - once said this about tournament poker: "Sometimes in order to live, you have to be willing to die." I just love that quote. It sums it all up in just 12 words. So, what is Max really talking about - exactly? It really needs no further explanation, but I'm going to explain it further anyway, because … well, because it's my column!

There comes a time in a tournament when you are left with a choice - go to war or watch as the others take control of the table. Well, if you want to be successful at tournament poker - and if you are still reading, I'm assuming you do - you have to be willing to get in there, be active, and get your fair share of the dead money.

Where does the dead money come from? It comes from those who are unwilling to fight to protect the pots that are rightfully theirs. They are the weak, who would rather sit and watch while the eventual tournament champion aggressively controls the table. It comes from those who are waiting for a hand so big that it would be worth a house, or so big that it would be worth a kitchen upgrade.

When you are playing a tournament, it's your job to figure out who the warriors are. Fight them - but be wary. Don't let them take advantage of your good nature, but at the same time, give them the credit they deserve, and wait to do battle with them later - at the final table. There should be enough lamb at the table for you and the other warriors to share until then. If not, prepare for a very tough journey to the final table.

OK, enough savage bloody talk. So what the heck am I really talking about? What is all of this warrior talk referring to in regard to poker? It's referring most relevantly to that period right before the money stages of a tournament - that period when the top players thrive and the rest either go home with a "so close" story or a "wow, I squeaked into the money" story.

The way tournament payouts are structured, squeaking into the money just won't pay the bills over the long run. You need to come to a tournament prepared and willing to be the bubble boy (the player who finishes one out of the money) in order to achieve your ultimate goal of finishing in the top three spots. You need to be a warrior - and be "willing to die in order to survive" when the time comes. If not, you'll be hard-pressed to reap the benefits of cashing in the top three spots, where the majority of the money is divided up. Sure, by waiting for a kitchen upgrade or car type of hand all day, you'll last longer in a tournament, but you don't get paid a cent for outlasting anybody, unless of course you make it all the way to the money.

There should be no shame in being the bubble boy. Read Diego Cordovez's column in that same July 5, 2002 issue entitled "Life on the Bubble." Near the end of his column, Diego was referring to the bubble boy in the 2002 World Series of Poker championship event when he said, "I did not pity him; rather, I recognized that while on this day he had to deal with some frustration, on another day his willingness to take a chance might result in a big tournament win that would more than make up for the numerous bubble or near-bubble finishes."

Diego was speaking from experience, as the previous year, he was the bubble boy in the championship event of the WSOP.

OK, who's right, then - Doyle, Diego, and Max … or Warren? I think I've picked on poor Warren more than enough in this column, so now it's time to throw him a bone. Basically, this isn't really an issue of right or wrong; it's mostly an issue of what suits you best.

If you are new to poker and just getting your feet wet, Warren's approach just may help you get more valuable experience in tournaments. It just may help you understand that the chips you are playing with do have value. And you may learn the importance of survival, of being there with a chance to get lucky.

However, once you've grasped that idea and are comfortable with it, it's time to come out of your shell. It's time to put your game face on and play some no-fear … Full-Contact Poker!

Wow, after almost two years of writing this column, I finally found a practical use for that term!

---