Posted by Dr Fro 3:51 PM
I spend a lot of time "on the bubble" in tournaments. My tighter (relatively) style of play is wells suited for 10 handed ring games, but has little chance against a field of loose-aggressive players. If a tourney pays out 6 players, I generall try to survive to the top 10 or so, and then take some shots while others tighten up. How the cards fall determine which side of the bubble I land on.

So I stumble across an article about <the bubble which apparently has no point (to his credit, Max is a humorist and not a strategist). This article did make me think about my consistent performance in tournaments (which for the past year has meant $0 in winnings).

As I thought about it over the weekend, my March Madness strategy is identical. I tend to not take many big upsets in the first two rounds, thus ensuring survival. But I always pick a 2, 3, or 4 seed to win it all, thus giving me a chance to make a push at the end. Last year, I picked Syracuse, and sure enough, I came from the middle of the field to finish a surprising 5th out of 200. Of course, we only paid 1st - 3rd.

I am not yet convinced as to the error of my ways. For instance, had I picked the Horns to make the Final Four (which they were quite a favorite to do) I would have won. For every conservative decision that cost me victory, I can find an upset that cost me as well. Same with poker - while my conservative play gave me a small to medium stack in the middle of Junell's tourney, I was knocked out bc Wilson had Aces. You can hardly blame my strategy for defeat when the big man has aces.

I know that part of my strategy is correct - that you can't take all favorites in March Madness nor only play premium hands in poker tournaments and expect to win. The question is - when and how often do you stray from the book?

0 Comment(s):

Post a Comment