Kill Phil

    • Ohmu
      Ohmu
      Bronze
      Joined: 28.01.2007 Posts: 231
      As I'm reading this book currently, I was wondering if anyone else has read this book and utilized the teachings it provides? And how did you do?

      I'm currently trying yo learn the KP Basic strategy by playing really low buyin tournaments. So far haven't landed in the money yet ... hopefully soon I'll get some to cover the buyins :)
  • 18 replies
    • Puschkin81
      Puschkin81
      Bronze
      Joined: 14.04.2006 Posts: 4,786
      Hi Ohmu!

      I've read it as well but I think it is a book for pure beginners because it only relies on a push or fold mode. If you want to be more successful in tournaments I recommend Harrington Hold'em I+II+III.

      Good luck at the tables!
      Puschkin81
    • Ohmu
      Ohmu
      Bronze
      Joined: 28.01.2007 Posts: 231
      Well yeah.. those books are next on the list... and on my table :)
      But as of now, I just want to work through the Kill Phil book, try out the strategy, etc... to get more experience under my skin, so to say.

      And the main reason why I'm asking this is how much should I try out this strategy, will it pay off in say 50 tournaments or will it pay off in only after atleast 150 tournaments :)
    • Nunki
      Nunki
      Bronze
      Joined: 25.10.2006 Posts: 865
      Variance in MTT's can be savage and in low-buy-in-big-field tournies even more so. The Kll Phil strategy might not bring any significant cashes for hundreds of entries.

      Like Puschkin says, HOH I+II need to be read. With these books you will get an immediate benefit as you will learn loads, not just about tournies but poker in general. IMO, HOH I+II are way better than HOH III. I'd suggest that you read I+II twice before you read III.
    • chenny8888
      chenny8888
      Bronze
      Joined: 03.10.2007 Posts: 19,324
      read some of kill phil as well as most of the HoH series now.

      Kill Phil is FAAAAAAR worse if you have half a brain and can comprehend Harrington's teachings.
    • Unam
      Unam
      Moderator
      Moderator
      Joined: 17.08.2006 Posts: 8,999
      Originally posted by Ohmu
      And the main reason why I'm asking this is how much should I try out this strategy, will it pay off in say 50 tournaments or will it pay off in only after atleast 150 tournaments :)
      Sry to say it, but after 5k tourneys you should know if it works or not, before 2k you can't even guess if it is working.
    • helemaalnicks
      helemaalnicks
      Bronze
      Joined: 21.09.2007 Posts: 7,195
      [quote]Originally posted by Unam1337

      Sry to say it, but after 5k tourneys you should know if it works or not, before 2k you can't even guess if it is working.
      i disagree. I think that you can tell that Harrington has done something right after he got on the final table WSOP twice in a row. You can review your play after a tournament, so if you think you played a good game (many +EV$moves) and won the tournament, you can already connect those two conclusions. Especially if this happens multiple times, you can say that you are playing at least good enough to make some profit, if you stick to the brm (100BI).

      In 2k or even 5k tourneys, you can't expect that all those tourneys are played in the same way. You probably got better while you progressed, so i think the conclusions you draw after 2k or 5k tourneys are absolutely useless.

      Whether IT works depends highly on the tourney itself as well. Some have higher buy ins, some have longer levelchange time, and some are at night so more people are drunk/on tilt.

      It's also impossible to play a perfect Harringtons game during a tourney. You have to read the table, and you have to make exeptions on the spot, just to make up for the fact that HoH always descibes major tournaments, and probably has no idea how bad internet players can be.

      Each tourney is a new game, and tourney variance is very different from cashgamevariance. If you want to review your tourney play, i think you should review them individually. So, for a each move you make, you have to think, "was this +EV$?".

      There is no tournament strategy. It is impossible to make one. HoH describes this very well, because he always says "call x% and raise y% of the times". So there is the possibility where you constantly play according to HoH strategy, but still play very bad, even according to HoH. That is why "testing" a certain strategy is impossible. Let the books influence you insuch a way that you review your own play, with HoH's play, and see if your play is the best in a certain situation.

      You have to play solid somehow, if you win a tournament. It is HIGHLY unlikely that you would be able to win a tourney with 300+ entrants with bad play.

      So... I strongly disagree.
    • Unam
      Unam
      Moderator
      Moderator
      Joined: 17.08.2006 Posts: 8,999
      Originally posted by helemaalnicks
      I think that you can tell that Harrington has done something right after he got on the final table WSOP twice in a row. You can review your play after a tournament, so if you think you played a good game (many +EV$moves) and won the tournament, you can already connect those two conclusions. Especially if this happens multiple times, you can say that you are playing at least good enough to make some profit, if you stick to the brm (100BI).
      I don't doubt Harrington is a good player, but when one of us reads his books, I doubt he is a good player.

      Originally posted by helemaalnicks
      You have to play solid somehow, if you win a tournament. It is HIGHLY unlikely that you would be able to win a tourney with 300+ entrants with bad play.
      Have you seen Jamie Gold playing?


      It is a common fact, that you need about 2k SNGs to guess what your ROI could be, playing 1k SNGs is not unlikely for a winning player. That is a fact, not my opinion, SNGs are 10 player tourneys, with this in mind, you might imagine how the variance in MTTs is.
      The numbers I gave you weren't estimated by me. These are numbers some very very good players released and they were commonly accepted.
      Of course you can win because you know how to win, but you can't know for sure if it is skill or just an long time upswing. And same could be true for losing a lot.
    • chenny8888
      chenny8888
      Bronze
      Joined: 03.10.2007 Posts: 19,324
      Originally posted by Unam1337
      Originally posted by helemaalnicks
      I think that you can tell that Harrington has done something right after he got on the final table WSOP twice in a row. You can review your play after a tournament, so if you think you played a good game (many +EV$moves) and won the tournament, you can already connect those two conclusions. Especially if this happens multiple times, you can say that you are playing at least good enough to make some profit, if you stick to the brm (100BI).
      I don't doubt Harrington is a good player, but when one of us reads his books, I doubt he is a good player.
      No idea what you mean by this. Harrington's books are good in my opinion not because of what they tell you to think, but rather the books teach you how to think. They will give you reasoning etc behind why Harrington thinks certain decisions were good or bad, and that is the best you can really do.


      As for Jamie Gold (and I'm probably going to be crucified for saying this), I think his whole "hi everyone, I'm a really bad player" is an image he intended and is something he intentionally built up for himself such that other players will give him less credit for ability to do trickier moves (slowplays, clear overbets, good bluffs, etc). I'm pretty sure at the final table WSOP 2006, Cunningham was the only one who saw through that.
    • Unam
      Unam
      Moderator
      Moderator
      Joined: 17.08.2006 Posts: 8,999
      Originally posted by chenny8888
      No idea what you mean by this. Harrington's books are good in my opinion not because of what they tell you to think, but rather the books teach you how to think. They will give you reasoning etc behind why Harrington thinks certain decisions were good or bad, and that is the best you can really do.
      I know Harrington's books are great, but do you really expect, that only by reading his books you will get to the final table of the WSOP, because Harrington did this? And that is all I wanted to say everybody can read the same text and it isn't said, they all learn the same amount or even the same things from it.

      Originally posted by chenny8888
      As for Jamie Gold (and I'm probably going to be crucified for saying this), I think his whole "hi everyone, I'm a really bad player" is an image he intended and is something he intentionally built up for himself such that other players will give him less credit for ability to do trickier moves (slowplays, clear overbets, good bluffs, etc). I'm pretty sure at the final table WSOP 2006, Cunningham was the only one who saw through that.
      I don't want to discuss how good a player Jamie Gold is, but you won't argue with me, he was far a away from the top players of 2006 WSOP and even so he won. And the Poker he showed the following year wasn't even mediocre. And that is what I wanted to show you: How big the influence of luck is in the short run.

      I am not trying to take away your confidence, but it is an essential point of poker, to understand how bit the influence of luck and with it, how high the influence of variance to our results is.
    • helemaalnicks
      helemaalnicks
      Bronze
      Joined: 21.09.2007 Posts: 7,195
      I know Harrington's books are great, but do you really expect, that only by reading his books you will get to the final table of the WSOP, because Harrington did this? And that is all I wanted to say everybody can read the same text and it isn't said, they all learn the same amount or even the same things from it.


      no, off course not. I made the point, that you can see that Harrington is a good player, by looking at only two tournaments he played.

      I don't want to discuss how good a player Jamie Gold is, but you won't argue with me, he was far a away from the top players of 2006 WSOP and even so he won. And the Poker he showed the following year wasn't even mediocre. And that is what I wanted to show you: How big the influence of luck is in the short run.


      1. hes not a donkey, i think hes at least top 100, with all the celeberties and (devil)fishes out there.
      2. didnt see it, but im sure you are right, i dont think yang is the best mtt player in the world, despite the fact that i liked the way he played (easy if you are only watching tv though)
      3. seen donkeys win tourneys all the time, i was talking about reaching the final table twice in a row, which is a much bigger achievement imo then winning it once.
      4. i do reach the final table quite often, even when im completely carddry, and i dont think its an upswing, because theres often no luck involved on this limit (15$ and less), which makes that you can cut the smaple size drastically.
    • Unam
      Unam
      Moderator
      Moderator
      Joined: 17.08.2006 Posts: 8,999
      Originally posted by helemaalnicks
      4. i do reach the final table quite often, even when im completely carddry, and i dont think its an upswing, because theres often no luck involved on this limit (15$ and less), which makes that you can cut the smaple size drastically.
      You can't cut the sample size, when you want to get a mathematically secure answer.
      You may say, after some hundred SNGs or Tourneys, I beat these fish and I move up now. But that isn't what a sample size is about.
      You want a reliable ROI? The only way to get it is to play some k games.
      You want to know if you are a winning player? Play some hundred games and analyse them and see if you have an edge.

      SRY I can't change the maths. And the numbers I quoted were partly collected and partly estimated by players, that are way ahead of my skills.
    • helemaalnicks
      helemaalnicks
      Bronze
      Joined: 21.09.2007 Posts: 7,195
      Unams reasoning: play 5k mtt, then see if you are any good, so play 4 years of poker, and check if you are a good player.

      You want to know if you are a winning player? Play some hundred games and analyse them and see if you have an edge.


      This is EXACTLY my point. If you play mtt, you have to check indivual tournaments and plays to see if you are doing good. It is theoretically impossible to check your mtt roi after a solid mathematical sample size, so you shouldnt bother trying.

      And to answer your question about ROI:

      No, i dont want a good ROI, i want it the way it is now, cause i dont want to play S&G's, i dont like it.

      My variance of mtt is quite big, but if i stick to the BI rule on this site, i know im reasonably safe. So i don't need to check out how many i played and how much i won, i just check my plays by posting sample hands and analysing my plays myself, because that's the only way to play mtt safe imo.

      btw: i can't play more mtt's, because once i started four, i never went out on all four, and because the final table is the only place where you can make money on mtt, it needs my full attention (it's already a problem sometimes because i sometimes end up on two final tables, so i can't possibly play any more). It's like being a S&G player who accidentlty registered for a s&g that is 10* his limit. I'm sure you wouldn't open 3 more s&g's in that situation.
    • Unam
      Unam
      Moderator
      Moderator
      Joined: 17.08.2006 Posts: 8,999
      Originally posted by Ohmu
      Well yeah.. those books are next on the list... and on my table :)
      And the main reason why I'm asking this is how much should I try out this strategy, will it pay off in say 50 tournaments or will it pay off in only after atleast 150 tournaments :)
      When you aren't interested in my answer that is OK, but I answered OPs question, and you disagreed. OP asks when his strategy will payoff, he doesn't ask what we think how many games he should play to guess if the strategy was working.

      I was never telling you to play 5k MTTs, the only thing I told you is that when you want to be sure you have to play 5k tourneys.
      And it is great, when you a running good at MTTs, but as you may have realized your self, this may be the upside of variance.
    • helemaalnicks
      helemaalnicks
      Bronze
      Joined: 21.09.2007 Posts: 7,195
      your answer implicates: "i don't know, so i'll say something that seems wise"

      my point was, that you can read the book, try out some new plays you got from it, and check out whether they were the right plays. We already established that taking any sample size under infinite (which is a comparable sample size to yours) is useless, so you need a different approach. I give him a solution to dodge the whole statistical thing, because statistics are useless on mtt (we got to that point already).

      Your approach is either:

      - don't test ANY strategy, and don't read mtt books, because the variance is to big
      - test a strategy till you are either rich and famous, or till you are broke and trying to find Phil Hellmuth and rob him.

      My apprach is:

      test a strategy, by making plays according to the strategy, post them, analyse for odds (any players' hobby) and see if those plays are suitable for you.


      I prefer mine, anyone else can judge for themselves which is better.

      btw. are you on tilt? your answers dont make any sense.
    • Unam
      Unam
      Moderator
      Moderator
      Joined: 17.08.2006 Posts: 8,999
      Originally posted by helemaalnicks
      because statistics are useless on mtt (we got to that point already).
      ROFL you got to this point a long time back and I wanted to tell you that is not true. You personally may not need this information or think it is useless, but it may be useful for some other players.
      But lets end this here, I doesn't lead anywhere.
    • helemaalnicks
      helemaalnicks
      Bronze
      Joined: 21.09.2007 Posts: 7,195
      but it may be useful for some other players.


      true, i think rainkahn can use it :p

      I doesn't lead anywhere.


      for now, that is true, however, i do think my last post was very was very wise [tapping myself on the back].
    • Puschkin81
      Puschkin81
      Bronze
      Joined: 14.04.2006 Posts: 4,786
      Hi guys!

      There is no need to argue.

      @ helemaalnicks: unam is correct. You have to play a lot of tournaments to make an exact prediction about your ROI and your successes in tournaments. Statistics are definitely not useless for MTTs. It is even more important to have a look at them because the variance is that high!
      That doesn't mean that you shouldn't try different strategies and keep working on your game. Unam just wanted to clarify that you have to play a lot of tournaments to proof that a certain strategy works fine. Of course you should analyze hands and work on the details. But the results you are getting in the short run don't allow you to draw conclusions about your general tournament abilities. Only after a huge number of tournaments you can say: I'm a winning player.

      Although you heard a lot of criticism: We all hope that you are doing well in the tournaments!

      Good luck at the tables!
      Puschkin81
    • helemaalnicks
      helemaalnicks
      Bronze
      Joined: 21.09.2007 Posts: 7,195
      arguments are good on a forum, right?

      but ok, not to self: check stats in 2011.