Michael Craig's Poker Blog Forum: About Chris Ferguson

Your specific point was discussed in todays blog entry actually. Given his personality, he probably would've started over.

A corollary to Rule #2 limits players in taking shots at big tournaments through satellites. Chris believes if your bankroll can’t support entering a tournament, it can’t support entering a satellite for that tournament. A satellite is a cheap way to get into a big tournament ONLY AFTER YOU WIN IT. When you enter, it is a contingent undertaking and even if you succeed – compared with entering a tournament or SnG with the same buy-in as the satellite – you have reduced, not increased, your bankroll. In addition, and this should be obvious, you don’t always win satellites. If you win 1 out of 4 $50 + $5 satellites to get into a $200 + $16 tournament, you are spending the same as the full buy-in. So if you can’t afford the buy-in, you can’t afford the satellites.

It was this provision that tripped Chris up on August 14. On July 16, he signed up for what he thought was a $7 + $.70 Omaha EOB tournament. He thought it was a cash tournament but didn’t realize until it started that it was a super-satellite for the FTOPS Omaha EOB event. To play in that $200 + $16 event required that he have a bankroll of $10,800. (Technically, if he was in the main tournament, he would need a REMAINING bankroll of $10,584 because $216 of his bankroll would be represented by his buy-in.) At the time, he was almost eight thousand dollars short of that amount.

But he made it through the super-satellite, which won him entry into the $50 + $5 turbo satellite that started at 3:30 PM on August 14, 2 ½ hours before the event. Between July 16 and August 14, Chris had played more and was enjoying phenomenal results. When he started playing on August 14, his bankroll was above $9,500. He would try to win his way into the Omaha event through the satellite but he could only count any winnings as part of his bankroll if he got his bankroll up to $10,584 before he was done with the tournament.

So at 3:30 PM, Ferguson began playing the satellite into the Omaha EOB FTOPS event. He hoped to make it into the main tournament, win enough in cash games to pass the $10,000 milestone, win enough to pass $10,584 to legitimize his entry into the Omaha event, and of course try to win the Omaha event. It was going to be long and busy afternoon and evening.

Yeah, I saw him in a couple of MTT in games like Razz and Stud.

A lot of the games he played at the higher levels were $5/$10 NLH, where he bought in for a short stack a lot. Here's a good question: Why did Ferguson buy in short so often? If he wanted to make more money, why didnt he buy in for the max and play to win huge pots, like normal cash game strategy? As a professional player, you would think that Ferguson's main advantage over amateurs would be in exceptional post flop play. When you buy in short, most of your major desicions are preflop and a flop bet. Most average to good players can master (or at least play close to optimal) preflop play. So why didnt Chris take advantage post flop by playing later in the hand with a big stack?

I know at the lower levels (up to .50/1) you can be short, push the top 10 hands and be profitable. But yes, I'd think that Chris would want to be able to outplay opponents.

there is nothing wrong with multi tabling in regard to the 5% rule. For instance, say you have $500 and are playing with $25 max buy in at .10/.25. You can buy in to 3 tables for a total of $75, but still only have $25 at risk per hand. Multitabling does not risk more of you bankroll, but just risk your normal amount more often by playing more hands. You will never risk more than you buy in per hand.

idk, if you are short stacking, you expose yourself to much more variance since you will not be as large as a favorite when you go all in compared to what you would when you are all in deep stacked (eg. AK vs KJ is 75%, but 88 vs AK on K85 is almost a lock to win). If you can afford to, I see a lot more advantages to buying in deep. And I dont think that you can deny the fact the Ferguson's advantage of being an expert is largely diminished when he buys in for 20 BB at a cash table.

Okayyyyy so then markljackson .... you think an appropriate bankroll for a game where the max buyin is $2000 would be 4 max buyins? whether or not the "EXACT" bankroll for a game is set, im pretty sure 4 max buys IS NOT an appropriate bankroll, and im in NO way trying to undermine Chris's ability to play, or his reputation, but this was supposed to be an exercise in bankroll management. So the minimum buyin for 10-20 NLHE is 4000$ .. he was allowed 5% of his TOTAL bankroll in play at one time. So he could have NEVER played more than one table, and had to have had a MINIMUM bankroll at the time of 8000$ to have EXACTLY enough to meet his guidelines. Also reiterating my previous point of how he'd have to leave a table at anytime when he reached 800$ (10% of his assumed 8000$ bankroll) that wouldn't even be a realistic session for him in this experiment. I just think, that at the finish of this incredible feat, he shouldn't have made it so evident that he wasn't playing according to the rules that he made for himself. I don't see why you're disputing what I'm saying, It only makes sense that he should've stayed at the lower limits. If a player with an $8000 bankroll is playing 10-20 no limit, any professional poker player would call him stupid and tell him to step down to 5-10 or 2-5. and to the other guy, i don't think the WSOP tournies he played in came from the 10k challenge bankroll. I'm sure it wasn't the only thing he was focusing on.

and min buyin for 10-20 NLHE is 400, not 4000, typppppppo lol