18 replies to this topic

[GT123]

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t50 (9 handed) FTR converter on zerodivide.cxButton (t2435)Hero (t3150)BB (t3564)UTG (t4630)UTG+1 (t1780)MP1 (t715)MP2 (t440)MP3 (t4690)CO (t2750)Preflop: Hero is SB with Q:diamond:, Q:club:. 2 folds, Hero?Villain just got moved to my table so no reads.

[akishore]

no, it's actually an easy call, mainly because tournament EV = chip EV early on, and also because you heave committed a decent portion of your stack into the pot.don't "play to survive" early on. early on, when the chip stacks are all about the same, tournament equity is practically identical to real chip equity.this means that you should play hands exactly the same as you would in a cash game. the whole "tournament survival" outlook is extremely flawed.the pot contains around a whopping 6000 (4690 + 440 + 700 + 125 = 5955) and it's 2450 to you. your pot odds are then around 2.4-to-1.what hand range does MP3 have?AA-KK/AK definitely.sometimes he has QQ-JJ, and rarely he has TT-/AQ-.if he has just AA-KK/AK, there are 12 combos total of AA-KK and 16 combos total of AK. this means 43% of the time you are 20% to win, and 57% of the time you are 55% to win, for a weighted average equity of 40%.hear that? 40%.that means you only need pot odds of 1.5-to-1 to make calling correct, but with such a huge overlay, i beat him into the pot.add the times you're up against a donk who pushes here with QQ/JJ/TT-/AQ- and you are golden.aseem

[GT123]

akishore said:

no, it's actually an easy call, mainly because tournament EV = chip EV early on, and also because you heave committed a decent portion of your stack into the pot.don't "play to survive" early on. early on, when the chip stacks are all about the same, tournament equity is practically identical to real chip equity.this means that you should play hands exactly the same as you would in a cash game. the whole "tournament survival" outlook is extremely flawed.the pot contains around a whopping 6000 (4690 + 440 + 700 + 125 = 5955) and it's 2450 to you. your pot odds are then around 2.4-to-1.what hand range does MP3 have?AA-KK/AK definitely.sometimes he has QQ-JJ, and rarely he has TT-/AQ-.if he has just AA-KK/AK, there are 12 combos total of AA-KK and 16 combos total of AK. this means 43% of the time you are 20% to win, and 57% of the time you are 55% to win, for a weighted average equity of 40%.hear that? 40%.that means you only need pot odds of 1.5-to-1 to make calling correct, but with such a huge overlay, i beat him into the pot.add the times you're up against a donk who pushes here with QQ/JJ/TT-/AQ- and you are golden.aseem

I think I am getting around 1.8:1 because villain has 1540 more chips than me. With 2450 chips left, a above average stack, and a high M, wouldn't it be better to avoid a early all-in situation where it is a close call?

[akishore]

GT123 said:

I think I am getting around 1.8:1 because villain has 1540 more chips than me. With 2450 chips left, a above average stack, and a high M, wouldn't it be better to avoid a early all-in situation where it is a close call?

my bad! i missed that he had you covered.with 1.8, it becomes closer, but i still think it's an easy call.if this was a cash game, and i was getting 1.8-to-1, i would call. this is the same reason i would call here, because like i said, tournament equity is practically identical to chip equity early in tournaments.that said, i also believe that this is an easier call than i make it out to be, because i think the hand range AA-KK/AK only applies to the tightest of players.i think there are a huge number of online players that have QQ-JJ here too, and that just makes your weighted average equity shoot way up. add TT- and AQ- to the mix and this is an even easier call, IMHO.if you don't believe me, i'll link you to a paul phillips hand where he called an all-in getting close to what you're getting, with J-10 of hearts on a board of 4-4-3 with two hearts, i think. and that was early in the tournament for his whole stack as well.aseem

[Petoria]

I agree that this is a call also, to me it looks like MP3 is running an isolation play on the shortstack, with as little as TT.

[akishore]

i want to bump this and reemphasize the importance of not playing "to survive".read this hand by paul phillips, a man i consider to be probably the best tournament player in the world, from a really-knows-what-the-hell-he's-doing perspective. this guy has the math of tournaments worked out to twenty decimals, it's sick.http://extempore.liv...com/102173.html

Quote

Then right after dinner this hand came up. I had about 13K against par 10K. My table included two big stacks in the hands of fairly exploitable players and I was dying to put together enough chips to put a big hurt on one of them. We were seven-handed thanks to our busting three guys in the first post-dinner orbit. Blinds were 200-400/50. I opened for 1200 in the cutoff with [J :heart: 10 :heart: ]. The button, who had just been moved to our table a few hands ago mini-raised to 2400. Of course I called it, as neither folding nor re-raising is plausible here. There was a little under 6000 in the middle and I had slightly over 10K left, which he covered by a few thousand.The flop comes [9 :heart: 9 :spade: 2 :heart: ] with two hearts. I check intending to check-raise all-in but he upends the apple cart by moving all-in. Now that's a pretty big bet, nearly twice the pot, but the more I thought about it the more convinced I became that I was anywhere from 50-55% to win unless I was super-unlucky and he had [A :heart: K :heart: ]. It was much more likely he had a medium pair or AK. To have me in bad shape without the nut flush draw he'd have to have TT-AA and I felt he'd have bet smaller with those hands to keep me around.On a [9 :heart: 9 :spade: 2 :heart: ] board, how J T  fares against some possibilities:vs. [A :club: K :diamond: ]: 55.7%vs. [A :heart: K :diamond: ]: 49.9%vs. [7 :club: 7 :spade: ]: 52.0%vs. [T :club: T :spade: ]: 35.2%vs. [A :club: A :spade: ]: 32.8%vs. [A :heart: K :heart: ]: 20.7%I'm getting 1.6-1 on the call so I only have to be 38% to win, maybe very slightly better taking tournament realities into account. Against my estimate of his range it turns out to be a much easier call than I made it out to be at the time. His actual holding was A Q  so I was 49.6%, but the board bricked out and I was done. Obviously in hindsight I wish I'd fired first but based on the preflop mini-raise I thought he'd underbet the pot again and my check-raise would have some real force. Oh well. It's not that often I can check-call all-in holding Jack-high late in a tournament against a big overbet and be glad I did it.

check out this comment by a reader:

Quote

I understand that the pot-odds dictate a call in this situation, but given:-the table was soft (or at least, two big stacks at the table were soft)  -you are almost certain you aren't better than a coin flip to win the hand (and possibly much worse off)-a fold leaves you below avg, but not in desperation mode...do you think a case could be made for passing here and waiting for a better opportunity to exploit those big stacks?

and paul's reply:

Quote

I can fold and have 10K or call and have 26K 50% of the time and 0 50% of the time. For me to fold I have to believe that my tournament equity with 26K in chips is less than double my equity with 10K in chips.I dunno about anyone else's chip->equity functions but mine more than doubles from 10K to 26K.

this represents solidly the whole idea of how the "tournament survival" outlook is flawed.there was a whole heated thread on 2+2 about it, and ALL of the tournament regulars on the forum were 100% on paul's side, saying this was a very correctly-played hand.enjoy,aseem

[copernicus]

for OP, and for PP.I am not as impressed with PP though. The strongest part of his game is his disregard for money. He plays a lot of marginal hands because the tourney circuit is now robust enough that he can treat it like one big low buy in rebuy tournament.

[akishore]

copernicus said:

I am not as impressed with PP though. The strongest part of his game is his disregard for money. He plays a lot of marginal hands because the tourney circuit is now robust enough that he can treat it like one big low buy in rebuy tournament.

as he should, and as all pros should...(i.e. they're playing within their bankroll, and poker is all about the long run, so tournament "survival" takes the back seat when one high-variance move clearly has the best equity)aseem

[copernicus]

akishore said:

copernicus said:

I am not as impressed with PP though. The strongest part of his game is his disregard for money. He plays a lot of marginal hands because the tourney circuit is now robust enough that he can treat it like one big low buy in rebuy tournament.

as he should, and as all pros should...(i.e. they're playing within their bankroll, and poker is all about the long run, so tournament "survival" takes the back seat when one high-variance move clearly has the best equity)aseem

I disagree that making a lot of marginal calls is optimal in tournament play, even if you are playing within your bankroll. It is not a life long ring game where the law of larger numbers gives you sufficient reason to play barely favorable odds situations.Each tournament carries its own separate risk of ruin, and there is no "long run", so variance becomes much more important. While $EV and TCEV are much closer to each other early in a tourney than late, they are not equal.I would also argue that PP is not a "professional poker player", he is a billionaire who plays poker as a hobby. He is well grounded in math and finance, and has an ego bigger than the Eiffel Tower, thus poker is a natural pastime for him. However, he could walk away from it tomorrow and not face even a minor blip in his earning power. Thus, he doesnt face the same variance pressures as those who depend on poker for their lifestyle (as lavish as that may be). Like Andy Beal, his edge is in being able to ignore variance.

[GT123]

thanks for the link Akishore, that is a interesting discussion. I don't agree with PP's call though. I think a good player can slowly build thier stack up by playing in a lot of small pots with little risk of going bust, instead of having to risk all his chips on a close decision. There are a lot of players with huge stacks early in tournaments that don't make it deep into tournaments, and I think the reason is because they choose to gamble with all thier chips too early in a tournament. I made the call with QQ. I would make it most of the time unless I was sure my opponnent would not go all in with anything less than AA or KK. Just wasn't sure if it was correct to do so since I felt that the players at my table were so bad that I would be able to re-build my stack with what I had left over if I had folded.

[timwakefield]

So GT, you made the call, and your opponent had...........KK I'm guessing.

akishore said:

if he has just AA-KK/AK, there are 12 combos total of AA-KK and 16 combos total of AK. this means 43% of the time you are 20% to win, and 57% of the time you are 55% to win, for a weighted average equity of 40%.hear that? 40%.that means you only need pot odds of 1.5-to-1 to make calling correct, but with such a huge overlay, i beat him into the pot.

If you assume your opponent's hand is made up only of aces and kings (and it's quite likely that it is), then you are against AK 57% of the time IF your opponent's hand is random. It's not, because even though AK is a more likely to be dealt than AA and KK put together, it is also more likely that your opponent makes that play with AA or KK than that he makes it with big slick. If you had 1500 chips on him, call. SInce he has you covered though, it's a tough question. If you fold you lose less than 1/4 of your chips, and still have nearly 50 big blinds. I can't say what I would do in that exact situation...but it would be worse to call and lose to AA or KK than it would be to fold and have him show off JJ.

[akishore]

GT123 said:

I don't agree with PP's call though. I think a good player can slowly build thier stack up by playing in a lot of small pots with little risk of going bust, instead of having to risk all his chips on a close decision. There are a lot of players with huge stacks early in tournaments that don't make it deep into tournaments, and I think the reason is because they choose to gamble with all thier chips too early in a tournament.

see, that's where your thinking is flawed.yes, there are many players with huge stacks early on that don't make it deep often, but when they make it deep, they win a lot of money.that's what poker is about, right? money.it's not about making sure you get deep in the tournament, or making it into the money every tournament.it's about winning money.the old phrase was "survival". the new phrase is "accumulating chips". if you want to maximize your profits, you need to win as many tournaments as possible, or repeatedly come as close to it as you can. to do that, you need to accumulate chips.paul phillips wrote a very good response about how the common "you can fold and wait for a better spot; you can outplay them postflop; etc." statements are flawed because those "better" spots don't come around that often, and the postflop "skill" often *is* in taking these "reckless" gambles.the aggressive players that frequently build a big stack and frequently bust early are the ones that also frequently make the most *money* overall.just some thoughts.fwiw, this is precisely the reason that tournaments aren't nearly as +EV for me as cash games. i place too much emphasis on survival subconsciously since it is hard for me to accept that long term matters more even in tournaments. this is what holds a lot of players back.aseem

[shpaget]

It's a simple cliche that applies to these NLHE tournaments, if you want to win the most money over the long term."You must be willing to die to survive."Too many people pass up that perfect call/raise where the pot odds or the equity pays them, but they MIGHT go broke if they miss...it doesn't matter...if the pot is laying you 4:1 and you're 2:1 to win, and you have to risk all your chips to do it....do it!!!

[copernicus]

akishore said:

fwiw, this is precisely the reason that tournaments aren't nearly as +EV for me as cash games. i place too much emphasis on survival subconsciously since it is hard for me to accept that long term matters more even in tournaments. this is what holds a lot of players back.aseem

Actually I would expect that tourneys arent as +EV as cash games for you for the opposite reason...you dont place enough emphasis on survival.Paul Phillips can play the way he does because he can afford to be out of the money the vast majority of the time and take the shot at the final table. That doesnt make it optimal play. You can't continualy press small edges and expect to win anything. Those big chip accumulators in the beginning generally DONT make it till later, and if they do its probably because they got their big stack by solid play and getting good cards, not from playing recklessly.I am far more +EV in tourneys than cash games and I do it by avoiding marginal calls and playing to "survive". Playing to maximize your chances of survival doesnt preclude you from winning. If you get your share of cards late in the tourney and if you are a good short and medium stack player, you have opportunities to move up to higher positions and to win. You can actually get hit by the deck late in a tourney too. How often does the chip leader at the start of the final table actually win? But, If you "play to win" by taking a series of marginal +tcEV calls, you not only dont win, but you dont come in the money either. It is not a symmetric decision, and thats easily shown mathematically, as Sklansky does in THFAP.

[shpaget]

copernicus said:

akishore said:

fwiw, this is precisely the reason that tournaments aren't nearly as +EV for me as cash games. i place too much emphasis on survival subconsciously since it is hard for me to accept that long term matters more even in tournaments. this is what holds a lot of players back.aseem

Actually I would expect that tourneys arent as +EV as cash games for you for the opposite reason...you dont place enough emphasis on survival.Paul Phillips can play the way he does because he can afford to be out of the money the vast majority of the time and take the shot at the final table. That doesnt make it optimal play. You can't continualy press small edges and expect to win anything. Those big chip accumulators in the beginning generally DONT make it till later, and if they do its probably because they got their big stack by solid play and getting good cards, not from playing recklessly.I am far more +EV in tourneys than cash games and I do it by avoiding marginal calls and playing to "survive". Playing to maximize your chances of survival doesnt preclude you from winning. If you get your share of cards late in the tourney and if you are a good short and medium stack player, you have opportunities to move up to higher positions and to win. You can actually get hit by the deck late in a tourney too. How often does the chip leader at the start of the final table actually win? But, If you "play to win" by taking a series of marginal +tcEV calls, you not only dont win, but you dont come in the money either. It is not a symmetric decision, and thats easily shown mathematically, as Sklansky does in THFAP.

Well, I can say that my tourneys are definitely +EV and I don't place emphasis on survival....over the last 6 months I'm operating at about a 400% profit margin in tournament play....and if you remove one large buyin tournament that I never should have entered, I'm about 800% profit.

Quote

How often does the chip leader at the start of the final table actually win?

He doesn't necessarily win, but he's in the top 3 probably 85% of the time...and top three is where more than 70% of the purse lies.Conversely, the guy with the short stack at the final table makes the top three well less than 5% of the time.Yes, you can have the deck hit you in the face (I won a $1050 seat off a satellite this way once), but most times you end up finishing 8th.Your chances to win increase exponentially the closer you are to the top at the final table.

[copernicus]

He doesn't necessarily win, but he's in the top 3 probably 85% of the time...and top three is where more than 70% of the purse lies. thats a bit heavier even for top 3 than Ive seen. If anyone has a set of WPT or WSOP dvds it would be interesting to see how the pros fare with a chip lead. 70% of the final table prize distribution is in the top 3, not 70% of the entire purse. Thats usually in the 50s or low 60s.Conversely, the guy with the short stack at the final table makes the top three well less than 5% of the time. again very different from my experience, at least when I have the short stack Your chances to win increase exponentially the closer you are to the top at the final table. I will take the "exponentially" as a bit of hyperbole. Chip ratios would have it increase arithmetically, not even geometrically, and with most online tourneys Id bet it isnt even arithmetically. Unfortunately hand histories I have only go to my own elimination so its hard to find good data on that.My MTT results are similar to yours, on the order of 800-1000% return (but that could be variance), and my ROI in sit n gos hovers between 28 and 35% (I play a ton of these, 30% should be a very reliable mean).

[extempore]

copernicus said:

Paul Phillips can play the way he does because he can afford to be out of the money the vast majority of the time and take the shot at the final table. That doesnt make it optimal play.

Okay, but that doesn't make it suboptimal play either.

Quote

You can't continualy press small edges and expect to win anything.

The idea isn't to continually press small edges; it's to press small edges now so you have the luxury of decision-making room later, when your opponents who failed to press small edges will not.

Quote

Those big chip accumulators in the beginning generally DONT make it till later, and if they do its probably because they got their big stack by solid play and getting good cards, not from playing recklessly.

When did pursing small edges become reckless? Maybe we're caught in the trappings of language. Let's start calling the reverse "repeated squandering of +EV situations" and see if as many people will drink its kool-aid.

Quote

But, If you "play to win" by taking a series of marginal +tcEV calls, you not only dont win, but you dont come in the money either. It is not a symmetric decision, and thats easily shown mathematically, as Sklansky does in THFAP.

Let's not attribute me positions I don't hold. You can dispute when and how sharply cEV diverges from tEV but I bet you already know I've at least considered that it might take place.

[Rocketwadster]

GT123 said:

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t50 (9 handed) FTR converter on zerodivide.cxButton (t2435)Hero (t3150)BB (t3564)UTG (t4630)UTG+1 (t1780)MP1 (t715)MP2 (t440)MP3 (t4690)CO (t2750)Preflop: Hero is SB with Q:diamond:, Q:club:.    2 folds, Hero?Villain just got moved to my table so no reads.

no, it is not an easy fold.

[r18]

I fold here. He showed strength in his raise to 350, and then further strength and disregard for your hand with his reraise to put you all in. My logic for folding is based on my belief that I can outplay others once the blinds get big. That's the strength of my game. And I don't give myself a chance to go to my strength if I call here. If I call here I'm either behind Aces or Kings, or my best case scenario is probably a coinflop with Ace King and I don't want to coin flip here. We all play differently and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with PP or Aseems stuff. Alot of players try to get alot of chips early. However I personally feel comfortable with a medium stack until blinds get bigger so for me this is a foldable hand.