Jump to content


analyze it


  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

#1 DrZebra

DrZebra

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 625 posts

Posted 05 December 2005 - 12:09 PM

Please only reply if you are familiar with Gigabet's analysis of tournament play. There's no need for someone to reply: "what a fish, he got lucky" etc. Yes, he got lucky, but I want to hear analysis about the validity of the call of the raise on the turn.***** NLHE MTT*****3000/6000 Tourney Seat 6 is the buttonTotal number of players : 7Seat 2: UTG+1 (37277)Seat 4: MP (61802)Seat 5: CO (35188)Seat 6: Button (41409)Seat 8: SB (25472)Seat 9: BB (26460) K :club: J :diamond:Seat 10: UTG (15690)SB posts small blind (1500)BB posts big blind (3000)** Dealing down cards **UTG folds.UTG+1 raises (7000) to 7000MP folds.CO folds.Button folds.SB folds.BB calls (4000)15500** Dealing Flop ** T:heart: 4:heart: 4:diamond: BB bets (3000)UTG+1 calls (3000)21500** Dealing Turn ** A:heart:BB bets (3000)UTG+1 raises (9100) to 9100BB calls (6100)39700** Dealing River ** Q:club: BB bets (4500)UTG+1 calls (4500)UTG+1 had AKo

#2 Scott3705

Scott3705

    Pay-Off Wizard

  • Members
  • 3,761 posts

Posted 05 December 2005 - 12:11 PM

DrZebra said:

Please only reply if you are familiar with Gigabet's analysis of tournament play.  
What's Gigabet's analysis?

#3 Scott3705

Scott3705

    Pay-Off Wizard

  • Members
  • 3,761 posts

Posted 05 December 2005 - 12:13 PM

DrZebra said:

***** NLHE MTT*****3000/6000 Tourney  Seat 6 is the buttonSB  posts small blind (1500)BB  posts big blind (3000)
???

#4 Hobbes

Hobbes

    Hard at work

  • Members
  • 5,472 posts

Posted 05 December 2005 - 12:42 PM

Scott3705 said:

DrZebra said:

Please only reply if you are familiar with Gigabet's analysis of tournament play.  
What's Gigabet's analysis?
I 2nd this.Why is that the only analysis you want? I'm genuinely curious. Does Gigabet have something to say about calling a raise with a gutshot straight draw with possible flushes and full houses already on board?

#5 Snowman

Snowman

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 165 posts

Posted 05 December 2005 - 12:50 PM

I 3rd about Gigabet.Would it be ok with you to ask about the 3k bets on the flop and turn into the 15.5k and 21.5k pots respectively without being familiar with it...?
Calvin: Do you believe in the devil? You know, a supreme evil being dedicated to the tempation, corruption, and destruction of man?

Hobbes: I'm not sure man needs the help.

Calvin: You just can't talk to animals about these things.

#6 DrZebra

DrZebra

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 625 posts

Posted 05 December 2005 - 01:20 PM

I'll educate:Gigabet is one of the greatest online tournament players to date.He's had some success in live play, but is known for his online success.What he is known for in the theoretical poker world is his ideas of treating an entire tournament as most players treat a single hand...There was a famous hand several years ago in which Stu Ungar called a massive raise from Doyle after the flop with a gutshot. He did this because he sensed that Doyle had a strong hand (he flopped aces up) and if he hit, Doyle would pay him off. This is simple implied odds. Their stacks were big enough to account for the implied odds, and Doyle retrospectively said that he should have bet even bigger (double the pot.) That's a level of thinking almost none of us would be capable of.Suppose that you treated a hand in a tourney as Stuey treated the approaching 4th street. Suppose you called a massive all-in because if you missed, you missed, but if you hit, you win big--in fact bigger than the foreseeable amount of a single pot!In the hand I posted above, the BB is clearly trying to steal/test the waters on the flop. When called he is no doubt worried, but when he sees the turn he is no doubt thinking "maybe the ace will scare my opponent away, after all he only called the minimum flop bet. not to mention I have outs." That far is clear and straightforward.When UTG+1 raises on the turn, BB has to call half of his stack and is not getting proper immediate implied odds to call. NOW, the question is: is he thinking that if he hits, the positive immediate cash he gains in the tournament is worth the negative immediate EV he loses in the hand?

#7 Scott3705

Scott3705

    Pay-Off Wizard

  • Members
  • 3,761 posts

Posted 05 December 2005 - 01:24 PM

DrZebra said:

I'll educate:Gigabet is one of the greatest online tournament players to date.He's had some success in live play, but is known for his online success.What he is known for in the theoretical poker world is his ideas of treating an entire tournament as most players treat a single hand...There was a famous hand several years ago in which Stu Ungar called a massive raise from Doyle after the flop with a gutshot.  He did this because he sensed that Doyle had a strong hand (he flopped aces up) and if he hit, Doyle would pay him off.  This is simple implied odds.  Their stacks were big enough to account for the implied odds, and Doyle retrospectively said that he should have bet even bigger (double the pot.)  That's a level of thinking almost none of us would be capable of.Suppose that you treated a hand in a tourney as Stuey treated the approaching 4th street.  Suppose you called a massive all-in because if you missed, you missed, but if you hit, you win big--in fact bigger than the foreseeable amount of a single pot!In the hand I posted above, the BB is clearly trying to steal/test the waters on the flop.  When called he is no doubt worried, but when he sees the turn he is no doubt thinking "maybe the ace will scare my opponent away, after all he only called the minimum flop bet.  not to mention I have outs."  That far is clear and straightforward.When UTG+1 raises on the turn, BB has to call half of his stack and is not getting proper immediate implied odds to call.  NOW, the question is: is he thinking that if he hits, the positive immediate cash he gains in the tournament is worth the negative immediate EV he loses in the hand?
alright. Now that I'm enlightened. I hate the play.

#8 Hobbes

Hobbes

    Hard at work

  • Members
  • 5,472 posts

Posted 05 December 2005 - 01:32 PM

DrZebra said:

I'll educate:Gigabet is one of the greatest online tournament players to date.He's had some success in live play, but is known for his online success.What he is known for in the theoretical poker world is his ideas of treating an entire tournament as most players treat a single hand...There was a famous hand several years ago in which Stu Ungar called a massive raise from Doyle after the flop with a gutshot.  He did this because he sensed that Doyle had a strong hand (he flopped aces up) and if he hit, Doyle would pay him off.  This is simple implied odds.  Their stacks were big enough to account for the implied odds, and Doyle retrospectively said that he should have bet even bigger (double the pot.)  That's a level of thinking almost none of us would be capable of.Suppose that you treated a hand in a tourney as Stuey treated the approaching 4th street.  Suppose you called a massive all-in because if you missed, you missed, but if you hit, you win big--in fact bigger than the foreseeable amount of a single pot!In the hand I posted above, the BB is clearly trying to steal/test the waters on the flop.  When called he is no doubt worried, but when he sees the turn he is no doubt thinking "maybe the ace will scare my opponent away, after all he only called the minimum flop bet.  not to mention I have outs."  That far is clear and straightforward.When UTG+1 raises on the turn, BB has to call half of his stack and is not getting proper immediate implied odds to call.  NOW, the question is: is he thinking that if he hits, the positive immediate cash he gains in the tournament is worth the negative immediate EV he loses in the hand?
Is this trying to say that his EV in the entire tournament will go up by X if he calls and hit vs. going down by (X-Y) if he calls and misses? And if so, what kind of analysis could anyone give you in regards to that? Because that doesn't seem to be a universal type of calculation and is more dependent on the individual players involved.

#9 DrZebra

DrZebra

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 625 posts

Posted 05 December 2005 - 01:39 PM

In extreme cases, but it is much more largely based on stack size.

#10 Scott3705

Scott3705

    Pay-Off Wizard

  • Members
  • 3,761 posts

Posted 05 December 2005 - 01:40 PM

DrZebra said:

In extreme cases, but it is much more largely based on stack size.
Maybe i'm reading this wrong, but you have less than 10x's the BB no? Aren't we well out of the realm of implied odds whether hand for hand or overall tournament performance?

#11 DrZebra

DrZebra

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 625 posts

Posted 05 December 2005 - 01:45 PM

Scott3705 said:

Aren't we well out of the realm of implied odds whether hand for hand or overall tournament performance?
What do you mean? Do you have something to say about this? You're answering with uncertain questions. What is the "realm of implied odds whether hand for hand or overall"? Where have you come across this before? Do you know what analysis is?

#12 Snowman

Snowman

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 165 posts

Posted 05 December 2005 - 01:47 PM

First of all, it's kind of confusing when you talk about immediate implied odds. Immediate odds is the pot to call ratio. Implied odds is what you can expect to win in this hand if you hit your draw.It's very clear that you don't have implied odds in this sense here. I can do the math, but I don't think this is what you're after.What I think you mean is tournament equity. If that's the case, then you absolutely have to include the number of players left and the payout structure. I guess this could be the final table, but without all the information there's no way to answer your question.
Calvin: Do you believe in the devil? You know, a supreme evil being dedicated to the tempation, corruption, and destruction of man?

Hobbes: I'm not sure man needs the help.

Calvin: You just can't talk to animals about these things.

#13 Scott3705

Scott3705

    Pay-Off Wizard

  • Members
  • 3,761 posts

Posted 05 December 2005 - 01:53 PM

DrZebra said:

What do you mean? Do you have something to say about this? You're answering with uncertain questions. What is the "realm of implied odds whether hand for hand or overall"? Where have you come across this before? Do you know what analysis is?
Ha. I was trying to not come off like a dick. But since you have, i'll go with it. You're an idiot. You're calling off all your money when all you can hope is that your opponent is on a complete bluff. The blinds are 3000 and you have 26,460 which is about 8.8 BB's. Implied odds are a concept belonging to deep stack poker. And since you were bringing up the idea of a Big stack being adventageous in a tourney you can only achieve a 2 to 1 chip lead against the closest player if you do double up here. Not a very big payoff in that respect either. You butchered this hand. Don't know why you posted it to be honest. i think you made it up though as you can see from my other question that the converter is spitting out a different blind amount in its intro. I think you're making it up because who in their right mind would make this play?There's no need for someone to reply: "what a fish, he got lucky" etcEdit: ballparked the math on the chip lead. way off.

#14 Scott3705

Scott3705

    Pay-Off Wizard

  • Members
  • 3,761 posts

Posted 05 December 2005 - 01:59 PM

Snowman said:

What I think you mean is tournament equity. If that's the case, then you absolutely have to include the number of players left and the payout structure. I guess this could be the final table, but without all the information there's no way to answer your question.
It's late no matter when it is. Could be the final table of 150 person.

#15 DrZebra

DrZebra

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 625 posts

Posted 05 December 2005 - 02:02 PM

This is from a MTT I was watching.The tournament equity is what I'm trying decipher.Being the final table, these last few payouts nearly double (as usual.)Everyone at this table was very competent which makes this play stick out and I think it's important to all of our tournament education to try and understand what this particular player may have been thinking.

#16 Hobbes

Hobbes

    Hard at work

  • Members
  • 5,472 posts

Posted 05 December 2005 - 02:16 PM

I'd like to know what he was thinking too because I can't see any rationale for the play. If he is so desperate to double up, he would almost certainly be better off picking a random hand and moving in pre-flop until someone calls. Drawing to a gutshot on this board, I would guess that more times than not he is drawing dead. And factor in that the rest of the times he is drawing nearly dead, I can't see how this is a profitable play, immediately or whole tournament-wise.

#17 Snowman

Snowman

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 165 posts

Posted 05 December 2005 - 02:23 PM

Hobbes said:

I'd like to know what he was thinking too because I can't see any rationale for the play. If he is so desperate to double up, he would almost certainly be better off picking a random hand and moving in pre-flop until someone calls. Drawing to a gutshot on this board, I would guess that more times than not he is drawing dead. And factor in that the rest of the times he is drawing nearly dead, I can't see how this is a profitable play, immediately or whole tournament-wise.
I agree completely. 3-flush paired board. Not exactly ideal to put it mildly.The flop and turn bets also look really weird to me.
Calvin: Do you believe in the devil? You know, a supreme evil being dedicated to the tempation, corruption, and destruction of man?

Hobbes: I'm not sure man needs the help.

Calvin: You just can't talk to animals about these things.

#18 shpaget

shpaget

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,603 posts
  • Location:Canada, eh
  • Interests:beer

Posted 05 December 2005 - 02:24 PM

Quote

NOW, the question is: is he thinking that if he hits, the positive immediate cash he gains in the tournament is worth the negative immediate EV he loses in the hand?
There is usually no positive immediate cash in a tournament.Any measurable, immediate cash is only evident at the final table, and usually within the top five, where you see a significant difference between finishing 3rd and 4th.In a tournament that pays the top 100 places, the difference between 11th and 100th is usually very minimal, in relation to your buyin. WSOP ME notwithstanding.So, if you go from middle of the stack to chip leader, and knock out a guy in 56th place at the same time, your immediate cash gain is ZERO...the difference between 56th and 55th is usually zero...and you can just as easily be in 55th place in two hands.Now, has it increased the likelihood that you'll move up the standings...perhaps even the top 20...sure...but what are the numbers, stats, probabilities to show it, to measure it...and what is the difference between 20th and 55th...probably not much more than the tournament buyin.So, the question here is, are these 7 players the final 7? And what is the difference between 7th and 6th? Because that is his IMMEDIATE cash. His IMPLIED cash would be measured from his increased likelihood of placing higher than 6th based on his newly acquired chipstack - and I wouldn't know how to begin to measure that.The fact is, people get visions of implied odds dancing in their heads when they can't justify the pot odds...and they make up implied odds, and they invent outs...and then when the implied odds don't add up, they start justifying it in other ways..."hey, Gus Hansen made this call on TV", "Sklansky thinks this..""Gigabet thinks that.."Implied odds here are bad to begin with, then take in the fact that the OP could be drawing dead, or have less outs than originally believed, the -EV on that turn call is tremendous. I don't see how that is overcome by cash won. Immediate cash is irrelevent here...because you haven't gained anything yet...nobody went out in 7th on this hand...so 7th is still up for grabs...and if you chase a couple more gutshots like that one, 7th is where you'll finish. Implied cash is there...you've increased your chances of not finishing in 7th...but by what measure?

#19 DrZebra

DrZebra

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 625 posts

Posted 05 December 2005 - 02:50 PM

shpaget said:

 "hey, Gus Hansen made this call on TV", "Sklansky thinks this..""Gigabet thinks that.."
This is precisely the type of thinking that analysis and discussion will help to eliminate.

shpaget said:

 Implied cash is there...you've increased your chances of not finishing in 7th...but by what measure?
My question in the first place.

#20 shpaget

shpaget

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,603 posts
  • Location:Canada, eh
  • Interests:beer

Posted 05 December 2005 - 03:24 PM

DrZebra said:

shpaget said:

 "hey, Gus Hansen made this call on TV", "Sklansky thinks this..""Gigabet thinks that.."
This is precisely the type of thinking that analysis and discussion will help to eliminate.

shpaget said:

 Implied cash is there...you've increased your chances of not finishing in 7th...but by what measure?
My question in the first place.
And I'm not sure how to measure it....if you end up with more than 1/2 the chips with 7 people at the table, that's one thing...you can actually sit back and never play another hand and probably finish 2nd...but, in this case, he's now 2nd in chips, but with most people able to cripple him, it's virtually impossible to measure. He could sit back and not play a single hand until a couple more people fall out, but he could end up blinding out in 7th if he does that, even from his chip position. Like I said, he has no immediate cash benefits because 7th place is still in play, even for him...and I don't see how the increased likelihood of finishing higher than 7th (and that financially gain from 7th to 6th) outweights the highly likely income of finishing 7th if he didn't hit his queen. The fact is, more than 9 times out of 10 he loses this hand and finishes in 7th place. Of the 1/10 times he wins the hand, there is still a percentage of those where he STILL finishes in 7th place.I have a hard time believing he was thinking here on any higher plain...I think he simply either ignored, or miscalculated, his implied odds.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users