92 replies to this topic

[NEtwowilldo]

Zach6668, on Saturday, April 14th, 2007, 7:40 PM, said:

You really think you can wait for 70/30 edges?You understand that the best tournament players have advocated that THEY aren't good enough to pass up any edge they have... you know that, right?

Ask Hellmuth which one of his ten Hold 'Em bracelets he won by continuously putting his entire stack at risk in even money situations. T.J. Cloutier advocates that the only hand worth going broke with before the flop is two aces. He also advocates slowly chippping up, and not trying to double your chips all the time. I realize that this is a faster paced tournament than a WSOP event but, FT has a pretty gradual structure, and I know you can find a better spot to bust some donkey who overvalues top pair later on.The bottomline is if you keep putting your tournament life on the line with AK vs a pair, you'll be broke by the second time, and never make a final table.

[Zach6668]

3140 to win 4220.1.344 to 1.We need 42.66% equity to break even here.

1,479,430,656  games	 0.047 secs	31,477,248,000  games/secBoard: Dead:  	equity 	win 	tie 		  pots won 	pots tied	Hand 0: 	48.610%	  42.00% 	06.60% 		 621434784 	 97715712.00   { AKo }Hand 1: 	51.390%	  44.79% 	06.60% 		 662564448 	 97715712.00   { 66+, AJs+, AQo+ }

Sorry, don't think it's close.Our equity actually INCREASES if we limit him to 99+ in terms of PPs.And if we leave 66+ and just take out AJs, which is probably the bottom of his range, our equity is still 47.7%.Mathematically, it's not close.

[simo_8ball]

Ok, where to start.

NEtwowilldo, on Sunday, April 15th, 2007, 12:56 AM, said:

Ask Hellmuth which one of his ten Hold 'Em bracelets he won by continuously putting his entire stack at risk in even money situations.

Paul Phillips: "It seems like this conversation has run in circles several times a month for years (or decades) so forgive me if I'd rather point to the archives than tackle it again. Abbreviated version: gambling doesn't end when you bust. Go find more action if you want to keep gambling. The "hellmuth thing to do" doesn't mean he's better than the field, it only means he's (visibly, exploitably, overly) averse to going broke."Hellmuth is a law unto himself.

NEtwowilldo, on Sunday, April 15th, 2007, 12:56 AM, said:

T.J. Cloutier advocates that the only hand worth going broke with before the flop is two aces. He also advocates slowly chippping up, and not trying to double your chips all the time.

Cloutier is known as one of the tightest players on the circuit, and his advice comes from a time where raising AQ UTG would be LAG. He says it because when you are deepstacked noone will go broke with less than KK. Here we are not deepstacked, and there is dead money in the pot.

NEtwowilldo, on Sunday, April 15th, 2007, 12:56 AM, said:

I realize that this is a faster paced tournament than a WSOP event but, FT has a pretty gradual structure, and I know you can find a better spot to bust some donkey who overvalues top pair later on.

You'll blind yourself away waiting for that opportunity and when it comes you will only double back to where you were. You talk about these situations as though they come along once a round. You are lucky if you get such an opportunity once an hour.

NEtwowilldo, on Sunday, April 15th, 2007, 12:56 AM, said:

The bottomline is if you keep putting your tournament life on the line with AK vs a pair, you'll be broke by the second time, and never make a final table.

If you are getting your money in on coinflips (or 45/55 situations) with dead money to make it slightly +EV you will final table and win more tournaments than the average player.EDIT: In fact, if you could always get your money in at least 55/45 you would be one of the best tournament players in the world.

[NEtwowilldo]

I don't use all of these fancy programs.Basically what you're saying is we need to win 42.66% of the time to make this an EVEN MONEY situation.And that we're going to win 48.61% of the time given his range? Meaning that in the long run, we're going to increase our stack by 6% (210 chips in this situation, ~1.7x the BB) every time we are in this spot. First tell me if that is the correct interpretation of your presentation thing.Because that seems pretty close to me.If this was for less than a third of my stack it's an insta call. Cash game, instacall. But if you lose in this ever-so-slight +EV situation, it's over, you lose the tournament. If we win, are we in a postion to win the tournament? Not really.This is just too close, it's so not worth it to risk going broke.

[NEtwowilldo]

One thing all you math people are forgetting is the chances we have of stealing pots later on. This is a 45/55 situation or whatever. But what are the odds we are going to be able to steal several rounds of blinds from late postion when they double from 100-200/25 to 200-400/50? Pretty good, better than 50% considering that most people tighten up during this jump.The best tournament players in the world absolutely do not look for marginal situations to play for their tournament life. This is an extremely marginal situation.

[simo_8ball]

NEtwowilldo, on Sunday, April 15th, 2007, 1:20 AM, said:

I don't use all of these fancy programs.

They aren't fancy. In fact it's not even plural. Pokerstove is possibly the single most useful piece of poker software on the market. And it's free. You should use it.

NEtwowilldo, on Sunday, April 15th, 2007, 1:20 AM, said:

Basically what you're saying is we need to win 42.66% of the time to make this an EVEN MONEY situation.And that we're going to win 48.61% of the time given his range? Meaning that in the long run, we're going to increase our stack by 6% (210 chips in this situation, ~1.7x the BB) every time we are in this spot. First tell me if that is the correct interpretation of your presentation thing.

No. we add 14% to our stack by calling.

NEtwowilldo, on Sunday, April 15th, 2007, 1:20 AM, said:

Because that seems pretty close to me.If this was for less than a third of my stack it's an insta call. Cash game, instacall. But if you lose in this ever-so-slight +EV situation, it's over, you lose the tournament. If we win, are we in a postion to win the tournament? Not really.This is just too close, it's so not worth it to risk going broke.

14% is huge. It's not close. Really.Also, why are you overvaluing tournament life? It is an irrational fear.

[Zach6668]

Do I really need to dig up the old 2p2 thread about this?

[NEtwowilldo]

simo_8ball, on Saturday, April 14th, 2007, 8:16 PM, said:

You'll blind yourself away waiting for that opportunity

Not quite, not with 35x the BB and no antes. And the reward when that situation does come pays you off with someone's entire stack.

[Zach6668]

Zach6668, on Saturday, April 14th, 2007, 8:31 PM, said:

Do I really need to dig up the old 2p2 thread about this?

http://archiveserver...l...part=1&vc=1Enjoy.EDIT - Even Smasharoo makes an appearance in this thread, lol.

[simo_8ball]

NEtwowilldo, on Sunday, April 15th, 2007, 1:29 AM, said:

One thing all you math people are forgetting is the chances we have of stealing pots later on. This is a 45/55 situation or whatever. But what are the odds we are going to be able to steal several rounds of blinds from late postion when they double from 100-200/25 to 200-400/50? Pretty good, better than 50% considering that most people tighten up during this jump.

Ok, now you're annoying me."You math people". Please don't use that phrase. It gives a one dimensional view of poker mathematics which is completely wrong.I'm not forgetting the stealing chances, it's just that they are totally irrelevant to this situation. Those stealing chances don't disappear if you double up. If anything they become more frequent.What has 50% got to do with anything?

NEtwowilldo, on Sunday, April 15th, 2007, 1:29 AM, said:

The best tournament players in the world absolutely do not look for marginal situations to play for their tournament life. This is an extremely marginal situation.

They don't look for them, but they don't turn them down when they get the chance. Unless they are Phil Hellmuth.

[GrinderMJ]

Netwo: You are seriously like, wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy off in how you should be thinking about MTT poker. Not to be an ***, but you have a ton to learn and you seem to have a MAJOR leak in your game.

[simo_8ball]

Zach6668, on Sunday, April 15th, 2007, 1:35 AM, said:

http://archiveserver...l...part=1&vc=1Enjoy.

Possibly my favourite thread of all time.

[simo_8ball]

"GrinderMJMaking Poor Choices"That choice of avatar is poor.

[Zach6668]

Here's another good one:http://archiveserver...h...amp;sb=5&o=

[simo_8ball]

NEtwowilldo, on Sunday, April 15th, 2007, 1:32 AM, said:

Not quite, not with 26x the BB and no antes. And the reward when that situation does come pays you off with someone's entire stack.

FYPOh, and if the blinds go up to 80/160 while you are waiting you only have 20.

[ChrisRichey]

Net, read the 2+2 threads that Zach provided the links for. We are all here to learn, and thus must be willing to have an open mind. Simo and Grinder are very good players, who have a ton of experience and knowledge. Listen to them.

[SlackerInc]

NEtwowilldo, on Saturday, April 14th, 2007, 6:32 PM, said:

Not quite, not with 35x the BB and no antes. And the reward when that situation does come pays you off with someone's entire stack.

35x the BB really isn't that huge. In my man Snyder's PTF book, a "short chip stack" starts at 30 BBs and under (as does Harrington's Yellow Zone). 30-50 BBs is considered "competitive", and you are at the low end of that range.Another good point Snyder makes (in debunking the Malmuth/Sklansky theory of "reverse chip value" is that you won't get a chance to take "someone's entire stack" later if their stack is bigger than yours. If you take some risks to go for a big stack, you will be able to get their whole stack when the chance arises.In fact, that Snyder essay relates well to this debate:http://www.blackjack...alue_theory.htmScroll down to the section under the bolded heading "A Bad Model for Analyzing the Value of Early Risk in Poker Tournaments". He refutes exactly the kind of argument you make here (and which Sklansky and Malmuth made, but with a key logical error).I also recommend reading the list higher up of all the advantages a big chip stack gives you.

[NEtwowilldo]

http://philivey.com/...hp?learntips=67"There were also factors beyond the math that I should have considered. For instance, given the table dynamics, there was no need for me to risk one-third of my chips on this hand. If I had folded, I could have gone back to stealing, padding my stack while risking only a fraction of my chips. What's more is that, after I lost, I had to become more conservative, as I no longer had a big chip advantage over the other players. "Read this article.Is this not a similar situation? Granted we are not the big stack at our table in this situation but personally I feel that I am a favorite to outplay people at the $10 level and win more pots without a showdown. Show me all the math you want, I still don't see anything wrong with passing up a marginally +EV situation when you feel that your edge over the rest of the field is greater than this almost even money situation. If this was the 2001 WSOP final table (which was absolutely stacked) I would call, but I feel confident enough in my play that I can chip up slowly without having to engage in these big showdowns, unless I found myself at table full of professionals.Go back to pokerstove, and add in all the percentages of us stealing bigger blinds against weak/tight opponenets in the big blind. Add in the percentage of pots we will win in position against one weak opponent. Add in the percentage of pots we will sense weakness in our opponents and pick up the pot. Furthermore, I think the range Zach put the villain is a little off. He is putting more than half of his stack at risk. Is he really going to do that with pocket 6s or A J? Not if he is even a decent player. Run that back through pokerstove with the villain's range as 10 10+ and AQs+ . Which I think is much more accurate, then tell me how close it is.I look at it like this. If you had 99 and I had AK off, would you put everything you own, assets, cash, personal property, everything, on the line in hopes of doubling it because you were a 6 to 5 favorite? What if you knew that you could work with those assests and at your job to slowly make more and more money in the future, but if you lost you were broke for the rest of your life? If you were sick in the head you might, but its EVERYTHING at risk on a slight favorite situation. It's the same case here. In this specific tournament, the hero has a bankroll of 3500 or whatever. Why would he put it all at risk when he's not even sure if he's slightly behind, and he could be far behind? Tournament poker is about surviving and thriving. You can thrive much easier later on without having to risk not surviving at all later. I don't see the point in taking that risk if you feel like you are a much better than 6 to 5 favorite against any one opponent heads up in position in a pot, which I feel that I am against the majority of the players at this level. Bottom line is that it is OK to pass up these situations when you feel that you have a better chance of slowly chipping up later.I agree that passing up +EV situations is a mistake in cash games, but to win tournaments, there are other ways to get chips more safely.Sorry we get into these disagreements sometimes, you guys are still my friends.

[GrinderMJ]

NEtwowilldo, on Sunday, April 15th, 2007, 11:47 AM, said:

http://philivey.com/...hp?learntips=67"There were also factors beyond the math that I should have considered. For instance, given the table dynamics, there was no need for me to risk one-third of my chips on this hand. If I had folded, I could have gone back to stealing, padding my stack while risking only a fraction of my chips. What's more is that, after I lost, I had to become more conservative, as I no longer had a big chip advantage over the other players. "Read this article.Is this not a similar situation? Granted we are not the big stack at our table in this situation but personally I feel that I am a favorite to outplay people at the $10 level and win more pots without a showdown. Show me all the math you want, I still don't see anything wrong with passing up a marginally +EV situation when you feel that your edge over the rest of the field is greater than this almost even money situation. If this was the 2001 WSOP final table (which was absolutely stacked) I would call, but I feel confident enough in my play that I can chip up slowly without having to engage in these big showdowns, unless I found myself at table full of professionals.Go back to pokerstove, and add in all the percentages of us stealing bigger blinds against weak/tight opponenets in the big blind. Add in the percentage of pots we will win in position against one weak opponent. Add in the percentage of pots we will sense weakness in our opponents and pick up the pot. Furthermore, I think the range Zach put the villain is a little off. He is putting more than half of his stack at risk. Is he really going to do that with pocket 6s or A J? Not if he is even a decent player. Run that back through pokerstove with the villain's range as 10 10+ and AQs+ . Which I think is much more accurate, then tell me how close it is.I look at it like this. If you had 99 and I had AK off, would you put everything you own, assets, cash, personal property, everything, on the line in hopes of doubling it because you were a 6 to 5 favorite? What if you knew that you could work with those assests and at your job to slowly make more and more money in the future, but if you lost you were broke for the rest of your life? If you were sick in the head you might, but its EVERYTHING at risk on a slight favorite situation. It's the same case here. In this specific tournament, the hero has a bankroll of 3500 or whatever. Why would he put it all at risk when he's not even sure if he's slightly behind, and he could be far behind? Tournament poker is about surviving and thriving. You can thrive much easier later on without having to risk not surviving at all later. I don't see the point in taking that risk if you feel like you are a much better than 6 to 5 favorite against any one opponent heads up in position in a pot, which I feel that I am against the majority of the players at this level. Bottom line is that it is OK to pass up these situations when you feel that you have a better chance of slowly chipping up later.I agree that passing up +EV situations is a mistake in cash games, but to win tournaments, there are other ways to get chips more safely.Sorry we get into these disagreements sometimes, you guys are still my friends.

You are right, everybody else is wrong. Keep passing up +ev situations, let us know how it turns out for you.

[NEtwowilldo]

GrinderMJ, on Sunday, April 15th, 2007, 3:13 AM, said:

You are right, everybody else is wrong. Keep passing up +ev situations, let us know how it turns out for you.

Don't be a sarcastic prick. We're all here to help each other. Look me up on the pokerdb and tell me what percentage of times I have been in the money compared to the best online players in the world. Like I said granted I play for smaller stakes, but I still like my approach.Answer me this question.You have played your friend heads up 1,000 times. You have beat him 780 of those times. The 1,001st time you play him, with 5,000 chips to start, 25,50 blinds that never go up, he moves all in on preflop the first hand, and you look at AKo/s. Based on his range, you know are a 55% favorite to win, because you went to your computer and looked it up on pokerstove. However based on your history of playing flops with him, you are a 78% favorite to win the match.Would you still call just because this is a +EV spot? Calling here is a big mistake because you will only win 55% of the time by calling, and you will win 78% of the time by playing flops against him.