Passing Up High Variance +ev Plays

[onlyme386 0]

+2 BB EV ?What does 2BBs do for us at this stage compared to having 19 or 28bbs ? We know our stack is a huge advantage to winning pots without showdown and abusing a short handed table. If we lose this pot we are pretty much going to fall below the threshold of having a "workable stack" as far as opening pots is concerned.

yes. that's what i was saying.

[copernicus 0]

this argument is severley flawed imo. You should play every hand the same whether you play 1 tourney a year or 1000 tourneys a year. You should not take into account whether variance is gonna even out for you.

especially since variance isnt expected to "even out". If you get 10 heads in a row on a fair coin, you dont expect "variance to even out" and eventually get 10 more tails then heads. You are expected to be 50/50 from now to any point in the future and be "stuck" the 10 heads in a row.

[mtdesmoines 3]

especially since variance isnt expected to "even out". If you get 10 heads in a row on a fair coin, you dont expect "variance to even out" and eventually get 10 more tails then heads. You are expected to be 50/50 from now to any point in the future and be "stuck" the 10 heads in a row.

LOLThanks for making my point.

[Poker Addict 0]

If you play enough games that variance evens out, you take every +ev spot you get.If you don't play enough games that variance evens out, then you should be selective. I don't know how many hands it takes to even out variance. Also, I pass up on vv marginal spots for deep stacks.

especially since variance isnt expected to "even out". If you get 10 heads in a row on a fair coin, you dont expect "variance to even out" and eventually get 10 more tails then heads. You are expected to be 50/50 from now to any point in the future and be "stuck" the 10 heads in a row.

LOLThanks for making my point.

I don't think this addresses the original question. You don't play every +EV situation. As you put in the top post here, you say you play every +EV situation but you pass on some very very marginal ones in certain situations.I think that is what NNB is trying to figure out. How to help him figure out which situations are just too marginal and risk too much so you shouldn't play them, if that is actually the case at all. I believe there are spots that might seem marginally +EV but I wouldn't play them because they risk too much or do not reward enough.

[copernicus 0]

Theres another consideration in the posted hand if you subscribe to gigabet's "block theory":Seat 1: colenel decker (154,608)Seat 4: DuckU (56,068)Seat 5: no not baxter (171,726)Seat 6: adammc (217,366)Seat 7: mx4ever (109,508)Seat 8: ckingusc (242,010)Seat 9: apestyles (78,224)If you look at blocks of chips they can be grouped into similar holdings, something like [242,217] [171,154] [109,78] and [56].If NNB wins he jumps into a top block of [242,236,217] with a 6M or so surplus over the next block of [154]. If he loses he drops into a block of [115,112,109,78] and is in a 4 way fight to move up .It can be argued that since additional chips lose value/chips lost have greater value, its a worse result to drop into the next lower block than to move up to the top block. On the other hand, to move into the top block with significant "surplus" over the next block down could give you a lot more freedom to see flops without endangering your position. So what prevails here?Since in this particular situation stacks are relatively shallow all in moves from the bottom block are going to be more the norm, so you arent going to have a chance to effectively use the "surplus" by widening your open raising range. So, in this case I think its worse to lose than it is good to win.Edit: Started posting before but finished after NNBs surmising it might be a block theory issue. GMTA. and work gets in the way of reality once again.

[Acid_Knight 2]

I didn't read any responses so if what I say has been said etc, whatever.In a cash game it is essentially never correct to pass up +EV situations becuase you can reload if you get unlucky and other things.In a tournament where the payouts are weighted and survival earns money, I think this has actually been pretty much accepted that at certain points in tournaments it is correct to pass up a +EV spot (or make a -EV move essentially) because you risk more equity than you can gain.In a cash game, it doesn't matter. Someone made the analogy in the forum recently:Suppose I offer to flip a fair coin with you. I will pay you $11 for every time heads comes up and you pay me $10 everytime tails comes up. That's +EV right? Well, in cash games, you'd never pass this up, even if you only had 1 $10 buyin in play because you'd still stand to win $.50 on average per trial. If you lose your buyin, you just rebuy. Sure, you're bound to come across someone who'll pay you $13 to $10 or $20 to 10, but you just take those propositions as well becuase you really have no risk of ruin assuming a proper bankroll in cash games.In the tournament, you can't reload. So yes, if you had a ton of chips, you're gonna want to take ever +EV spot that comes along. The thing is, if you only have $10, are you gonna risk it where your EV is +$0.50 or +$2.50? It's pretty simple.In a tournament, there are a lot of spots where it just won't make sense for you to take the same risk for a marginally +EV spot where you can easily wait to find one that has a higher EV than the one you passed up.

[Cappy37 0]

Seriously, I have an edge at this table. DuckU and Ape are short leaving their options limitied. Also, I know way more about their games than they know about my game.

That's an extremely valid point.

[KevinFKHS 0]

I got a question regarding the T8s hand...I haven't read all posts, but I don't think anybody took into consideration what I think is a very important point:We're not closing the action, the big blind, who has a larger stack than ours has yet to act...so if we decide to play, do weiso-shove or still just call!?and also, I'm wondering if that makes the play less ev if not even down to neutral or negative ev...I mean if the big blind is to wake up with a hand, we might just be out of the tournament because of a spot we could have easily avoided...Just my 2 cents...maybe I'm too conservative of a player or just not experienced enough, but I would call/shove there exactly 0% of the time.............?

[Poker Addict 0]

I got a question regarding the T8s hand...I haven't read all posts, but I don't think anybody took into consideration what I think is a very important point:We're not closing the action, the big blind, who has a larger stack than ours has yet to act...so if we decide to play, do weiso-shove or still just call!?and also, I'm wondering if that makes the play less ev if not even down to neutral or negative ev...I mean if the big blind is to wake up with a hand, we might just be out of the tournament because of a spot we could have easily avoided...Just my 2 cents...maybe I'm too conservative of a player or just not experienced enough, but I would call/shove there exactly 0% of the time.............?

Yes, it was mentioned at some point.Also folding this like 100% of the time.

[ReraiseAllIn 0]

That's not the point at all, I would say T8s has marginal cev in this situation and our stack can't afford to take this big of a hit. To further expand on my point earlier about secondary ev...Running T8s against ATC, I got that this call was ~ +2 BB EVWhen we win, our stack is going to be 238k (40bb)When we lose, our stack is going to be 116k (19bb)When we fold, our stack is going to be 168k (28bb)The swing of 21bb on this hand is just too much, I would definitely be a fan of calling if he has < 6 bb as I think 1.) it is more likely he is actually shoving ATC, 2.) chips we can afford to lose much easier, 3.) doesn't give a good player a big chip stack

I agree with this train of thought 100%. As it is an extremely marginal +EV situation, you need to pass it up since your sample size is so limited. Chances are good there will be a spot soon where you'd be looking at closer to a 60/40 to his range as opposed to a 52% equity to his range (which may not necessarily be ATC). It would be one situation if he was very short, in which case you can afford to take essentially a coin flip where you are a very slight favorite (again assuming his range is in fact ATC). Like Acid said, if you were playing a cash game and you could reload, then you would have the opportunity to run this slight favorite flip numerous times and be able to exploit your equity edge. However, if you lose this flip then your whole situation changes since your stack will decrease by 30%. Also, as you said, you like your edge WITH this current situation of chip distribution against these players. How do you like your edge if the DuckU has an almost identical stack size and apes' stack accounts for ~2/3rds of your own? Sure, you have more information on their play than they do on yours, but does that alone give you an edge when your stack advantage is negated? I would say that all of this adds up to a fold, nevermind the possibility of the big blind waking up with a hand.

[mtdesmoines 3]

I don't think this addresses the original question. You don't play every +EV situation. As you put in the top post here, you say you play every +EV situation but you pass on some very very marginal ones in certain situations. I think that is what NNB is trying to figure out. How to help him figure out which situations are just too marginal and risk too much so you shouldn't play them, if that is actually the case at all. I believe there are spots that might seem marginally +EV but I wouldn't play them because they risk too much or do not reward enough.

OK, I think the risk in this situation, at this stage in the tourney, is too great, provided we play a limited number of tourneys. We go from being a competitive stack to a short stack and very vulnerable when the payouts increase sharply for every spot we advance. If we're playing the WSOP once a year, I think this +EV is a bad call. However, if we're playing 10 tourneys a day online, I don't think shooting for this +EV is such a bad decision. AK sums some of it up below.

In a tournament where the payouts are weighted and survival earns money, I think this has actually been pretty much accepted that at certain points in tournaments it is correct to pass up a +EV spot (or make a -EV move essentially) because you risk more equity than you can gain. ... In a tournament, there are a lot of spots where it just won't make sense for you to take the same risk for a marginally +EV spot where you can easily wait to find one that has a higher EV than the one you passed up.

In essence, playing enough tourneys at the same level all the time flattens out our variance. That's all I'm trying to say.

[copernicus 0]

LOLThanks for making my point.

If thats "making your point" then you sure had a funny way of expressing it...like, opposite of what you meant to say."Variance evens out" ....."no it doesnt"......"thanks for making my point"

[chgocubs99 0]

Bump.

[mooncons 0]

No one has mentioned staking yet. Presumably you would want one of your horses to make some moves and take some chances to take down and tourny, but do you think a stakee would want to do that? Or rather, would they be more grateful just to slip into the money and work their way up.Of course, it all depends on the stakee, I guess.

[Cappy37 0]

No one has mentioned staking yet. Presumably you would want one of your horses to make some moves and take some chances to take down and tourny, but do you think a stakee would want to do that? Or rather, would they be more grateful just to slip into the money and work their way up.Of course, it all depends on the stakee, I guess.

If it's a stake thread in Genpoker, if anyone cashes, I consider it a moral victory.

[Poker Addict 0]

The more I look into it, the more I think it has to do with gigabet's block theory. Would love to hear some more analysis!

Theres another consideration in the posted hand if you subscribe to gigabet's "block theory":Seat 1: colenel decker (154,608)Seat 4: DuckU (56,068)Seat 5: no not baxter (171,726)Seat 6: adammc (217,366)Seat 7: mx4ever (109,508)Seat 8: ckingusc (242,010)Seat 9: apestyles (78,224)If you look at blocks of chips they can be grouped into similar holdings, something like [242,217] [171,154] [109,78] and [56].If NNB wins he jumps into a top block of [242,236,217] with a 6M or so surplus over the next block of [154]. If he loses he drops into a block of [115,112,109,78] and is in a 4 way fight to move up .It can be argued that since additional chips lose value/chips lost have greater value, its a worse result to drop into the next lower block than to move up to the top block. On the other hand, to move into the top block with significant "surplus" over the next block down could give you a lot more freedom to see flops without endangering your position. So what prevails here?Since in this particular situation stacks are relatively shallow all in moves from the bottom block are going to be more the norm, so you arent going to have a chance to effectively use the "surplus" by widening your open raising range. So, in this case I think its worse to lose than it is good to win.Edit: Started posting before but finished after NNBs surmising it might be a block theory issue. GMTA. and work gets in the way of reality once again.

So I was reading a little bit about Gigabets theories after this. I was wondering what people thought of his ideas. And if you had links to things that should be read.

[copernicus 0]

So I was reading a little bit about Gigabets theories after this. I was wondering what people thought of his ideas. And if you had links to things that should be read.

Truthfully I find his "theories" quite annoying! His posts typically are vaguely written and he doesnt respond to questions that are trying to clarify what appears to be deep concepts. Take his "block theory" as an example...there are probably a half a dozen different interpretations of what he's really talking about. My interpretation as applied to the above situation probably doesnt have more than a 50/50 chance of being how he would apply the theory to it!I often can't decide whether he's like the college prof who doesnt want to spoon feed his students, because self-discovery and interpretation are the best way to learn, if he just wants to sound smart without really helping anyone else, or if he isnt levelling!

[Acid_Knight 2]

I often can't decide whether he's like the college prof who doesnt want to spoon feed his students, because self-discovery and interpretation are the best way to learn, if he just wants to sound smart without really helping anyone else, or if he isnt levelling!

I have often thought the same thing about his more in depth posts. I think in general, it's that he probably feels like showing off on one level and so he lays the groundwork for these huge theories and things like that, but at the same time doesn't want to hurt his game immensely/help out other people too much so he posts enough to let you know that he knows what he's doing but doesn't provide enough specifics to really help the average player use the information as leverage against him.

[Sheiky 0]

Isn't Gigabet famed for being an 'excellent' writer about poker but he's acctualy busto quite a lot? He wrote one article that i think beats almost every other article i've ever read (including non-poker ones), but it's the only one of his i've read atm.(Btw feel free to link to others)

[Jam-Fly 8]

I think people pass up on +EV situations waaaaaay too often. We're not all Phil Hellmuth and we simply CANNOT afford to do it.First hand of WPT Championships, folds round to the SB, he pushes all in. As he is doing so, he accidentally exposes AsKc, his hand is declared live and it is my action. I look down at 2d2s with a 50k stack. Do you call here? The general consensus is obviously a no, but I'm not so sure. The call IS +EV after all, what more do you want? In the T8s hand, if I am sure he is pushing ATC, and my hand and is ahead of his range, I call regardless of my chip stack. Whatever about passing up +EV in a MTT, I think you cannot do it late on in tournaments. You must capitalize on your +EV spots, there are a lot less 'better spots' than you think. Unless the tournament is ridic weak, and you KNOW you can destroy the rest of the field, I think passing and +EV situation is absolutely wrong.Basically, no, you shouldn't be passing up +EV situations imo

[Poker Addict 0]

Isn't Gigabet famed for being an 'excellent' writer about poker but he's acctualy busto quite a lot? He wrote one article that i think beats almost every other article i've ever read (including non-poker ones), but it's the only one of his i've read atm.(Btw feel free to link to others)

interesting, do you know where that article is? I didn't see a link.

[Acid_Knight 2]

First hand of WPT Championships, folds round to the SB, he pushes all in. As he is doing so, he accidentally exposes AsKc, his hand is declared live and it is my action. I look down at 2d2s with a 50k stack. Do you call here? The general consensus is obviously a no, but I'm not so sure. The call IS +EV after all, what more do you want?

Equity and EV are the same thing in a cash game becuase the pot contains real money so your equity in the pot relates directly to your expected value of a specific move.In a tournament, with top heavy payouts, it doesn't work that way. If you call wtih 22, yes, 50% of the time you will double up, but that doesn't mean that your equity in the tournament has increased by 100%. The disparity between these ideas is why it's correct to pass up certain situations like this.

[Jam-Fly 8]

especially since variance isnt expected to "even out". If you get 10 heads in a row on a fair coin, you dont expect "variance to even out" and eventually get 10 more tails then heads. You are expected to be 50/50 from now to any point in the future and be "stuck" the 10 heads in a row.

so if you usually play 100 tournaments/month, but for some reason, you can only play 1 tournament this month, do you play differently in this one tournament?

[Poker Addict 0]

I think people pass up on +EV situations waaaaaay too often. We're not all Phil Hellmuth and we simply CANNOT afford to do it.First hand of WPT Championships, folds round to the SB, he pushes all in. As he is doing so, he accidentally exposes AsKc, his hand is declared live and it is my action. I look down at 2d2s with a 50k stack. Do you call here? The general consensus is obviously a no, but I'm not so sure. The call IS +EV after all, what more do you want? In the T8s hand, if I am sure he is pushing ATC, and my hand and is ahead of his range, I call regardless of my chip stack. Whatever about passing up +EV in a MTT, I think you cannot do it late on in tournaments. You must capitalize on your +EV spots, there are a lot less 'better spots' than you think. Unless the tournament is ridic weak, and you KNOW you can destroy the rest of the field, I think passing and +EV situation is absolutely wrong.Basically, no, you shouldn't be passing up +EV situations imo

First, in this hand, can we say he is pushing any two cards? Even if he looks down at 72off he is just shoving no matter what? I am not sure how to say his range really does include any two cards.As far as capitalizing on every +EV situation, I just believe this is a mistake. If you are risking too much in a tournament (a playable stack or even all of your stack) and the reward is not high enough (not greatly increasing your chance of winning) then you have to take that into account. Cash games as has been said, if you can read the opponent correctly then you should not pass on +EV spots because you can reload and if you consistently put your money in good you will be a winner. In tournaments that is not the case. You can't reload those chips so you have other factors in mind. All you are trying to do is to survive while taking calculated spots to increase your opportunity to win.But I am tired so I am probably rambling.EDIT: So tired that not just one, but TWO people posted while I was typing.

[Poker Addict 0]

so if you usually play 100 tournaments/month, but for some reason, you can only play 1 tournament this month, do you play differently in this one tournament?

I believe what is being said is that no, you don't play tournaments differently depending on how many you are playing. You play them to the extent that you give yourself the best chance to win. And that means passing up on marginal +EV spots at times. It could also mean taking -EV plays as well which you should not do in a cash game because it happens when you are very short stacked and say a really tight player shoves into you. Because of your stack you might have to call even though the pot odds are not right for his dominance over your range, but you have to gamble here otherwise you will be out anyway. You should never be in this situation in a cash game because you should reload, or if you can't afford to then you are playing outside your roll.