Ak Getting Squeezed

[copernicus 0]

I was thinking about this some more, and I'm still not sure it's quite accurate to say 2x the chance of winning. I think that would depend on whether you are better than the average player in the tournament, and whether your particular skill set is magnified by having a big stack (in which case it might be greater than 2x) or whether you are particularly good at managing a small stack (in which case it might be less).

youre both right, tEV != but ~=$EV early on. ICM wise you do double your chance at winning, but ICM!=reality either. Generally I would expect if a player has an edge its in big stack play, and doubling up gives him a skill advantage that wipes out the small equity differences. Its very difficult to have a big edge in small stack play, because its so routine and mathematical.

[SlackerInc 0]

Its very difficult to have a big edge in small stack play, because its so routine and mathematical.

But a lot of people aren't patient and mathematically inclined. I'd say I personally have more of an edge in small stack than big stack play. Not that I win more often with a small stack at a given stage of the tournament, of course, but that if you compare situations where I have half the average stack early on and situations where I have twice the average stack early on, I'd bet I only win the tournament maybe three times as often in the latter situation than in the former, if that. Obviously that's a leak in my bigstack play, but I just seem to come back and win a lot more than I hold on to the chip lead and win.ETA: and even worse, it seems that it's quite common for me to get the #1 stack in the whole tourney in the second or third level, and then bust out before making the money. This happens in STTs as well as MTTs from 45-man SNGs up to fields of 2000. It's pretty frustrating. OTOH I do make my share of amazing comebacks!

[copernicus 0]

But a lot of people aren't patient and mathematically inclined. I'd say I personally have more of an edge in small stack than big stack play. Not that I win more often with a small stack at a given stage of the tournament, of course, but that if you compare situations where I have half the average stack early on and situations where I have twice the average stack early on, I'd bet I only win the tournament maybe three times as often in the latter situation than in the former, if that. Obviously that's a leak in my bigstack play, but I just seem to come back and win a lot more than I hold on to the chip lead and win.ETA: and even worse, it seems that it's quite common for me to get the #1 stack in the whole tourney in the second or third level, and then bust out before making the money. This happens in STTs as well as MTTs from 45-man SNGs up to fields of 2000. It's pretty frustrating. OTOH I do make my share of amazing comebacks!

You dont need to be patient and mathematically inclined to play a short stack..you just need to have read HOH II! If it common for you to have a very big stack and not make the money then you most likely too loose in the face of aggression and too tight in the face of weakness. When you have a big stack the goal is to protect it...against other players and against the increasing blinds.

[simo_8ball 0]

Generally I would expect if a player has an edge its in big stack play, and doubling up gives him a skill advantage that wipes out the small equity differences.

This is what I keep thinking. It is surely possible for that advantage to be great enough in some cases that doubling up is +$EV even in marginally -cEV situations. Someone like Dan Harrington is not the sort to take full advantage of the potential of a large stack, whereas if a player like Grinder or Gus Hansen get a large stack they can dominate.The whole idea of ICM is that each chip is 'independent', so there is theoretically zero skill factor. If you are a terrible poker player, you should look for as many marginal situations as possible. Conversely, if you are the best player (meaning generically, and linearly better at all aspects of play) in the tournament, you can pass up slight edges.

[SlackerInc 0]

If it common for you to have a very big stack and not make the money then you most likely too loose in the face of aggression and too tight in the face of weakness. When you have a big stack the goal is to protect it...against other players and against the increasing blinds.

That's nice, pithy advice! Thanks. (And feel free to elabourate if you like...)ETA: You still have to be patient and mathematical to apply HoHII. There are lots of people who can't resist raising or calling raises with hands (or positions) they shouldn't with a short stack; and there are also lots of people who can't divide a four or five digit number by a three or four digit number (and then perhaps multiply that times a fraction of ten).

[copernicus 0]

That's nice, pithy advice! Thanks. (And feel free to elabourate if you like...)ETA: You still have to be patient and mathematical to apply HoHII. There are lots of people who can't resist raising or calling raises with hands (or positions) they shouldn't with a short stack; and there are also lots of people who can't divide a four or five digit number by a three or four digit number (and then perhaps multiply that times a fraction of ten).

lol...true, but not at the buyins im usually playing

[RDog 0]

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.

Ummmm.....this is where the argument ends bud. This would explain why you are folding here. You are playing to make the money. You don't play tournies to make the money. All the money is in the top few spots.

[RDog 0]

You're obviously an all or nothing player. I don't think you're putting enough value on tournament life.My stars name is southrnctowl. I've played 74 real money tournaments, with buy-ins ranging from 25 cents to $15. Needless to say I prefer live play, but I just don't like people telling me I have huge flaws in my game when I obviously have very respectable statistics against recreational players.

Obviously a huge sample size.

[SlackerInc 0]

Ummmm.....this is where the argument ends bud. This would explain why you are folding here. You are playing to make the money. You don't play tournies to make the money. All the money is in the top few spots.

Yet (still being slightly devil's advocate here) there is a fair amount of money in those other spots collectively. Let's take for example the MTT that is stickied here in strat: the $20+2 180. The top three spots (1.67% of the field) are indeed juicy: $2228 of the $3600 prize pool, so they're averaging over $750 each in prize money. But still, there are five times as many, fifteen other people (8.33% of the field), who on average are pocketing nearly a hundred bucks each on a $20 investment. Surely the optimal strategy for such a structure cannot be identical to the optimal strategy if that same $3600 went only to the top three finishers and everyone else got zilch? Yet in that latter structure, you really would, in a pure sense, be playing for the top three spots. So if you would not want to play the identical way in the structure as it really is, you must be at least throwing in a little titch, a sprinkle, of "playing to make the money". No?

[tskillz187 0]

Yet (still being slightly devil's advocate here) there is a fair amount of money in those other spots collectively. Let's take for example the MTT that is stickied here in strat: the $20+2 180. The top three spots (1.67% of the field) are indeed juicy: $2228 of the $3600 prize pool, so they're averaging over $750 each in prize money. But still, there are five times as many, fifteen other people (8.33% of the field), who on average are pocketing nearly a hundred bucks each on a $20 investment. Surely the optimal strategy for such a structure cannot be identical to the optimal strategy if that same $3600 went only to the top three finishers and everyone else got zilch? Yet in that latter structure, you really would, in a pure sense, be playing for the top three spots. So if you would not want to play the identical way in the structure as it really is, you must be at least throwing in a little titch, a sprinkle, of "playing to make the money". No?

No, you girl. ;)These thoughts are too deep for me. I kind of agree with you, I've argued before many times that playing to make the money isn't mutually exclusive from playing to win. When I have my most tourney success I'm much more a survivalist that plays a great short stack than I am an accumulator that pounds the shorts. Maybe that's because it's harder to successfully be the accumulator, or maybe it's because I eternally run poor. I'd like to think it's the latter, but I'm fairly sure it's the former.That being said, this thread is ridiculous and it's an easy shove (or call) I forget what the situation is now, just that it's standard.

[SlackerInc 0]

That being said, this thread is ridiculous and it's an easy shove (or call) I forget what the situation is now, just that it's standard.

Oh, I don't disagree with you there. It's an interesting issue overall though.

[RDog 0]

Yet (still being slightly devil's advocate here) there is a fair amount of money in those other spots collectively. Let's take for example the MTT that is stickied here in strat: the $20+2 180. The top three spots (1.67% of the field) are indeed juicy: $2228 of the $3600 prize pool, so they're averaging over $750 each in prize money. But still, there are five times as many, fifteen other people (8.33% of the field), who on average are pocketing nearly a hundred bucks each on a $20 investment. Surely the optimal strategy for such a structure cannot be identical to the optimal strategy if that same $3600 went only to the top three finishers and everyone else got zilch? Yet in that latter structure, you really would, in a pure sense, be playing for the top three spots. So if you would not want to play the identical way in the structure as it really is, you must be at least throwing in a little titch, a sprinkle, of "playing to make the money". No?

Long term with variance such a biatch in MTT's if you are playing to "cash" and are not getting top 3 finishes, you are a losing player. The strategy for MTT's is much different from SNG's in that respect. That is one of the reasons you will see good players abuse the money bubble continuously and at times, can appear reckless. You need to start accumulating chips and let everyone else worry about cashing.

[SlackerInc 0]

Long term with variance such a biatch in MTT's if you are playing to "cash" and are not getting top 3 finishes, you are a losing player. The strategy for MTT's is much different from SNG's in that respect. That is one of the reasons you will see good players abuse the money bubble continuously and at times, can appear reckless. You need to start accumulating chips and let everyone else worry about cashing.

So you are saying there would not be even the slightest strategy adjustment warranted if a 180 was changed from top 18 paid to top three paid? Absolutely the same strategy, down to the smallest detail, either way? That can't be right. Let me emphasise that I'm arguing for small differences in strategy between them, not large ones. That is, not "playing to cash" but "cashing as a backup plan".

[copernicus 0]

Long term with variance such a biatch in MTT's if you are playing to "cash" and are not getting top 3 finishes, you are a losing player. The strategy for MTT's is much different from SNG's in that respect. That is one of the reasons you will see good players abuse the money bubble continuously and at times, can appear reckless. You need to start accumulating chips and let everyone else worry about cashing.

You realize, of course, that "playing to win" increases your variance, and taking reasonable but not reckless risks around the bubble decreases variance. It really comes down to knowing the other players and knowing their image of you. If youve been playing a ton of hands that dont get shown down then being overly aggressive near the bubble is likely to hurt and vice versa. Its also important to remember that seemingly marginal calls can be correct when they do significantly move you up the ladder, because the prizes leverage your implied odds for any play.

[SlackerInc 0]

Its also important to remember that seemingly marginal calls can be correct when they do significantly move you up the ladder, because the prizes leverage your implied odds for any play.

Great point.

[RDog 0]

You realize, of course, that "playing to win" increases your variance, and taking reasonable but not reckless risks around the bubble decreases variance. It really comes down to knowing the other players and knowing their image of you. If youve been playing a ton of hands that dont get shown down then being overly aggressive near the bubble is likely to hurt and vice versa. Its also important to remember that seemingly marginal calls can be correct when they do significantly move you up the ladder, because the prizes leverage your implied odds for any play.

Thus why I said "appear reckless". I have seen very, very, very good players raise 8 out of 10 hands on the bubble. The few times you get played back at are far fewer than the amount of times you steal the blinds and antes without even seeing a flop. If I have a good player to my left, do I slow down a bit? Absolutely. If my stack size isn't big enough to take a hit after I have to lay down to a reraise, do I still raise often? Absolutely not. I think around the bubble, image is much less of an issue than non-bubble situations. I remember watching Loosh around the bubble during a Party Super literally raise 60 or 70% of the hands and not get played back at until the bubble burst. For sure, his image was not tight but it didn't matter.

[copernicus 0]

Thus why I said "appear reckless". I have seen very, very, very good players raise 8 out of 10 hands on the bubble. The few times you get played back at are far fewer than the amount of times you steal the blinds and antes without even seeing a flop. If I have a good player to my left, do I slow down a bit? Absolutely. If my stack size isn't big enough to take a hit after I have to lay down to a reraise, do I still raise often? Absolutely not. I think around the bubble, image is much less of an issue than non-bubble situations. I remember watching Loosh around the bubble during a Party Super literally raise 60 or 70% of the hands and not get played back at until the bubble burst. For sure, his image was not tight but it didn't matter.

I dont think you'd find the same at Stars and certainly not in higher buy in live tourneys. Resteals are very common when someones been that active, plus running into a real hand.

[RDog 0]

I dont think you'd find the same at Stars

Ummm....????