Jump to content


1st Hand Of A Party $100 +9 Mtt


  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#21 copernicus

copernicus

    Poker Forum God

  • Members
  • 10,676 posts
  • Interests:Hockey; poker...duh

Posted 06 March 2006 - 10:47 AM

View Postshpaget, on Monday, March 6th, 2006, 1:21 PM, said:

Only an idiot goes broke with anything other than AA on the first hand of a tournament...................Going broke on the first hand of the tournament is the same as going broke on the bubble.
Neither of them is necessarily wrong.
___________


Wave upon wave of Demented Avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.



#22 astros11ss

astros11ss

    the brown man they love to hate

  • Members
  • 1,525 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:thepokerhaus
  • Interests:tournament donking

Posted 06 March 2006 - 11:32 AM

i think this thread has helped me to identify a big flaw in my game, namely playing too tight early on. to me, this was an easy fold, to most people, it was an easy push, and after mk's excellent explanation, i'm pretty sure i'm wrong, that pushing here is definitely +ev. thanks for the constructive conversation :club:

#23 shpaget

shpaget

    Poker Forum Veteran

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

Posted 06 March 2006 - 11:39 AM

View Postmk, on Monday, March 6th, 2006, 11:34 AM, said:

Are you high? No value, aside from the fact that you can double your equity before almost ANYONE else has, making you a huge favorite to double up again.But yeah, there's probably no value in that. What???You realize that you're saying if you held KK and flopped a set on the first hand, you wouldn't be willing to go broke. You been hittin the T.J. pipe?
Let me clarify.There's no point in going broke on the first hand of a tourney with anything but the nuts, and more ideally, the stone cold nuts.So, that is AA pf.Or, the the flop or turn, top set, for example, if there's no straight or flush on board.And yes, I'd put all my chips in with top set and if fishface hits his two-outer to bust me, so bet it.What I'm not willing to do, at this stage, is put all my chips in on 5th nuts, let alone having to dodge 20-30 outs. Not this early.Not to mention the fact the this early in the tournament, most (yes, there are exceptions) players aren't bluffing, especially into a bet, even a continuation raise. Perhaps if these guys were starting with 50k in chips, but not with 5k or less. Yes, there are exceptions, but I'm playing the odds and giving him credit...and, if he did bluff, like I said, good for him...he'll do it again.And no, there is almost no value in doubling up your chipstack on the first hand of a tournament. It's a myth. People who double up early, especially in the first revolution, statistically, do not finish better than those who don't play a hand the first revolution.There's more value in a s'n'g, yes, but even then, I see people double up on the first hand finish out of the money as often as they finish in it. And though I don't agree with everything Cloutier says, and could never bring myself to playing that tight, it's hard to argue with his tournament track record (assuming he does as he preaches).
"Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand."

#24 copernicus

copernicus

    Poker Forum God

  • Members
  • 10,676 posts
  • Interests:Hockey; poker...duh

Posted 06 March 2006 - 11:58 AM

View Postshpaget, on Monday, March 6th, 2006, 2:39 PM, said:

And no, there is almost no value in doubling up your chipstack on the first hand of a tournament. It's a myth. People who double up early, especially in the first revolution, statistically, do not finish better than those who don't play a hand the first revolution.
I find that very hard to believe. I agree they dont do twice as well but no better? Id like to see some support for that.
___________


Wave upon wave of Demented Avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.



#25 shpaget

shpaget

    Poker Forum Veteran

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

Posted 06 March 2006 - 12:04 PM

View Postcopernicus, on Monday, March 6th, 2006, 12:58 PM, said:

I find that very hard to believe. I agree they dont do twice as well but no better? Id like to see some support for that.
Gonna see if I kind find the stats I've seen in the past.And what I mean by "better" is profitability.That is, a guy who doubles up on the first hand is, statistically, no more likely to finish in the money than the other 8 players who did not, that he didn't bust.He may go further, but when top 10 pay, 12th is no better than 40th.One way to look at it, doubling up in the first blind level is nowhere near as significant as adding 10% to your chipstack in the 10th blind level. A double up in the first hand isn't worth a big blind later on.But like I said, I just gotta do some digging because I know there are some stats on this.
"Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand."

#26 mk

mk

    nord-américain racaille

  • Members
  • 9,878 posts

Posted 06 March 2006 - 02:50 PM

Come on, you aren't seriously arguing this, are you?Early in the tourney, tc equity and prize equity are nearly identical.

#27 shpaget

shpaget

    Poker Forum Veteran

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

Posted 06 March 2006 - 03:11 PM

View Postmk, on Monday, March 6th, 2006, 3:50 PM, said:

Come on, you aren't seriously arguing this, are you?Early in the tourney, tc equity and prize equity are nearly identical.
1000 player $10 tournament...5000 chips each....top 100 pay. (or $100 or $1000, or 400 people or 100 people, whatever you want)$3000$1500$700and on down the line, whatever you want the structure to be...100th place pays $10.5000000 chips.You have 0.1% of the chips.One hand in, you have 0.2% of chips.Yippee kiyay.8 other guys at your table got 0.1% of your chips.Here's the important stat.1% of the total chips are at your table. That hasn't changed....no matter the field size, your table's percentage of chips isn't any different than any other table.Your table isn't going to break, OR, you are not gonna fill that ten spot, for at least a blind level, probably two.These numbers get worse for larger tournaments.Look, I'm only telling you that stats I've read which generally say that doubling up in the first blind level is by no means a guarantee that you'll reach the money, and, all things being equal, is not a statistical indicator that you are more likely to reach the money than the other guys at your table.Let alone the guys at the other tables that are increasing their stacks at different rates.Guys who double up in the first hand are no better off than guys who double up every 3 blind levels.By all counts, the risks of busting out in the first hand with a marginal hand far outweigh any perceived benefits from doubling up.EDIT: the smaller the field, the more significant doubling up is, however, the earlier in the tournament, the less significant doubling up is.btw - I would have (probably) folded A9s pf, even from CO.
"Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand."

#28 mrdannyg

mrdannyg

    Cheese Salesman

  • Members
  • 20,316 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 March 2006 - 03:15 PM

View Postmacphec, on Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, 6:31 PM, said:

1st Hand Of A Party $10+1 $40000 Guaranteed MttFolded to me in the CO.Blinds $20 $40I raise w A9s to $100Only Button calls.Flop is A9Q (2 hearts)I lead for $175.Button raises to $750WTF is my play?
now how many people say push?just sayin...
Long signatures are really annoying.

#29 amarillotg

amarillotg

    fish out of water

  • Members
  • 1,136 posts
  • Location:a little town called none of your god damn business

Posted 06 March 2006 - 04:14 PM

View Postshpaget, on Monday, March 6th, 2006, 6:11 PM, said:

1000 player $10 tournament...5000 chips each....top 100 pay. (or $100 or $1000, or 400 people or 100 people, whatever you want)$3000$1500$700and on down the line, whatever you want the structure to be...100th place pays $10.5000000 chips.You have 0.1% of the chips.One hand in, you have 0.2% of chips.Yippee kiyay.8 other guys at your table got 0.1% of your chips.Here's the important stat.1% of the total chips are at your table. That hasn't changed....no matter the field size, your table's percentage of chips isn't any different than any other table.Your table isn't going to break, OR, you are not gonna fill that ten spot, for at least a blind level, probably two.These numbers get worse for larger tournaments.Look, I'm only telling you that stats I've read which generally say that doubling up in the first blind level is by no means a guarantee that you'll reach the money, and, all things being equal, is not a statistical indicator that you are more likely to reach the money than the other guys at your table.Let alone the guys at the other tables that are increasing their stacks at different rates.Guys who double up in the first hand are no better off than guys who double up every 3 blind levels.By all counts, the risks of busting out in the first hand with a marginal hand far outweigh any perceived benefits from doubling up.EDIT: the smaller the field, the more significant doubling up is, however, the earlier in the tournament, the less significant doubling up is.btw - I would have (probably) folded A9s pf, even from CO.
http://www.cardplaye...5093&m_id=65576read this, i have a hunch he knows a little more than you.
I love a good gambling story. "I was up $8900, the next thing I know I'm blowing a guy for a sandwhich." What? You gotta know when to holdem and know when to foldem ******. - Dave Attell

#30 PoppinFresh

PoppinFresh

    Baking up Tasty Delights

  • Members
  • 1,587 posts

Posted 07 March 2006 - 01:30 AM

I agree with pushing.To shpaget, I don't understand why you wouldn't want to go out on the first hand. It's MUCH better to go out on the first hand then to bubble or even go out after an hour, you lose the buy-in but spend much less time doing it.

#31 mk

mk

    nord-américain racaille

  • Members
  • 9,878 posts

Posted 07 March 2006 - 05:00 AM

View Postshpaget, on Monday, March 6th, 2006, 5:11 PM, said:

Here's the important stat.1% of the total chips are at your table. That hasn't changed....no matter the field size, your table's percentage of chips isn't any different than any other table.Your table isn't going to break, OR, you are not gonna fill that ten spot, for at least a blind level, probably two.
Yes, 1% of the chips are at your table, and now instead of having 10% of the chips at your table you have 20%!!!!!! For a long time now, people have been trying to estimate in a true, quantifiable way just how much you gain by having your opponents outchipped 2:1, because it means you can play a lot more aggressively against everyone at your table, and you can handle a lot more variance, i.e. going card dead for long stretches, losing coinflips, etc.The Matros article is a classic, and is an absolute must-read for anyone who plays tourneys.

#32 shpaget

shpaget

    Poker Forum Veteran

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

Posted 07 March 2006 - 06:43 AM

View PostPoppinFresh, on Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 2:30 AM, said:

I agree with pushing.To shpaget, I don't understand why you wouldn't want to go out on the first hand. It's MUCH better to go out on the first hand then to bubble or even go out after an hour, you lose the buy-in but spend much less time doing it.
I didn't say that.I said I don't want to go out the first hand with marginal holdings.The benefit:risk ratio of doubling up on a hand increases as you go along in the tournament. Or, inversely, there is much less benefit to doubling up in the first hand of the tournament vs. doubling up on the 100th hand of the tournament. There is less benefit to doubling up in the first blind level than there is in the 10th blind level.Whereas the risk is the same - you bust out, and win no money.So, inherent in that, is the position that one should be less willing to risk all their chips in the first blind level with a marginal holding.I'm not concerned about my $/hr measure...I'm more concerned about ROI.If I bubble out instead of busting out first I have the same ROI but worse $/hr. That doesn't bother me because I get entertainment value and education value when I play a tournament, even when I bust out with no earnings. It is a concern for many people, I'm not one of them (at this point).What Matros does not touch on in his article is many pros DON'T agree with his position (though he does acknowledge there is plenty of debate)...many pros who have successful tournament careers playing very tight in the early stages....as well, what Matros does not mention is the pros who do abide by the "double up early" position have alterior motives. If they bust out early they'll go play the lucrative cash games...cash games that you or I can't even afford to enter, let alone compete.As well, in B&M tournaments I do double up in more than 60% of them....in fact, of all the B&M tournaments I have entered, some freezeouts, some rebuys, I have cashed in half of them, and won 1/3 of those....maybe it's been a good run, but I'd like to think I'm doing something right. I'm nost sure what I do in online tourneys though I'd venture to guess I am doubling up in more than half of them, though I cash in a lot less. (not counting s'n'g's).Strangely, the one B&M tourney I remember where I did double up in the first blind level (my AA held up against KK), in a $1500 buyin event, with 210 players, I busted out 5 hours later still 30 places out of the money.In determining a person's ratio of double ups to success I say it is more important to determine WHY a person doubled up early. If that person doubled up by calling all-in with 66 to a AAJ9 board and hit his 6 on the river, then his double up is meaningless - either luck is with him or it's not. Because if he keeps playing like that odds are he will just give his chips away, even if he triples up on the first hand.
"Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand."

#33 HoosierAlum

HoosierAlum

    Grindmode

  • Members
  • 8,169 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago
  • Interests:Golf, Traveling, Baseball, Basketball

Posted 07 March 2006 - 06:56 AM

Jam.




I might start updating this again.
http://jonathandepa.blogspot.com/

#34 copernicus

copernicus

    Poker Forum God

  • Members
  • 10,676 posts
  • Interests:Hockey; poker...duh

Posted 07 March 2006 - 08:03 AM

View Postshpaget, on Monday, March 6th, 2006, 6:11 PM, said:

That hasn't changed....no matter the field size, your table's percentage of chips isn't any different than any other table.You still have twice the chips of anyone else at your table, and the leverage to grow them further. But even if the chip stacks just shuffle around until the table breaks, you still enter a new table with twice the chips that others at your table enter with. You can only worry about actions of players at your table, but your opponents are the entire field.Your table isn't going to break, OR, you are not gonna fill that ten spot, for at least a blind level, probably two.These numbers get worse for larger tournaments.Look, I'm only telling you that stats I've read which generally say that doubling up in the first blind level is by no means a guarantee that you'll reach the money, and, all things being equal, is not a statistical indicator that you are more likely to reach the money than the other guys at your table.Let alone the guys at the other tables that are increasing their stacks at different rates.Big difference between guarantee (which is obvious) and "not more likely" (which I dont believe).Guys who double up in the first hand are no better off than guys who double up every 3 blind levels.Again, obvious, but having double up already is better than having a chance to double up in the next three blind levels.By all counts, the risks of busting out in the first hand with a marginal hand far outweigh any perceived benefits from doubling up.EDIT: the smaller the field, the more significant doubling up is, however, the earlier in the tournament, the less significant doubling up is.btw - I would have (probably) folded A9s pf, even from CO.
The only difference between adding X chips earlier or later is when you add them later there are fewer players to get through. If you add them earlier and can maintain them to the same "later" point, they have exactly the same value.The real determining factor in the value of adding X chips at any point in time (or % of your current stack) is the steepness of the payout structure. The steeper it is, the greater the value of doubling up, to the point where if there is only 1 prize doubling up exactly doubles your prize equity. (Assuming no leverage from having a bigger stack and equal abilities, the ICM assumptions. In fact it more than doubles your prize equity if you are a good big stack player).To carry the "first table has the same % of total chips" to an extreme and show why its irrelevant, look at a rebuy tournament where every table rebuys at exactly the same rate, lets say 5 rebuys per player, so your table ends the rebuy period with 54x buy in chips, and you happen to hold 50 of them. Your table's percentage of the total chips in the tournament remains the same, but you are a helluva lot more likely to finish in the money than the guy who just survives long enough to take an add on. Yes, 2x isnt 50x, but the same ICM principles apply.
___________


Wave upon wave of Demented Avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.



#35 macphec

macphec

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 747 posts
  • Location:Nova Scotia, Canada

Posted 07 March 2006 - 11:36 AM

View Postcopernicus, on Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 8:03 AM, said:

The only difference between adding X chips earlier or later is when you add them later there are fewer players to get through. If you add them earlier and can maintain them to the same "later" point, they have exactly the same value.The real determining factor in the value of adding X chips at any point in time (or % of your current stack) is the steepness of the payout structure. The steeper it is, the greater the value of doubling up, to the point where if there is only 1 prize doubling up exactly doubles your prize equity. (Assuming no leverage from having a bigger stack and equal abilities, the ICM assumptions. In fact it more than doubles your prize equity if you are a good big stack player).To carry the "first table has the same % of total chips" to an extreme and show why its irrelevant, look at a rebuy tournament where every table rebuys at exactly the same rate, lets say 5 rebuys per player, so your table ends the rebuy period with 54x buy in chips, and you happen to hold 50 of them. Your table's percentage of the total chips in the tournament remains the same, but you are a helluva lot more likely to finish in the money than the guy who just survives long enough to take an add on. Yes, 2x isnt 50x, but the same ICM principles apply.
Wow, this generated more discussion than I anticipated. Good discussion guys. I've played in a good number of the $100 +$9's and find the play is not spectacular with more than enough donkeys.I really felt the only plausible hand beating me here was AQ (99 and AA are unlikely given my holding). My gut told me he was on a flush draw with his large raise. (didnt seem like he wanted a call).I jammed and he INSTACALLED w Ah4h. Heart on river and I'm done.Not sure what I'd do again but I think I'd lean toward folding as I would still have tons of chips vs th eblinds.Anyway, thanks again
FACT:

More people are killed every year by donkeys than plane crashes.

#36 copernicus

copernicus

    Poker Forum God

  • Members
  • 10,676 posts
  • Interests:Hockey; poker...duh

Posted 07 March 2006 - 12:28 PM

View Postmacphec, on Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 2:36 PM, said:

Wow, this generated more discussion than I anticipated. Good discussion guys. I've played in a good number of the $100 +$9's and find the play is not spectacular with more than enough donkeys.I really felt the only plausible hand beating me here was AQ (99 and AA are unlikely given my holding). My gut told me he was on a flush draw with his large raise. (didnt seem like he wanted a call).I jammed and he INSTACALLED w Ah4h. Heart on river and I'm done.Not sure what I'd do again but I think I'd lean toward folding as I would still have tons of chips vs th eblinds.Anyway, thanks again
When you see a raiser who you think is likely to be on a flush or straight draw and who overbet the flop in the first place, I prefer to wait till the turn to try and shut him out. You are unlikely to be able to drive him out on the flop because most donks think they are 50/50 to make their flush by the river.You can extract a bigger price from them and have less chance of a hit to your stack waiting till the turn. If he hasnt already overbet the flop, dont push, charge him the one card price (4.5 or 5:1), not the two card price (2:1).
___________


Wave upon wave of Demented Avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.



#37 shpaget

shpaget

    Poker Forum Veteran

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

Posted 07 March 2006 - 12:54 PM

View Postcopernicus, on Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 1:28 PM, said:

When you see a raiser who you think is likely to be on a flush or straight draw and who overbet the flop in the first place, I prefer to wait till the turn to try and shut him out. You are unlikely to be able to drive him out on the flop because most donks think they are 50/50 to make their flush by the river.You can extract a bigger price from them and have less chance of a hit to your stack waiting till the turn. If he hasnt already overbet the flop, dont push, charge him the one card price (4.5 or 5:1), not the two card price (2:1).
Exactly - 150% agreed.This is what I call the "will call any bet with any draw" syndrome. You aren't shutting these people out on the flop.See the turn...they're less likely to call you then, and, if he's the type to call any bet with any draw on the turn then you only have one card to dodge instead of two.The interestinq question to ask, I think, would be how would you play the hand if you "accidentally" saw his cards?
"Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand."

#38 Actuary

Actuary

    .

  • Members
  • 19,028 posts

Posted 07 March 2006 - 12:57 PM

View PostActuary, on Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, 3:38 PM, said:

push.but I'm no tourney expert.
hey..as it turned out, maybe I ain't no tourney dummy!*************I don't see Aces up on the flop as marginal vs a Button who likely does not put you on a made hand. Often Button made a pos call preflop and is banking on the flop missing you. that's my opinion.

#39 macphec

macphec

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 747 posts
  • Location:Nova Scotia, Canada

Posted 07 March 2006 - 01:14 PM

View Postshpaget, on Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 12:54 PM, said:

Exactly - 150% agreed.This is what I call the "will call any bet with any draw" syndrome. You aren't shutting these people out on the flop.See the turn...they're less likely to call you then, and, if he's the type to call any bet with any draw on the turn then you only have one card to dodge instead of two.The interestinq question to ask, I think, would be how would you play the hand if you "accidentally" saw his cards?
very good points from you and Copernicus. I guess I fall in love with "charging them to draw". Just calling his flop raise would feel like giving him a free card to hit his flush though.Very interesting question about accidently seeing his cards. If I knew exactly what he had then a push is correct, no?The pot would be apprx $935 after his raise and I push for $2725 more obviously giving him $2150 (left in his stack) : $3660 (amt in pot after my push) or less than 2:1 odds. So a push is the only way to price him out if you will.Is this reasoning flawed?
FACT:

More people are killed every year by donkeys than plane crashes.

#40 shpaget

shpaget

    Poker Forum Veteran

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

Posted 07 March 2006 - 01:27 PM

View Postmacphec, on Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 2:14 PM, said:

very good points from you and Copernicus. I guess I fall in love with "charging them to draw". Just calling his flop raise would feel like giving him a free card to hit his flush though.Very interesting question about accidently seeing his cards. If I knew exactly what he had then a push is correct, no?The pot would be apprx $935 after his raise and I push for $2725 more obviously giving him $2150 (left in his stack) : $3660 (amt in pot after my push) or less than 2:1 odds. So a push is the only way to price him out if you will.Is this reasoning flawed?
Depends on your own style and what you know about the player.If he's the type of player to call any bet with any draw, AND, he will do so on either the turn or the flop, then why not wait to see a safe turn card?Many of these players don't care if they're priced in or not...they have 14 outs and dammit, they're gonna hit.I like betting the pot here if you're leading (or, in this specific example, calling)...see a safe turn, and then bet the pot on the turn...a pot-sized bet on the turn does price him out of the pot, so why risk all your chips for the same purpose? If you bet too much up early, then you risk pricing him in on any turn bet. Come the river, he might even then call you down even if he misses his flush. You may not get all his chips, but I think you're getting full value when you consider what you risk, everything, by pushing, and what you don't risk by betting big, but not everything.There are two components to maximizing value - maximizing wins, and minimizing losses. Against smart players, pushing on the flop doesn't maximize your win. Against bad players, pushing on the flop maximizes your losses.I don't mind jamming here, but with a lot of guys you can get the same value by waiting one card, so why dodge two cards when you can get away with just dodging one? If you push the flop and the third heart comes on the turn, you can't do anything but pray to fill your boat.
"Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand."




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users