A further explanation of my red zone theory

[betgo]

I posted made a post about the advantages of playing a red zone strategy a couple of years ago. It met with extreme flaming. I also made another post about it a few months later which was flamed a little less.

I now will explain the key concepts of the red zone theory limited to its clearest application.

This applies to online tournaments with a small ante of like 5% of BB or tournaments with no ante. When the ante is like 15% of BB and you have 3xBB blinds and antes, you can open push profitably with a fairly large stack up to about the point you can resteal.

If there is a small ante or no ante, when you have about 8-13xBB, your main play is to open push, but you need a fairly good hand to open push with. Sure at the higher end of that range you can make small raises, open limp, or reraise allin, but none of those plays are particularly advantageous.

However, when you have a shorter stack of 4-8xBB, a lot of pushes are cEV+.

Therefore, my theory is that when you have about 10xBB, it is OK to fold rather than push steal in marginal situations. Then you will get blinded down or the blinds will increase to give you a smaller M.

You basically have to steal once per rotation to maintain your stack. Once you have like 6xBB, it is much easier to find opportunities to make favorable steal pushes. Trying to keep stealing to maintain an 11xBB is much more difficult.

Of course, you are going to play when you have big hands or favorable opportunities with any red zone stack. A lot of times, you will get a big hand or win when your steal is called, and build a decent stack, which is your goal.

Also, I am not saying it is preferable to have 6xBB than 11xBB. I am saying there is no point in taking close to even gambles to maintain the 11xBB. If you take those gambles, often you will be out of the tournament.

I also think there is a lot of value in staying alive in the tournament, as explained by Sklansky in TPFAP. This survival approach gets a bad name, because of donks playing weak/tight and blinding themselves out.

Sure when you push for 7xBB, you get called a lot, but the pushes are still often cEV+ with marginal hands. I think people are too worried about getting a pretty small stack.

I have found these approaches work for me. It seems like mathematics and common sense say you don't want to keep stealing with an 11xBB stack.

[Nate.]

Betgo --

A few objections:

-Reraising allin with 8-13BB (more the top end of that range) is often "particularly advantageous" (and in fact one of the most profitable moves in tournament poker).

-Many pushes are not much more profitable with 10BB than with 7.

-Even if many pushes will be profitable with 7BB, you might not get the chance to make them (raises in front, etc.)

-Having 20+BBs is such an advantage, often, that the ability to get that high is a big element of the attractiveness of a push with 11BB and a big part of why it's so bad to be down to 7BB.

-All that said, I agree that the difference between 10BB and 7BB is often overstated--but it's mostly a big vs. huge sort of thing.

--Nate

[flyingmoose]

[ QUOTE ]


-Having 20+BBs is such an advantage, often, that the ability to get that high is a big element of the attractiveness of a push with 11BB and a big part of why it's so bad to be down to 7BB.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Soulman]

[ QUOTE ]
-Reraising allin with 8-13BB (more the top end of that range) is often "particularly advantageous" (and in fact one of the most profitable moves in tournament poker).


[/ QUOTE ]
Explain this? Did you mean raising and not reraising? Reraising with 8 BBs doesn't strike me as particularly advantageous, while 13 BBs does.


[ QUOTE ]
-Many pushes are not much more profitable with 10BB than with 7.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because your FE isn't much higher with 10 than 7 I presume.


[ QUOTE ]
-Even if many pushes will be profitable with 7BB, you might not get the chance to make them (raises in front, etc.)

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the biggest strike by far I have against betgo's theory - this goes especially for higher buy-ins, where you're often forced to open shove whenever you have the opportunity when you're low enough.


[ QUOTE ]
-Having 20+BBs is such an advantage, often, that the ability to get that high is a big element of the attractiveness of a push with 11BB and a big part of why it's so bad to be down to 7BB.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think another point is that having 12/13-20 BBs is so important since you have resteal FE makes pushing 9-11 important. Pushing 4-8 BBs means you still don't have any resteal FE.


[ QUOTE ]
-All that said, I agree that the difference between 10BB and 7BB is often overstated--but it's mostly a big vs. huge sort of thing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Due to resteal FE, I don't think this is entirely true.

[luckychewy]

i really haven't heard or read into your theory before at all before this except one time you mentioned in one of my threads...but the first thing that jumped out at me is that if you are not going to take a marginal gamble w/ 11bb, because you think you can find a bigger edge w/ 6bb, this edge must be pretty huge since you can potentially have 22bb whereas if you win w/ 6 are dwindling down from 11 u are only at 12. am i misunderstanding something? if not i totally disagree w/ this theory because i don't see how anything else can outweigh this disadvantage.

[Foucault]

The most damaging argument I can recall from the initial thread, to which I've not yet seen a good response, is that you win less when you do pick up a monster hand. Your argument seems to be that one you should not take a bit more risk to maintain a 10-11 BB stack rather than getting blinded down to 8-10 BB's because the small edges you lose are offset by larger edges as you get shorter and by the inherent value of your last chip. But those small edges you pass up early get compounded when you later do not have as many chips to invest in your AA.

If you're going to keep bringing this up, it's time to put some math behind it. Please give us an example of a +EV push that you would advocate passing up, calculate the edge you think you are losing, and then give us some demonstration of where your future edge is coming from.

[XXXNoahXXX]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're going to keep bringing this up, it's time to put some math behind it. Please give us an example of a +EV push that you would advocate passing up, calculate the edge you think you are losing, and then give us some demonstration of where your future edge is coming from.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just want to echo this. What you are saying seems like something you hear at a $10 charity game, where first you think "thats dumb" then "maybe he has a point", but then once you look closer at it, you end up back at "thats dumb".

I'm not even thinking on as high a plane as the rest of the posts in this thread, but sort of in the vein of luckychewy's post I guess, what happens if you hit a cold run of cards? Obviously there are times when you should pass up marginally EV spots if you think you can get in a greatly ev spot, but there is no guarantee. Basically, if you pass up a +EV spot at 12 to dwindle to 7, what happens when you don't pick up a monster hand and you need to push some marginal +EV spot? Then you just delayed your marginal spot and will end up with 14 instead of 24 if you win? Doing all this for such a small net gain hardly seems worth it.

I'd really like to see a scenario in a non-satellite where this would be applicable. Hopefully this example will not include you picking up AA or KK after folding a marginal +EV spot.

[BarryLyndon]

How does having a massive chip leader in the BB effect your argument? A loose, gambling type who is looking to win in the SB? For instance, this hand has been bothering me for a while, I think it falls well into this discussion:

Last Saturday, Full Tilt 69+6, Final Table

Blinds 2,500 /5,000 / 600 Ante

Lagtard UTG (54,000)
Hero, CO (60,000)
Very tight rock, button (55,000)
Loose - Aggro (capable of making big calls) (73,000)
AllinStevie, capable player, LAG (232,000)

1 fold, Hero has 55 in CO.

Push? Raise to 12,000? Fold?

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
How does having a massive chip leader in the BB effect your argument? A loose, gambling type who is looking to win in the SB? For instance, this hand has been bothering me for a while, I think it falls well into this discussion:

Last Saturday, Full Tilt 69+6, Final Table

Blinds 2,500 /5,000 / 600 Ante

Lagtard UTG (54,000)
Hero, CO (60,000)
Very tight rock, button (55,000)
Loose - Aggro (capable of making big calls) (73,000)
AllinStevie, capable player, LAG (232,000)

1 fold, Hero has 55 in CO.

Push? Raise to 12,000? Fold?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a very easy push. You can push a lot of hands from CO with 11xBB, and you are certainly pushing any pp. Also, my theory does not really apply so much to Full Tilt with the relatively large ante.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
-Reraising allin with 8-13BB (more the top end of that range) is often "particularly advantageous" (and in fact one of the most profitable moves in tournament poker).


[/ QUOTE ]
Of course you take opportunities to reraise allin with 11-13xBB. You usually don't have much FE, so you need a good hand or someone who will lay down.

This depends on table dynamics. In that range, you have a good stack to push at limpers if people are limping.

Of course, I would take favorable situations to push or otherwise play a hand in that range.

If I am pushbotting 7xBB, then if I get called and win, I have about 16xBB, which is a good restealing stack.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
The most damaging argument I can recall from the initial thread, to which I've not yet seen a good response, is that you win less when you do pick up a monster hand. Your argument seems to be that one you should not take a bit more risk to maintain a 10-11 BB stack rather than getting blinded down to 8-10 BB's because the small edges you lose are offset by larger edges as you get shorter and by the inherent value of your last chip. But those small edges you pass up early get compounded when you later do not have as many chips to invest in your AA.

If you're going to keep bringing this up, it's time to put some math behind it. Please give us an example of a +EV push that you would advocate passing up, calculate the edge you think you are losing, and then give us some demonstration of where your future edge is coming from.

[/ QUOTE ]

For example, if I have 10xBB M of 5, I might not make a marginal push, like pushing a small pp from early position or J8o from CO.

Once I am down to about 7xBB, I can push steal with a variety of hands and it is cEV+. With 5xBB, I can push almost anything. So it is easy for me to steal enough to maintain that stack.

It depends on table dynamics, but since you don't need a great hand to push steal with 5-7xBB, you usually do get some opportunities to make cEV+ plays.

Having a really small stack like that is not a disaster, and is actually a good situation for keeping alive in the tournament and waiting for an opportunity.

Obviously, if you get AA with 10xBB and get action and win, you get a bigger stack than with 7xBB. However, you are more likely to get action for AA with 7xBB and you don't get AA often.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
i really haven't heard or read into your theory before at all before this except one time you mentioned in one of my threads...but the first thing that jumped out at me is that if you are not going to take a marginal gamble w/ 11bb, because you think you can find a bigger edge w/ 6bb, this edge must be pretty huge since you can potentially have 22bb whereas if you win w/ 6 are dwindling down from 11 u are only at 12. am i misunderstanding something? if not i totally disagree w/ this theory because i don't see how anything else can outweigh this disadvantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, going from 11xBB to 6xBB is likely to be partly increasing blinds as well as being blinded down. Also, you are going to be playing good hands and taking good stealing opportunities as you drop from 11 to 6 x BB. This dropping is likely to be a slow process as you probably do steal a couple of times, and may span a couple of blinds increases.

Obviously, I am not deliberately blinding down my stack, but I am not taking unnecessary risks when getting to a 5-8xBB gives me good opportunities.

Also, my stack doesn't always go down in M. Sometimes, you have 11xBB, and double up to 23xBB or steal to 13xBB and resteal to 18xBB. However, if you don't have good opportunities, gradually reducing to a smaller M is not that bad a situation.

[Nate.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
-Reraising allin with 8-13BB (more the top end of that range) is often "particularly advantageous" (and in fact one of the most profitable moves in tournament poker).


[/ QUOTE ]
Explain this? Did you mean raising and not reraising? Reraising with 8 BBs doesn't strike me as particularly advantageous, while 13 BBs does.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, 8 is a little small, but given the texture and overall quality of today's tournaments (even big ones), there are very profitable restealing spots with surprisingly small stacks.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
-Many pushes are not much more profitable with 10BB than with 7.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because your FE isn't much higher with 10 than 7 I presume.

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant "...with 7 than with 10;" Betgo seems to be assigning lots of weight to the fact that all sorts of pushes are very profitable with 7.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
-Even if many pushes will be profitable with 7BB, you might not get the chance to make them (raises in front, etc.)

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the biggest strike by far I have against betgo's theory - this goes especially for higher buy-ins, where you're often forced to open shove whenever you have the opportunity when you're low enough.


[ QUOTE ]
-Having 20+BBs is such an advantage, often, that the ability to get that high is a big element of the attractiveness of a push with 11BB and a big part of why it's so bad to be down to 7BB.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think another point is that having 12/13-20 BBs is so important since you have resteal FE makes pushing 9-11 important. Pushing 4-8 BBs means you still don't have any resteal FE.


[ QUOTE ]
-All that said, I agree that the difference between 10BB and 7BB is often overstated--but it's mostly a big vs. huge sort of thing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Due to resteal FE, I don't think this is entirely true.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's more that people around here sometimes seem to think that there's absolutely no alternative to making all sorts of any-two pushes with 12BBs. It's not always quite that desperate.

--Nate

[nath]

So I feel like the only person on the forums who always errs on the side of pushing sooner rather than later. Does anyone else do this? I feel like making moves sooner when the spot opens up, even if they aren't technically +cEV, gives me a better chance of padding my stack and maintaining it as a real threat, and gives me a chance (if I am called and double up) to have a stack that puts me right back in the game, one with which I can open more frequently and get involved in more pots, which translates to far more +cEV opportunities down the line.

Cliffs notes: The advantage for me of having a stack is such that I take chances much sooner on a short stack to get one back than basically everyone else i know.

[Clayton]

fwiw nath i am the same way (i dont play as many tournaments but am planning to play more), but am moreso inclined to make such moves in tournaments with a more significant ante. as such, im a lot nittier in standard ps freezeouts, whereas in fulltilt and live tournaments i do things like call off my stack with KQs /images/graemlins/blush.gif

the advantages of the bigstack are worth gambling for imo, and this is way more the case when i can have a big stack and the antes are large.

[betgo]

I guess the main point of my theory is that you don't want to have to keep making marginal open pushes with 10xBB M of 5. If you have have 6xBB M of 3, you have much more profitable pushing opportunities.

Therefore, if I have 10xBB and don't get good chances, then it is OK to get blinded down (or having the blinds increase)to 6xBB where it is much easier to push.

Sure I am going to be aggressive at looking for opportunities to make plays with 8-13xBB, and at the larger end, you should be looking to make a reraise/resteal.

I am not just automatically getting blinded down, but if I don't have hands and don't get oportunities and I go through the blinds or they go up, then I get a stack that it is easier to play aggressively.

My approach is kind of the opposite of Snyder's suggestions to open push 20xBB no ante to avoid getting short stacked. I don't see getting short stacked as necessarilly a big disaster.

I think a lot of people take Nath's approach of pushing early to avoid getting short stacked, but I obviously don't agree with it.

[Nate.]

[ QUOTE ]
So I feel like the only person on the forums who always errs on the side of pushing sooner rather than later. Does anyone else do this? I feel like making moves sooner when the spot opens up, even if they aren't technically +cEV, gives me a better chance of padding my stack and maintaining it as a real threat, and gives me a chance (if I am called and double up) to have a stack that puts me right back in the game, one with which I can open more frequently and get involved in more pots, which translates to far more +cEV opportunities down the line.

Cliffs notes: The advantage for me of having a stack is such that I take chances much sooner on a short stack to get one back than basically everyone else i know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nath --

I think you're generally good at picking spots but sometimes overdo it (e.g. pushing 14ish BBs on the button with 86o on a site with small antes).

--Nate

[kleath]

[ QUOTE ]
So I feel like the only person on the forums who always errs on the side of pushing sooner rather than later. Does anyone else do this? I feel like making moves sooner when the spot opens up, even if they aren't technically +cEV, gives me a better chance of padding my stack and maintaining it as a real threat, and gives me a chance (if I am called and double up) to have a stack that puts me right back in the game, one with which I can open more frequently and get involved in more pots, which translates to far more +cEV opportunities down the line.

Cliffs notes: The advantage for me of having a stack is such that I take chances much sooner on a short stack to get one back than basically everyone else i know.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think pushing sooner than later will certainly be more advantageous for someone with a LAG image than for someone with the same stack and a TAG image, because you will be able to utilize your large edges far more than a tight image, while calling ranges for most villains won't change substantially between the two. All that to say it's probably theoretically correct for you to utilize that line of thinking while it may not be correct for uclabruinz to do the same.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So I feel like the only person on the forums who always errs on the side of pushing sooner rather than later. Does anyone else do this? I feel like making moves sooner when the spot opens up, even if they aren't technically +cEV, gives me a better chance of padding my stack and maintaining it as a real threat, and gives me a chance (if I am called and double up) to have a stack that puts me right back in the game, one with which I can open more frequently and get involved in more pots, which translates to far more +cEV opportunities down the line.

Cliffs notes: The advantage for me of having a stack is such that I take chances much sooner on a short stack to get one back than basically everyone else i know.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think pushing sooner than later will certainly be more advantageous for someone with a LAG image than for someone with the same stack and a TAG image, because you will be able to utilize your large edges far more than a tight image, while calling ranges for most villains won't change substantially between the two. All that to say it's probably theoretically correct for you to utilize that line of thinking while it may not be correct for uclabruinz to do the same.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is quite possible that nath's approach may work well with his style in that it is important he have a large stack for aggressive play. Whereas I play a short stack well and don't mind just push stealing and push restealing for a large part of the tournament, so my approach of keeping in the tournament with a small stack may work for me.

[wpr101]

If pushing a certain hand at a certain table, position, etc is +EV (maybe not the same as CEV) then I think you have to take advantage of that.

In my personal experience when I get to < 10 BB I start looking for good spots to open push. Basically I want good position like being in the SB and folding around or I want a strong hand to do it with. I don't have any math off the top of my head which shows why 10 BB is a good time to go. I did used to fool around with the SNGPT calculator a bunch though then when I used to play sngs.

[Bonified]

The impression I'm getting from a lot of threads is that I'm pushing as soon as anyone, pretty much. What I do is I have ranges which I'm expecting to get called by in each position. Then I know, according to my M and position, what hands to push with. If I get called by something that's in the expected range, fine.

If I get called by something that's below the expected range, I'll have a think about whether there was any factor I failed to take into consideration. If there isn't, I'll just mark the player as a loose caller and move on.

If I'm repeatedly being called by "unexpected" hands then I'll think about whether my expected calling ranges are correct. But at the moment, that basically isn't happening. So I'm confident that I'm pushing correctly - in the games I play in. Bear in mind I generally avoid the bigger comps on Stars, where calling ranges might be lighter.

[jon_1van]

It is true that there will be more +EV spots when your stack is small. (Obviously when you get 8 to 1 on a bigger and bigger portion of your stack you should run into more and more "good" spots) However, this is not very important.


You want to have +EV spots where the EV is a big number.


It is much better to have a stream of hands where the EVs are -200, -500, -200, +2500, -1000, -300.... than a stream where the EVs are +20, +10, -30, +15, +25, -5, +60, -35.


Obviously we can easily fold the large -EV hands so the actual value of the "more negative" stream is higher.


Also, With regard to blind stealing. I have done a TON of thinking and detailed simulation about stealing. I have found that in general there are many situations where you would absolutely insta steal (KQs on the button with 9BB when both blinds also have 9BB and the antes are real) that actually have very small +EV. You just get punished more than you'd think when the SB or BB wakes up with a real hand. At 1st I believe that all my simulation were wrong. But after tediously checking my sims and thinking I confimed that they were indeed right. So what??? Well, I started thinking about why stealing in these "small +EV" spots was so automatic. The best explaination I could think of was that if you were to avoid the small +EV spots you really would never ever get action because you'd quickly be pegged as a super-nit.


So, you are correct that your "hand stream" will more frequently include +EV numbers. But you have also limited the varience of this "hand steam" because the values in it will generally be between STACK and -STACK. When you are a short stack in the middle of a MTT you NEED varience to help you back into the game, the steady stream of +EV exists but it's wind is rarely prolonged enough to get you where you want to be.



MORE ABOUT MY KQ EXAMPLE :: Say pot is rougly 2.25 BB. If you push you are probably only getting called with a better hand. Obviously if everyone folded everytime you'd have an EV of +2.25 BB per push in this situation. But being called by a better range means you will obtain a long run EV less than 2.25BB...say 1.5BB overall. But what if you had KQs in the CO? Still and insta-steal, but now you are doing even worse.

So, what happens if you have 8BB with A7s in the HJ?? Is that a big +EV move. No, you probably make a small fraction of a BB in the long run. But you'll never get action if your can't make this push.

[kleath]

[ QUOTE ]
It is true that there will be more +EV spots when your stack is small. (Obviously when you get 8 to 1 on a bigger and bigger portion of your stack you should run into more and more "good" spots) However, this is not very important.


You want to have +EV spots where the EV is a big number.


It is much better to have a stream of hands where the EVs are -200, -500, -200, +2500, -1000, -300.... than a stream where the EVs are +20, +10, -30, +15, +25, -5, +60, -35.


Obviously we can easily fold the large -EV hands so the actual value of the "more negative" stream is higher.


Also, With regard to blind stealing. I have done a TON of thinking and detailed simulation about stealing. I have found that in general there are many situations where you would absolutely insta steal (KQs on the button with 9BB when both blinds also have 9BB and the antes are real) that actually have very small +EV. You just get punished more than you'd think when the SB or BB wakes up with a real hand. At 1st I believe that all my simulation were wrong. But after tediously checking my sims and thinking I confimed that they were indeed right. So what??? Well, I started thinking about why stealing in these "small +EV" spots was so automatic. The best explaination I could think of was that if you were to avoid the small +EV spots you really would never ever get action because you'd quickly be pegged as a super-nit.


So, you are correct that your "hand stream" will more frequently include +EV numbers. But you have also limited the varience of this "hand steam" because the values in it will generally be between STACK and -STACK. When you are a short stack in the middle of a MTT you NEED varience to help you back into the game, the steady stream of +EV exists but it's wind is rarely prolonged enough to get you where you want to be.



MORE ABOUT MY KQ EXAMPLE :: Say pot is rougly 2.25 BB. If you push you are probably only getting called with a better hand. Obviously if everyone folded everytime you'd have an EV of +2.25 BB per push in this situation. But being called by a better range means you will obtain a long run EV less than 2.25BB...say 1.5BB overall. But what if you had KQs in the CO? Still and insta-steal, but now you are doing even worse.

So, what happens if you have 8BB with A7s in the HJ?? Is that a big +EV move. No, you probably make a small fraction of a BB in the long run. But you'll never get action if your can't make this push.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're math is flawed, there are no calling ranges for SB and BB that make it anything but quite +EV. Even if you run that in say SNGPT, where you're using a sng structure that is alot more unforgiving in regards to $EV with those stack sizes its always right to shove.

[shaundeeb]

If you are taking 50/50 games to stay at a 11bb stack you must have a 5bb stack if you gamble with a 11bb stack you have a 23 bb stack or bust with 23 you can do so much in spots where cards don't matter while with 11bb cards matter a lot more.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are taking 50/50 games to stay at a 11bb stack you must have a 5bb stack if you gamble with a 11bb stack you have a 23 bb stack or bust with 23 you can do so much in spots where cards don't matter while with 11bb cards matter a lot more.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read this four times and I have no idea what he said.

Betgo as others said you really need to give an example of folding a +cEV shove with 12bb along with a justification that shows where you make up the EV later.

Without that, all you're saying is that there are fewer +EV shoves w/ 12bb than w/ 8bb, and that you're ok with that.

[curtains]

Yeah please give me some examples, I can't deal with the abstract word only threads /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[nath]

I believe Shaun is saying, "Letting yourself get short before taking gambles will allow you to get your money ahead in slightly better spots, but you are staying afloat at a much smaller stack size, whereas if you take a gamble when your stack is slightly larger, a double-up gives you enough chips to use as a weapon to pick up pots in spots where you don't need cards."

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe Shaun is saying, "Letting yourself get short before taking gambles will allow you to get your money ahead in slightly better spots, but you are staying afloat at a much smaller stack size, whereas if you take a gamble when your stack is slightly larger, a double-up gives you enough chips to use as a weapon to pick up pots in spots where you don't need cards."

[/ QUOTE ]

ahhh.

nice post shaun.

[shaundeeb]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe Shaun is saying, "Letting yourself get short before taking gambles will allow you to get your money ahead in slightly better spots, but you are staying afloat at a much smaller stack size, whereas if you take a gamble when your stack is slightly larger, a double-up gives you enough chips to use as a weapon to pick up pots in spots where you don't need cards."

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks nath glad someone understand my jargon.

[nath]

No problem. It's an idea I've been using for a long time as well.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you are taking 50/50 games to stay at a 11bb stack you must have a 5bb stack if you gamble with a 11bb stack you have a 23 bb stack or bust with 23 you can do so much in spots where cards don't matter while with 11bb cards matter a lot more.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read this four times and I have no idea what he said.

Betgo as others said you really need to give an example of folding a +cEV shove with 12bb along with a justification that shows where you make up the EV later.

Without that, all you're saying is that there are fewer +EV shoves w/ 12bb than w/ 8bb, and that you're ok with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not folding a significantly cEV+ shove with 12xBB. It is just that there are not that many cEV+ open shoves with 12xBB. In fact, I may miniraise with 12xBB and let people guess if I have a big hand or a marginal hand.

With 12xBB, I am looking more to reraise than open raise.

A lot of the point of my post is that there are not a lot of good situations to open push 10-12xBB. Of course if it is folded to me in BTN or SB, I usually push with that stack size.

[jon_1van]

[ QUOTE ]
You're math is flawed

[/ QUOTE ]

No its not.


Yes, you are in a +EV situation when you hold KQs on the button. But it isn't hugely +EV if both you and your opponents are playing well. So betgo is suggesting to avoid "small +EV" spots. If you define "small +EV spots" as anything with a +EV less than say +.5 BB on average than you are actually folding a ton more than you'd realize. Because standard super easy steals with good cards don't have nearly the +EV that you would expect...you average much less than stealing the pot in the long run.

And if you fold all those hands less than your "small edge threshold" your calculation about what is +EV becomes tainted because now you can't count on action from marginal hands that would insta call a player that pushes anything that is just a shade better than +0 EV (or hell -1 BB EV)

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're math is flawed

[/ QUOTE ]

No its not.


Yes, you are in a +EV situation when you hold KQs on the button. But it isn't hugely +EV if both you and your opponents are playing well. So betgo is suggesting to avoid "small +EV" spots. If you define "small +EV spots" as anything with a +EV less than say +.5 BB on average than you are actually folding a ton more than you'd realize. Because standard super easy steals with good cards don't have nearly the +EV that you would expect...you average much less than stealing the pot in the long run.

And if you fold all those hands less than your "small edge threshold" your calculation about what is +EV becomes tainted because now you can't count on action from marginal hands that would insta call a player that pushes anything that is just a shade better than +0 EV (or hell -1 BB EV)

[/ QUOTE ]
Say I am pushing KQs on the button with 9xBB M of 4.5. Say I get called by top 20% hands. Let us ignore the times both opponents have top 20% hands, and say I get called 40% of the time.

Then the 60% of the time I steal, I pick up 2xBB. When I get called, I am 51.4% to win. The average total pot assuming both opponents have me covered is 19.2xBB. So my average gain if called is .87xBB. .6 * 2 + .4 *.87 = +1.55 xBB, which I do not consider a small gain.

You could run this with some automated tool, and it would give you a similar answer.

Now if I push KQs UTG 9-handed for 9xBB, it is about even. Pushing this hand UTG for 12xBB is cEV-, but pushing it UTG for 6xBB is very cEV+.

[kleath]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're math is flawed

[/ QUOTE ]

No its not.


Yes, you are in a +EV situation when you hold KQs on the button. But it isn't hugely +EV if both you and your opponents are playing well. So betgo is suggesting to avoid "small +EV" spots. If you define "small +EV spots" as anything with a +EV less than say +.5 BB on average than you are actually folding a ton more than you'd realize. Because standard super easy steals with good cards don't have nearly the +EV that you would expect...you average much less than stealing the pot in the long run.

And if you fold all those hands less than your "small edge threshold" your calculation about what is +EV becomes tainted because now you can't count on action from marginal hands that would insta call a player that pushes anything that is just a shade better than +0 EV (or hell -1 BB EV)

[/ QUOTE ]
Say I am pushing KQs on the button with 9xBB M of 4.5. Say I get called by top 20% hands. Let us ignore the times both opponents have top 20% hands, and say I get called 40% of the time.

Then the 60% of the time I steal, I pick up 2xBB. When I get called, I am 51.4% to win. The average total pot assuming both opponents have me covered is 19.2xBB. So my average gain if called is .87xBB. .6 * 2 + .4 *.87 = +1.55 xBB, which I do not consider a small gain.

You could run this with some automated tool, and it would give you a similar answer.

Now if I push KQs UTG 9-handed for 9xBB, it is about even. Pushing this hand UTG for 12xBB is cEV-, but pushing it UTG for 6xBB is very cEV+.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that example with calling ranges of 20% You're getting called 36% of the time not 40%.

Also Jon you are quite wrong in saying KQs is a close shove in that spot, with large antes shoving is a HUUUGE edge. You're simulations as you say are flawed, there is no way for it to be close when KQs is ahead of their calling ranges.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]

In that example with calling ranges of 20% You're getting called 36% of the time not 40%.

Also Jon you are quite wrong in saying KQs is a close shove in that spot, with large antes shoving is a HUUUGE edge. You're simulations as you say are flawed, there is no way for it to be close when KQs is ahead of their calling ranges.

[/ QUOTE ]

I said this was a simplifying assumption. We would also have to look at where they both had calling hands and sometimes both called or one raised out the other. It doesn't effect the figures that much. Pushing KQs on the button is significantly cEV+ when you are called.

The premise for the discussion was a small ante like on Stars so that there is 2xBB blinds and antes.

I got +1.55 xBB for pushing KQs on the button with 9xBB. With a larger ante, it is a bigger expected win.

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
Now if I push KQs UTG 9-handed for 9xBB, it is about even. Pushing this hand UTG for 12xBB is cEV-, but pushing it UTG for 6xBB is very cEV+.

[/ QUOTE ]
See, I'll just go ahead and push it in with the 12xBB stack anyway, since to me I have a good hand and even though it might be technically -cEV because I'm putting a bigger stack at risk, the reward for doubling up if I get called is much more significant-- I'll have something like 26xBB which is a very useful stack size and gives me room to pick up pots in other ways and not have to shove my stack in for a while.

One thing to remember about pushing earlier that I point out to other people: If you get all in twice as a 60/40 favorite, you're only 36% to survive. If you push earlier in a spot where, say, you're 45% to win if called, a win will give you enough chips that you don't have to make that second push. So pushing slightly earlier as a slightly bigger underdog can actually increase your chances of survival long-term, dig?

[jon_1van]

betgo and kleath,

You both completely missed the point.

I picked an arbitrary example where a steal is SUPER-AUTOMATIC. We all agree that the EV of that spot is somewhere around 1.75 BB depending on antes and calling ranges.


But let that 1.75BB be the cap on your +EV steals (see below). If this is damn near the best you have in your EV portfilio you have severly limited your ability to find higly rewarding spots, because they require deeper stacks.


(Obviously 1.75 BB won't be a hard cap because you will sometimes have TT+, but even then you'll only get action ~35% so your EV won't even get much past +5.75BB)

[kleath]

[ QUOTE ]
betgo and kleath,

You both completely missed the point.

I picked an arbitrary example where a steal is SUPER-AUTOMATIC. We all agree that the EV of that spot is somewhere around 1.75 BB depending on antes and calling ranges.


But let that 1.75BB be the cap on your +EV steals (see below). If this is damn near the best you have in your EV portfilio you have severly limited your ability to find higly rewarding spots, because they require deeper stacks.


(Obviously 1.75 BB won't be a hard cap because you will sometimes have TT+, but even then you'll only get action ~35% so your EV won't even get much past +5.75BB)

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems like you think that is a small number? That is pretty huge amount of equity.

[jon_1van]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems like you think that is a small number

[/ QUOTE ]

Which number?


You are correct though, I don't think either number is a great cap to put our expected winnings.5 or 6 BB is roughly a C-bet. I'd like to think that I can find some situation where I could average more than a C-bets worth of profit.

[Bonified]

This thread contains far too much worrying about what your stack is going to be and what might happen in future. Make best cEV decision on this hand. Repeat. Profit.

[shaundeeb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now if I push KQs UTG 9-handed for 9xBB, it is about even. Pushing this hand UTG for 12xBB is cEV-, but pushing it UTG for 6xBB is very cEV+.

[/ QUOTE ]
See, I'll just go ahead and push it in with the 12xBB stack anyway, since to me I have a good hand and even though it might be technically -cEV because I'm putting a bigger stack at risk, the reward for doubling up if I get called is much more significant-- I'll have something like 26xBB which is a very useful stack size and gives me room to pick up pots in other ways and not have to shove my stack in for a while.

One thing to remember about pushing earlier that I point out to other people: If you get all in twice as a 60/40 favorite, you're only 36% to survive. If you push earlier in a spot where, say, you're 45% to win if called, a win will give you enough chips that you don't have to make that second push. So pushing slightly earlier as a slightly bigger underdog can actually increase your chances of survival long-term, dig?

[/ QUOTE ]

I also did that and never bothered to do the math to back it up I knew it worked more often being aggro shoving wide then it didn't ty for the math.

[greg nice]

[ QUOTE ]


One thing to remember about pushing earlier that I point out to other people: If you get all in twice as a 60/40 favorite, you're only 36% to survive. If you push earlier in a spot where, say, you're 45% to win if called, a win will give you enough chips that you don't have to make that second push. So pushing slightly earlier as a slightly bigger underdog can actually increase your chances of survival long-term, dig?

[/ QUOTE ]

nath,

another thing, you would be able to take that second 60/40 , lose, and potentially survive vs a smaller stack, since you already doubled up enough to cover it from your first win

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
This thread contains far too much worrying about what your stack is going to be and what might happen in future. Make best cEV decision on this hand. Repeat. Profit.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong. Read my posts for an explanation why.

It's a popular view around here to only make the decision that is always immediately +cEV without regards to context and how future situations will be affected. I've never been able to explain it in a way people "get", which is why everyone thinks I'm just lucky all the time.

[Body Man D]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


One thing to remember about pushing earlier that I point out to other people: If you get all in twice as a 60/40 favorite, you're only 36% to survive. If you push earlier in a spot where, say, you're 45% to win if called, a win will give you enough chips that you don't have to make that second push. So pushing slightly earlier as a slightly bigger underdog can actually increase your chances of survival long-term, dig?

[/ QUOTE ]

nath,

another thing, you would be able to take that second 60/40 , lose, and potentially survive vs a smaller stack, since you already doubled up enough to cover it from your first win

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the point Nath was making to ItalianFX in Shaundeeb's well thread. You have to be willing to gamble when you still have chips instead of waiting and having to win a race or 60/40 when you get short. This type of thinking has been the biggest improvement in my mid/late tourney strat. over the last few months.

[Bonified]

Nath,

I can understand your line and it's interesting to note that it leads us towards the same conclusions. Maybe you're pushing sooner than most because you feel that doubling up has additional value and I'm pushing sooner than most because I'm more willing to play very slightly +EV situations (than others)

Taking small -cEV shots because of future benefits from doubling up is a lot better than passing up +cEV shots because "we'll find a better spot". The latter is the attitude I'm really taking issue with. Not least because I suspect that most of us (even me) underestimate the EV of shoves. I think there are a lot of players out there (especially on sites other than Stars) folding hands to shoves that would shock us if we saw them.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


One thing to remember about pushing earlier that I point out to other people: If you get all in twice as a 60/40 favorite, you're only 36% to survive. If you push earlier in a spot where, say, you're 45% to win if called, a win will give you enough chips that you don't have to make that second push. So pushing slightly earlier as a slightly bigger underdog can actually increase your chances of survival long-term, dig?

[/ QUOTE ]

nath,

another thing, you would be able to take that second 60/40 , lose, and potentially survive vs a smaller stack, since you already doubled up enough to cover it from your first win

[/ QUOTE ]

Is the main goal to survive or maximize cEV?

Say I push 44 or KQo UTG for 12xBB M of 6. That is cEV-. Now sometimes you steal, sometimes you double up to about 26xBB, and sometimes you bust out. Sure when you double up, you have a comfortable stack, but that is the least likely outcome. Say 40% of the time you steal, 40% you bust out, and 20% of the time you double or triple up. Yeah, it's great when you double up and have a comfortable stack, but that is not the usual outcome.

With 12xBB, I would look to play big hands, reraise/resteal, push at limpers, or open push from late position. I might play some hands for less than allin in the right situation. From early position, I am playing very tight.

Now if I don't get a good hand or good situation for a play, I go through the blinds and the blinds go up and I have 7xBB. Now Snyder says I have to take risks to avoid being short stacked because of structure. I completely disagree.

Now I can open push a variety of hands from many position and it is cEV+. This makes it very easy to maintain a playable stack.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


One thing to remember about pushing earlier that I point out to other people: If you get all in twice as a 60/40 favorite, you're only 36% to survive. If you push earlier in a spot where, say, you're 45% to win if called, a win will give you enough chips that you don't have to make that second push. So pushing slightly earlier as a slightly bigger underdog can actually increase your chances of survival long-term, dig?

[/ QUOTE ]

nath,

another thing, you would be able to take that second 60/40 , lose, and potentially survive vs a smaller stack, since you already doubled up enough to cover it from your first win

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the point Nath was making to ItalianFX in Shaundeeb's well thread. You have to be willing to gamble when you still have chips instead of waiting and having to win a race or 60/40 when you get short. This type of thinking has been the biggest improvement in my mid/late tourney strat. over the last few months.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree it is important to gamble when you have chips, but I want to take favorable gambles. If I have KQs and 16xBB and a loose player raises from mid position, pushing is a favorable gamble. Similarly it may be a favorable gamble to raise KQs with 18xBB from mid position and call a reraise allin that may be a resteal.

A lot of people play too tight in the orange and red zones and get blinded down. They usually pass up cEV+ situations. I am not advocating that.

The problem is that in the range 8-12xBB with 2xBB blinds and antes, you do not have that many cEV+ plays, particularly from early position. So rather than taking a cEV- play as Nath and Shawn (and Snyder advocate) why not wait until you have 5-7xBB and take easy cEV+ plays.

This doesn't mean you are throwing away chips, since your M may be reduced by increased blinds as well as going throught the blinds, and you are of course playing if you get a big hand or a good stealing chance.

[nath]

There's no way a 12x utg push gets called 60% of the time, for starters.

Second, your equity when called is a significant factor. I'm not at my computer so I don't have pokerstove, but I suspect that KQ has a much better shot against a calling range than 44 does. You also discourage some hands that should call you from doing so by pushing sooner.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
There's no way a 12x utg push gets called 60% of the time, for starters.

Second, your equity when called is a significant factor. I'm not at my computer so I don't have pokerstove, but I suspect that KQ has a much better shot against a calling range than 44 does. You also discourage some hands that should call you from doing so by pushing sooner.

[/ QUOTE ]
I picked 44 and KQo because they play almost identically against top 5% or top 10% hands.

OK, you are right that you probably only get called maybe 40% of the time, but that means you probably only double up about 13% of the time you push.

Your point that the overbet push from early position has an advantage in that players in early position need a big hand like JJ+, AK to call is valid, and the overbet push may not be as cEV- as it seems.

[Body Man D]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


One thing to remember about pushing earlier that I point out to other people: If you get all in twice as a 60/40 favorite, you're only 36% to survive. If you push earlier in a spot where, say, you're 45% to win if called, a win will give you enough chips that you don't have to make that second push. So pushing slightly earlier as a slightly bigger underdog can actually increase your chances of survival long-term, dig?

[/ QUOTE ]

nath,

another thing, you would be able to take that second 60/40 , lose, and potentially survive vs a smaller stack, since you already doubled up enough to cover it from your first win

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the point Nath was making to ItalianFX in Shaundeeb's well thread. You have to be willing to gamble when you still have chips instead of waiting and having to win a race or 60/40 when you get short. This type of thinking has been the biggest improvement in my mid/late tourney strat. over the last few months.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree it is important to gamble when you have chips, but I want to take favorable gambles. If I have KQs and 16xBB and a loose player raises from mid position, pushing is a favorable gamble. Similarly it may be a favorable gamble to raise KQs with 18xBB from mid position and call a reraise allin that may be a resteal.

A lot of people play too tight in the orange and red zones and get blinded down. They usually pass up cEV+ situations. I am not advocating that.

The problem is that in the range 8-12xBB with 2xBB blinds and antes, you do not have that many cEV+ plays, particularly from early position. So rather than taking a cEV- play as Nath and Shawn (and Snyder advocate) why not wait until you have 5-7xBB and take easy cEV+ plays.

This doesn't mean you are throwing away chips, since your M may be reduced by increased blinds as well as going throught the blinds, and you are of course playing if you get a big hand or a good stealing chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree. I think the problem I used to have and the problem that a lot of people still have is recognizing cEV+ spots late in tourneys. Whether it's calling a late position push with a marginal hand or shoving with KQ as in your example. People are just too tentative and would rather wait for highly cEV+ spots rather than taking marginally cEV+ spots sooner.

[betgo]

I think when I originally posted this 2 years ago, I used this approach in an extreme way to work with the strengths and weakness of my play at the time. This is partly why it was flamed so much.

I wanted to bring up the concept in a more limited way. My main point is that if you have 4-8xBB, you can push with FE in ways that are usually cEV+. Therefore keeping alive with that level of stack is valuable.

So I would tend to avoid making marginal early position pushes with like 10xBB. I also would tend to avoid calling allin in marginal cases with a short stack. If I have a relatively big stack and am taking a big gamble, I would prefer that the worse case result is I am left with a small stack, rather than busting out.

I think I am pretty good at exploiting every edge with the short stack, and can often stay in that mode for a long time and then amerge to have a decent size stack and sometimes place well. My orange zone game is better now than when I originally posted this, but I probably play better in the red zone. So some of this depends on your personal style.

I do think that sometimes we underestimate the value of survival in tournaments. This concept is emphasized repeatedly in TPFAP. We see people playing weak/tight and getting blinded out, and this makes us think the right approach is to gamble. However, in borderline situations, I think it still is correct to take the play likely to keep you in the tournament.