Terms & Conditions

Internet Magazine

Non–US new players
Get five 2+2 books


Order Books
Book Translations
Forum Login
 
 
Expand All   Collapse All

 Two Plus Two 
2+2 Magazine Forum
Special Sklansky Forum
2+2 Pokercast
About the Forums

 General Poker Discussion 
Beginners Questions
Books and Publications
Televised Poker
News, Views, and Gossip
Brick and Mortar
Home Poker
Beats, Brags, and Variance
Poker Theory
Poker Legislation

 Coaching/Training 
StoxPoker
DeucesCracked

 German Forums 
Poker Allgemein
Strategie: Holdem NL cash
Strategie: Sonstige
Internet/Online
BBV
Small Talk
German Poker News

 French Forums 
Forum francophone
Strategie
BBV (French)

 Limit Texas Hold'em 
High Stakes Limit
Medium Stakes Limit
Small Stakes Limit
Micro Stakes Limit
Mid-High Short-handed
Small Stakes Shorthanded
Limit––>NL

 PL/NL Texas Hold'em 
High Stakes
Medium Stakes
Small Stakes
Micro Stakes
Small-High Full Ring
Micro Full Ring

 Tournament Poker 
Small Stakes MTT
High Stakes MTT
MTT Community
STT Strategy
Tournament Circuit

 Other Poker 
Omaha/8
Omaha High
Stud
Heads Up Poker
Other Poker Games

 General Gambling 
Probability
Psychology
Sports Betting
Other Gambling Games
Entertainment Betting

 Internet Gambling 
Internet Gambling
Internet Bonuses
Affiliates/RakeBack
Software

 2+2 Communities 
Other Other Topics
The Lounge: Discussion+Review
El Diablo's General Discussion
BBV4Life

 Other Topics 
Golf
Sporting Events
Politics
Business, Finance, and Investing
Travel
Science, Math, and Philosophy
Health and Fitness
Student Life
Puzzles and Other Games
Video Games
Laughs or Links!
Computer Technical Help
Sponsored Support Forums
RakebackNetwork
RakeReduction.com
Other Links
Books
Authors
Abbreviations
Calendar
Order Books
Books by Others
Favorite Links
Feedback
Advertising Information
Home
Posting Hints
Privacy Notice
Forum Archives

The 2+2 Forums

Before using this Forum, please refer to the Terms and Conditions (Last modified: 2/26/2006)

Be sure to read the   Two Plus Two Internet Magazine

This is an archive. The main forums are here

These forums are read only.


 
UBB.threads™ Groupee, Inc.

Tournament Poker >> MTT Strategy

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | >> (show all)
nath
the second coming of the second coming


Reged: 01/26/05
Posts: 22162
Loc: Tone
The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table)
      #6422819 - 07/04/06 08:25 PM

What follows is a brief and rough defense of a hand I played last night that probably no one else on the forum would have played the same way. Here I attempt to explain briefly why and hopefully provide a glimmer of insight into what I feel is a big part of my tournament philosophy.

So Funkii made a comment about a hand from last night's 109 where I raised 74s UTG into a short stack's big blind and had to call a push. To most people this looks obviously insane and stupid. For me it's close to standard.
Here I attempt a brief defense of the hand using some math and reasoning.

The hand as it starts:

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t3000 (7 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: 2+2 Forums)

saw flop|saw showdown

MP1 (t46074)
MP2 (t93938)
CO (t60968)
Button (t27983)
SB (t20080)
BB (t17767)
Hero (t156190)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with 7, 4.

Ok, setting up the hand: Blinds are 1500/3000 with 150 antes, 7-handed. So the pot is 5650 to start. I have the biggest stack at the table by far, 156k or so.

My raise is to 7800, standard for me at this level no matter what hand I'm raising with (which i just ran a quick stove of and realized is close to 1/3 of hands from EP, barring a bad situation). BB is really short and looking to make a move. The range I estimated he would be willing to throw all his chips in at this point (after the fact, since I didn't bother with ranges getting like 2.5:1), knowing I'm going to call, is any pair, any two broadway, A5s+, A8o+, and obviously I'm calling with my stack and getting close to 2.5:1.

I stoved this:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 34.8790 % 34.45% 00.42% { 74s }
Hand 2: 65.1210 % 64.70% 00.42% { 22+, A5s+, KTs+, QTs, JTs, A8o+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo }

His hand range comprises 21% of hands. (For the sake of simplicity I assumed he pushes all pairs, and folds hands like 87s. In reality, some players may stop and go with smaller pairs, mid suited connectors, low Ax hands, or really any two cards if they're smart. I did not consider this villain to be this tricky.)

So 79% of the time he folds and I pick up 5650 chips.

.79 * 5650 = 4463.50

21% of the time he pushes all-in and I call.

If you ignore the money I put in the pot, there's 23267 in there. ~34.88% of the 21% of the times I am called, I win this. ~65.12% of the time, I lose 17617 chips (his stack size).

.21 ((.3488 * 23267) - (.6512 * 17617))
.21 (8115.5296 - 11472.1904)
.21 (-3356.6608)
~-705 chips.

4463.5 - 705 = +3758.5 chips on average. "PLUS EV!"

Of course, these numbers don't consider that someone with a bigger stack might push in and I would have to fold. However, there are one or two stacks at the table short enough that I would have to call; in addition, many of the players with larger stacks are wary of me and are waiting for the short stacks to bust.
If I'm reraised all in and I have to fold I lose 7800 chips. I tried to estimate the breakeven point for how often this happens before this move becomes negative EV. Solving for X, the percentage of times I am reraised:

3758.5(1-x) - 7800x = 0
3758.5(1-x) = 7800x
3758.5 - 3758.5x = 7800x
3758.5 = 11558.5x
.325 ~ x

So I have to be reraised at least 32.5% of the time by someone else for this to be a -cEV play given these assumptions.

Even if you think that's likely (and I don't, given that the table was still frequently folding to my open raises even after I had showed down weak hands repeatedly), and you think this play is marginal if not outright boneheaded, several things still sway me towards making the move:

1)I have the chips to do it, and losing those chips doesn't affect my position at the table.
2)Those chips are easy to reacquire as I've been terrorizing the table. BB has an M of 3, so if I lose, I only have to steal 3 pots of blinds and antes to get it back. This is extremely doable-- and believe it or not, it's MORE doabale, not LESS, with my image, because even though people know I raise lots of junk, I raise all my good hands too, and THEY KNOW I WILL CALL THEM IF THEY RERAISE. This is the key point! If I opened and folded to reraises a lot, I couldn't get away with all the moves I make.
3)It may be +$EV to make a marginal cEV move to bust a short stack when the price of doing so is cheap and does not affect my position at the table.

What's the point of all this? Nothing specific, really, just that my crazy moves aren't as crazy as they seem. I've always said you have to gamble more, not less, to win tournaments, and hands like these are where I find my hidden edge. It's a big reason why I go so deep and go to multiple wins when I'm running well.

Oh, and here's how the hand played out:

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t3000 (7 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: 2+2 Forums)

saw flop|saw showdown

MP1 (t46074)
MP2 (t93938)
CO (t60968)
Button (t27983)
SB (t20080)
BB (t17767)
Hero (t156190)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with 7, 4.
Hero raises to t7800, 5 folds, BB raises to t17617, Hero calls t9817.

Flop: (t35984) 5, 3, T (2 players)

Turn: (t35984) K (2 players)

River: (t35984) 8 (2 players)

Final Pot: t35984

Results in white below:
Hero has 7c 4c (high card, king).
BB has 3c 3d (three of a kind, threes).
Outcome: BB wins t35984.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
footnbaseball
addict


Reged: 10/14/05
Posts: 502
Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table [Re: nath]
      #6422879 - 07/04/06 08:35 PM

Well I'm sold.

good play sir.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
sublime
Mr. Roper


Reged: 03/12/04
Posts: 15586
Loc: our only chance!
Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table [Re: footnbaseball]
      #6422909 - 07/04/06 08:37 PM

regardless of whether people view this as correct or not, this is a fantastic post.

thanks nath


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rothko
Carpal \'Tunnel


Reged: 01/28/06
Posts: 5437
Loc: nowhere, really
Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table [Re: nath]
      #6423136 - 07/04/06 09:03 PM

nath, what do you want to happen: everyone folds or bb push? most people make these types of plays hoping to take the pot uncontested: is that your position, as well, with the added comfort that a bb push isn't so bad? if you're trying for a bb push, that would be a different enchilada.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
woodguy
Dead Tree Walking


Reged: 04/06/04
Posts: 4647
Loc: Running good, playing bad
Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table [Re: nath]
      #6423259 - 07/04/06 09:23 PM

Pre-flop raise, whatever floats yer boat, people bitch at my PF selection as well.

Calling the PF push.

Standard.

Folding would be horrible.

Regards,
Woodguy


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nath
the second coming of the second coming


Reged: 01/26/05
Posts: 22162
Loc: Tone
Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table [Re: rothko]
      #6423339 - 07/04/06 09:35 PM

Mostly I want people to fold, and mostly they do. The point is that it doesn't really matter; a play that looks like it should be an obvious loser really isn't, in the right set of circumstances, and tournaments are often more about finding and exploiting these situations than playing good poker.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nath
the second coming of the second coming


Reged: 01/26/05
Posts: 22162
Loc: Tone
Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table [Re: woodguy]
      #6423349 - 07/04/06 09:36 PM

Quote:

Pre-flop raise, whatever floats yer boat, people bitch at my PF selection as well.

Calling the PF push.

Standard.

Folding would be horrible.

Regards,
Woodguy




Ahhh, you can do better. Let's discuss this in context! As part of my broader strategy! As part of the idea of winning tournaments by finding +EV spots where others don't see them!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
footnbaseball
addict


Reged: 10/14/05
Posts: 502
Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table [Re: nath]
      #6423456 - 07/04/06 09:51 PM

Finding +EV spots where others don't see them is all well and good, but I think there's a more burning question at hand here:

Why is this called "A Preview?" Is this a glimpse of more to come, or did it just sound good?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nath
the second coming of the second coming


Reged: 01/26/05
Posts: 22162
Loc: Tone
Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table [Re: footnbaseball]
      #6423502 - 07/04/06 09:59 PM

It may be more to come, depending on what I can come up with. If I wrote a book describing my style of tournament play, "The Freakonomics of Tournaments" would be a pretty apt title.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
DLizzle
Carpal \'Tunnel


Reged: 08/18/05
Posts: 3387
Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table [Re: nath]
      #6423971 - 07/04/06 11:04 PM

Hey I just read a book called Freakonomics.

Anyway, I think this is analysis is great. I believe I have an outlook on tournaments somewhat like you, I just haven't gone to the mathematical extent you have to prove them, and I don't make as many of these moves, for fear of going overboard. It's a thin line, and I'm not quite ready to walk it.

I love raising UTG with a lot of hands with a somewhat short table and blinds worth stealing. Honestly, even when I'm playing like a lunatic, people still have it burned into their mind that UTG raise = scary. And well, if I'm playing like a lunatic it's probably because the table is playing weak. The math you presented was nice to see.

lol at the possible misuses of the advice in this thread. I think one thing to understand is that the OP did not advocate making a -ev play such as raising UTG with weak hands to set up a +ev play, such as the call you make because you have to. This is very situational.

final word for now: I love how bb calls with 33, and you have a coinflip.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | >> (show all)



Extra information
0 registered and 10 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Mat Sklansky, Bond18, Jurollo, ZBTHorton, Mike Haven 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Rating:
Topic views: 6643

Rate this topic

Jump to

contact us 2+2 Publishing

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5


Message Boards and Forums Directory

Pages provided by ConJelCo