The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table)
 

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|<font color="#C00000">saw showdown</font>

MP1 (t46074)
MP2 (t93938)
CO (t60968)
Button (t27983)
SB (t20080)
<font color="#C00000">BB (t17767)</font>
<font color="#C00000">Hero (t156190)</font>

Preflop: Hero is UTG with 7[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img].

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|<font color="#C00000">saw showdown</font>

MP1 (t46074)
MP2 (t93938)
CO (t60968)
Button (t27983)
SB (t20080)
<font color="#C00000">BB (t17767)</font>
<font color="#C00000">Hero (t156190)</font>

Preflop: Hero is UTG with 7[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img].
<font color="#CC3333">Hero raises to t7800</font>, <font color="#666666">5 folds</font>, <font color="#CC3333">BB raises to t17617</font>, Hero calls t9817.

Flop: (t35984) 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], T[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>

Turn: (t35984) K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>

River: (t35984) 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>

Final Pot: t35984

Results in white below: <font color="#FFFFFF">
Hero has 7c 4c (high card, king).
BB has 3c 3d (three of a kind, threes).
Outcome: BB wins t35984. </font>

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table
 

Well I'm sold.

good play sir.

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table
 

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

thanks nath

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table
 

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.

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table
 

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

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table
 

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.

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table
 

[ 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

[/ QUOTE ]

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!

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table
 

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?

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table
 

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.

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table
 

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.

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table
 

great post. are you suggesting that you can profitably raise almost any two here?

nath, are you making your HH from last night available? i'd love to see it.

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table
 

What a donk, you forgot to river a 6.

Oh, and very interesting. Thank you.

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table
 

Intriguing and informative. How do you always pull these great posts off?

Here's where I stand. You've, without a doubt, convinced me to change my PF style. I see myself daily changing up my PF play and seeing success in it. I see your posts basically broken down into two different categories:
A)Here's why my PF play is not as stupid as you may think, and here's the math to prove it.
B)I've made my typical PF play (when it's not a push) and now I'm in a tough post-flop situation, and want to check my line.

So here's my request {and if it's already out there and I've missed it, I'm sorry....please direct me to the post(s).} I would like to see a post, or series of, regarding similar mathematical concepts during post-flop play.

I feel like your PF raising strategy is very productive, but I find myself often not sure where I stand/what to do post-flop, and would like to see your lines laid out in numbers.

(Basically I'm saying I feel your posts (especially, and among others) moving me from effective TAG to effective LAG, but my post-flop LAG play is a constant hold-up...help!!!)

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table)
 

Very nice post and interesting allusion. My prediction is that this will spawn misapplications and misunderstandings on par with Gigabet theories and stop and go's.

What range do you think the 4 stacks you can't call ( I assume you don't want to call the button, but admit to not having done the math) push with? Less than 8% i assume given your break even calculation. I think the read on these four players is a huge part of this and i'll trust that you were spot on. Given the two and a half shortstacks, it would be difficult for most players to push a wide range unless they were more concerned with top 3 than moving up a couple spots.

Interestingly (or perhaps not) it seems as if the 90k stack would probably have the tighest reraising range.

Thanks again.

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table
 

while this is a good post with lots of very good analysis...

I really do think you're reraised significantly more than 32% of the time here. Also note that you have to call the sb and probably the button if they reraise, which is pretty ugly. I just don't see this being a +EV play.

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table)
 

This really isn't that bad.

You're simply playing your big stack and using your read of the table as folding to most of your raises. You can fold to a reraise from anyfrom from BB and it doesn't effect your stack.

As you showed, the only person you call is BB, and don't really mind calling.

Seems like a decent play when you have that kind of stack. Of course, you are starting to sound like Gigabet.

Edit: I only agree with play because of your read on the table. If you've got a table that is even half aggressive, than I don't make this play.

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table
 

[ QUOTE ]
while this is a good post with lots of very good analysis...

I really do think you're reraised significantly more than 32% of the time here. Also note that you have to call the sb and probably the button if they reraise, which is pretty ugly. I just don't see this being a +EV play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree, the table was playing very very tight. I doubt anyone was raising him without a strong hand, except for perhaps me and we all know how that turned out. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

and nath, the more I think about it, the more I like your call there.

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table
 

[ QUOTE ]
I really do think you're reraised significantly more than 32% of the time here.

[/ QUOTE ]
I really don't. I was opening almost literally every pot that was folded to me and they kept folding.

[ QUOTE ]
Also note that you have to call the sb and probably the button if they reraise, which is pretty ugly. I just don't see this being a +EV play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's that ugly. Their ranges might be tighter but it's a similar result. I think the pot odds relative to their hand ranges will be fairly close again.

The main reason I posted this was not for the specific hand but to illustrate concepts behind my play. I'm well known as the luckiest tournament poker player on the planet, it seems, yet somehow I keep winning. I'm sure it's probably just luck and it'll run out soon, but just in case it isn't, I'm trying to give back a little of my thought processes, even when I don't always understand them.

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I really do think you're reraised significantly more than 32% of the time here.

[/ QUOTE ]
I really don't. I was opening almost literally every pot that was folded to me and they kept folding.

[ QUOTE ]
Also note that you have to call the sb and probably the button if they reraise, which is pretty ugly. I just don't see this being a +EV play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's that ugly. Their ranges might be tighter but it's a similar result. I think the pot odds relative to their hand ranges will be fairly close again.

The main reason I posted this was not for the specific hand but to illustrate concepts behind my play. I'm well known as the luckiest tournament poker player on the planet, it seems, yet somehow I keep winning. I'm sure it's probably just luck and it'll run out soon, but just in case it isn't, I'm trying to give back a little of my thought processes, even when I don't always understand them.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you really want to prove yourself, lend me your luckbox and then show the world your pure pwnage skillz.

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I really do think you're reraised significantly more than 32% of the time here.

[/ QUOTE ]
I really don't. I was opening almost literally every pot that was folded to me and they kept folding.

[ QUOTE ]
Also note that you have to call the sb and probably the button if they reraise, which is pretty ugly. I just don't see this being a +EV play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's that ugly. Their ranges might be tighter but it's a similar result. I think the pot odds relative to their hand ranges will be fairly close again.

The main reason I posted this was not for the specific hand but to illustrate concepts behind my play. I'm well known as the luckiest tournament poker player on the planet, it seems, yet somehow I keep winning. I'm sure it's probably just luck and it'll run out soon, but just in case it isn't, I'm trying to give back a little of my thought processes, even when I don't always understand them.

[/ QUOTE ]

So standard bullying as big stack on a tight table with any two, and then you have odds to call. Nothing personal but this doesn't seem exactly revolutionary. Of course, I've been in the STT world where this comes up at least once a set, maybe it's not so well known in MTT.

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table)
 

There are some problems with your math. The BB has already posted the blinds, then he raises to 17617, which lead you to double count. So the amount you can win 23267 is wrong. I guess it should be 17617+1500+1050=20167. If this is the case though, the converter messed up the final pot size. Because, 20167+17617=37784. Hope you can sort this out. This is a pretty small error though and won't effect your bottom line much, just thought you should know.

It wasn't totally clear in your post, but the 32% (i think 31.1% if my correction is right) you estimated also applies to the short stacks. Though since you would be getting odds to call the short stacks, it might be slightly larger.

So what range would it take to reraise you 32% of the time, well, there are 5 players left (not including BB, which we already took into account). So, if they are equally likely to push (which they aren't, but you can fool with that). Then on average they need to push 32/5 = 6.4% of hands, so if everybody pushes 77+,AQ+,AJs. You break even. It seems likely they'll push more often than that. Plus, someone could just call. I don't think you'll be able to play this hand out of position against someone with a much stronger hand without it being -EV, which may hurt your bottom line too. Also, against this range you are like a 2.7 to 1 dog, so the effect from above doesn't count since you are better off folding than calling if the other short stacks ranges are actually this tight.

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table
 

[ QUOTE ]
So standard bullying as big stack on a tight table with any two, and then you have odds to call.

[/ QUOTE ]

This can be used in many more places than people think it can.

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table)
 

[ QUOTE ]
There are some problems with your math. The BB has already posted the blinds, then he raises to 17617, which lead you to double count. So the amount you can win 23267 is wrong. I guess it should be 17617+1500+1050=20167.

[/ QUOTE ]
The sad thing is that the first time I wrote this post I got all the math completely wrong and had to go back and rewrite it.
I should just stick to being a mystical philosopher-sage of tournament poker and let others do the math.

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So standard bullying as big stack on a tight table with any two, and then you have odds to call.

[/ QUOTE ]

This can be used in many more places than people think it can.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, nice post. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table)
 

After making a similar math mistake at another site, someone showed me a trick. Take the total pot*your equity-the chips you put in. Then you can just multiply that by .21. Of course, that would have possibly lead me to a mistake, because it looks like the converter messed up the pot size. But, ((37784*.3488)-17617)*.21, I think is a little easier way to think about it.

Anyway, do you really think people are folding hands like AT and 66?

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hey I just read a book called Freakonomics.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hmm, what a coincidence.

[ QUOTE ]
The math you presented was nice to see.

[/ QUOTE ]
It was nice for me to see, too. I hadn't taken the time to do it before. I just assumed that because moves like these worked and I won tournaments that they must be profitable.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Indeed. I used to raise much more willy-nilly than I do now; now I at least have to believe the initial raise can be profitable.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table
 

speaking of willy-nilly, I went through this stage where my late game tourney strategy was like steal the blinds every single time it folds to you. This was directly after me realizing, hey if I'm raising QJ on the button and will fold to a push, I'll get the same result if I raise with 47, but unfortunately before I realized, hey, the sb has barely anything left, the aggressive bb has a huge stack and will play back at me often, so it's not a good spot to steal. Nearing the end of tournaments, it becomes less about cards and more about situations. I'm sure that's been said before, but I think a player really has to 'see the light' and think about why and how it should be applied.

This point isn't exactly what the first post deals with, but it certainly is hugely important to understand the freakonomics of tournaments.

Also, I think you better copyright 'freakonomics of tournaments'. I'm looking forward to the many spinoff threads in coming weeks.

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table)
 

nath,

with an m of 3, your range seems totally off to me. He only plays 21% of hands? yeah right!

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table)
 

[ QUOTE ]
nath,

with an m of 3, your range seems totally off to me. He only plays 21% of hands? yeah right!

[/ QUOTE ]

Against an UTG raise? If he was the open raiser, he might be pushing virtually anything. It seems like he might push more, and against me, he probably should, but I couldn't think of a better range to assign him. I suppose you could stretch it into even weaker aces, some of the suited kings, and such, but I still don't think he's taking, say, 98s, and pushing it over my raise.

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
nath,

with an m of 3, your range seems totally off to me. He only plays 21% of hands? yeah right!

[/ QUOTE ]

Against an UTG raise? If he was the open raiser, he might be pushing virtually anything. It seems like he might push more, and against me, he probably should, but I couldn't think of a better range to assign him. I suppose you could stretch it into even weaker aces, some of the suited kings, and such, but I still don't think he's taking, say, 98s, and pushing it over my raise.

[/ QUOTE ]
well w/ that stack, i dont think the utg raise really matters too much. especially when u are the raiser w/ ur "wreckless play" to the untrained eye [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]. its all about getting lucky for villain right now, so i dont thnk his range is affected

the way ur thinking, u really remind me of gus hansen. trying to find spots that are +EV that nobody would ever think of. i try to find these holes as well, but im not sure if this one is +EV

still a great post whether i agree w/ it or not..it really got me thinking

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm well known as the luckiest tournament poker player on the planet, it seems, yet somehow I keep winning.

[/ QUOTE ]


nath,

i read the official threads. you get out of line, then flop a set, then get top pair 4 kicker to get all in. ya lucksack.


nice post, but i do think some of your assumptions are off.

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table
 

I think most of this is over my head for the time being, but with the right reads i've made simlar raises because I expected folds,

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table
 

What you are doing is bullying a passive table. You're just doing it in spots that most of us wouldn't.

Only one outcome is positive for you: when everybody folds. You lose chips, on average, every time:
<ul type="square">[*]the button pushes[*]the sb pushes[*]the bb pushes[*]a big stack reraises[*]a big stack calls with position[/list]You only considered one situation (the bb pushes), and that was only marginally +EV (about one BB), given very favorable assumptions (only pushes with the top 21% of hands, when the whole table knows you've been raising like a maniac). The SB and Button have more chips than the BB, and you will on average lose more chips (and be compelled to call) when they push. I'm not convinced.

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table
 

I ran some numbers with these assumptions:

You will be pushed by the BB 21% of the time.
You will be pushed by the SB 10% of the time.
You will be pushed by the button 10% of the time.

These seem reasonable assumptions that are slanted towards giving you chips. On average, I figured that you will win 1400 chips (less than 0.5 BB), given these assumptions. These ignore the times that:
Two of the short stacks push (which I estimate will happen about 4% of the time).
Big stack reraises
Big stack calls with position.

Also, the vast majority of the time that you win, you increase your chips from 156k to 161k. Every time that you lose, your chips decrease from 156k to about 135k.

I think if you will catch your breath on occasion and actually fold, you will be even more successful than you have been.

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table
 

Nath -

Great post, my friend. I remain a doubter, unfortunately, but this is definitely a well-thought out topic worth disussing.

[ QUOTE ]
You only considered one situation (the bb pushes)

[/ QUOTE ]

This was the first thing that I noticed.

Oh, and this

[ QUOTE ]
There are some problems with your math. The BB has already posted the blinds, then he raises to 17617, which lead you to double count. So the amount you can win 23267 is wrong. I guess it should be 17617+1500+1050=20167. If this is the case though, the converter messed up the final pot size. Because, 20167+17617=37784. Hope you can sort this out. This is a pretty small error though and won't effect your bottom line much, just thought you should know.

It wasn't totally clear in your post, but the 32% (i think 31.1% if my correction is right) you estimated also applies to the short stacks. Though since you would be getting odds to call the short stacks, it might be slightly larger.

So what range would it take to reraise you 32% of the time, well, there are 5 players left (not including BB, which we already took into account). So, if they are equally likely to push (which they aren't, but you can fool with that). Then on average they need to push 32/5 = 6.4% of hands, so if everybody pushes 77+,AQ+,AJs. You break even. It seems likely they'll push more often than that. Plus, someone could just call. I don't think you'll be able to play this hand out of position against someone with a much stronger hand without it being -EV, which may hurt your bottom line too. Also, against this range you are like a 2.7 to 1 dog, so the effect from above doesn't count since you are better off folding than calling if the other short stacks ranges are actually this tight.

[/ QUOTE ]

is a great post from wagon30 that is worth discussing more.

edit: And not that it affects anything terribly, but isn't the starting pot amount 5550, not 5650? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table
 

Sigh.

You're all too focused on the 74 hand. I'm trying to use it an an example to explore the ideas and philosophy by my tournament thinking-- the things I believe give me an advantage.

If someone else wants to do the math to prove me wrong, fine. Math isn't my strongest suit. Come up with a range for BB to push and a frequency for everyone else to do that makes this play negative-expectation.
Even if you do, you'll find that tournaments have a broader context than individual hands. Mostly, you should make the +cEV play when it is afforded to you, but occasionally you'll want to err on the side of aggression, even when it might costs you chips in the short run.

I'm more interested in discussing tournaments on a conceptual and strategic level, with regards to my general approach, than wondering about the marginal effectiveness of any given move. I make a lot of moves-- one of my rules of thumb for tournaments is "When it doubt, err on the side of aggression"-- and my aggression and unpredictability both picks up enough chips to keep me ahead of the game and builds monster pots when I have a big hand.

I don't think about tournaments like most people do. I'm trying my best to articulate ideas that aren't very common or easy to articulate. This time I tried to use the math to explore the concepts behind my play. Whether or not you can prove the math is wrong in this case, I'm pretty sure I'm still doing something right.

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table
 

Nath,

On a conceptual and strategic level, when you have a big stack and are at a table where you are almost guaranteed to play zero postflop poker, raising 74s UTG hoping to steal the blinds "for table image reasons" is a bad play.

This does not mean that being very aggro as a CL is uncalled for. It merely means that, when you already have a very big lead like the one you had, it is a much better idea to (for example) push your folding equity to the limit vs. the medium stacks than it is to attempt to take every 5000 chips that come your way with a 74s raise UTG.

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table
 

See, it seems like a bad play on the surface, but I'm trying to demonstrate that at the right table it may not be.
I was hoping this would spawn discussion about my general approach to tournaments, about finding the hidden EV, about seemingly inane moves as part of an overall strategy, but so far it hasn't.

I don't know. I win more when I make more wild plays and do more things that most people think are donkey moves. I'm trying to understand why.

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table
 

[ QUOTE ]
Nath,

On a conceptual and strategic level, when you have a big stack and are at a table where you are almost guaranteed to play zero postflop poker, raising 74s UTG hoping to steal the blinds "for table image reasons" is a bad play.


[/ QUOTE ]

I may be wrong, but I don't think the move was made for table image reasons.

Re: The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know. I win more when I make more wild plays and do more things that most people think are donkey moves. I'm trying to understand why.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you sure about that? No offense, but quite often in the official threads/your blog I see you post something like 'I played that one like a huge donkey, I deserved to lose' blah blah blah

are you sure you're not being results oriented?