Is there a \"reverse Gigabet Dilemma\"? Big stack play late in a MTT
 

Recently I have been doing fairly well in MTT’s, oftentimes being near the bubble or just ITM with one of 10 biggest stacks. But I would invariable lose several marginally +cEV calls against middle or small stacks and end up losing my “big stack” status and then end up out of the tourney shortly thereafter. (It looks this happened to Sirio11 in yesterday’s Stars 750, http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...0#Post4586011). The more I thought about this problem, I realized that this is sounds like the opposite of the “Gigabet dilemma.”

When have a big stack you gain leverage over the smaller stacks at the table. But I think there may be times when you are faced with + cEV calls, that if you win will obviously increase your stack but not will increase the value of the stack at the table, because you are already the big stack. However, if you lose, you may lose enough chips so that your big stack status is jeopardized and you no longer have the leverage a big stack yields.

So yesterday in the PP 750K, I played my usual game and ended up ITM with a fairly big stack. But then I slowed down and employed the “reverse Gigabet dilemma”, passing small +cEV situations so that I could maintain a relatively big stack. The result was I finished 27th, my best finish in a large MTT.

Re: Is there a \"reverse Gigabet Dilemma\"? Big stack play late in a MTT
 

It's an interesting idea, but there's no "reverse Gigabet Dilemma." Gigabet is not passing up +cEV situations because he doesn't want to lose his big stack.

The Big Stacks at the bubble have a better chance of winning the tournament, but not as much as you might think. If you calculate the average number of chips each person will have at the final table, and compare it with the number of chips in your big stack at bubble time, you'll see that you still have to accumulate a lot of chips in order to be competitive at the final table. Accumulating chips means taking risks. MTTs are all about risk, and you can't avoid it.

Many fish play as you describe: they nurse their big stack, hoping to slide into the big money. Don't be one of them.

Re: Is there a \"reverse Gigabet Dilemma\"? Big stack play late in a MTT
 

I think it comes down to whether or not you know how to play the big stack online effectively on a consistant type basis. It will always come down to being lucky and not risking chips when you don't have to but some have the ability to play those stacks and some don't. Neither method is necessarily better over the other but used correctly both can work. Personally I have never been able to play a large stack aggressivly but have been working on it recently. I've taken a small hit in my bankroll because I have not been cashing as much but I seem to be a coinflip or bad beat away from a big lead and advantage late in these tournaments. I think it can be smart to play how you described you played to finish 27th, but unless you get REALLY lucky, I doubt you'll ever finish higher than that unless you pick your spots PERFECT and get a lil lucky on your way up.

Re: Is there a \"reverse Gigabet Dilemma\"? Big stack play late in a MTT
 

My point was instead of making -cEV plays to gain big stack (the Gigabet Dilemma) ,you pass +cEV plays to keep big stack (the "Reverse" Gigabet Dilemma).

Re: Is there a \"reverse Gigabet Dilemma\"? Big stack play late in a MTT
 

[ QUOTE ]
My point was instead of making -cEV plays to gain big stack (the Gigabet Dilemma) ,you pass +cEV plays to keep big stack (the "Reverse" Gigabet Dilemma).

[/ QUOTE ]

Your point makes no sense. In the long term, making +cEV calls is just that ... +cEV. SO, you're deciding to pass on a long term gathering of chips to maintain a steady stack while others increase theirs? I can understand passing on marginally -cEV situations if you feel you need those chips to balance being outplayed by other players. However, passing on +cEV situations, especially as the big stack, will be -$EV.

Re: Is there a \"reverse Gigabet Dilemma\"? Big stack play late in a MTT
 

At first glance the concept has merit. If you are chip leader with 35000 chips and three others at your table have 25000, do you really want to take a 50/50 with a guy who has 10000? Straight 50/50, for argument's sake. It would seem that the chips you would gain have less value than the chips you would lose.

On the other hand, those 10000 chips you add might be temporarily extraneous, but ten rounds down the line they won't be, when stacks and blinds are larger and they make the difference between having 5K or 15K left when you lose a big pot in a spot where you had no choice.

Unless your stack is so large that you are sure to have a big stack at the final table without having to show a hand down (you have 8-10% of the chips already with 50 left and can comfortably steal a couple times an orbit), I don't think your stack is comfortable enough to say that the extra chips don't help you. The blinds rise too fast in online tournaments for this to be true.

Just as in the regular Gigabet Dilemma, there may be a fine line (like 52/48 or something) where, theoretically, the chips you gain are worth less than the chips you would lose. But 45K intimidates more than 35K and guarantees big stack status for longer, so there are factors that argue the extra chips are worth as much as the chips you would lose.

Re: Is there a \"reverse Gigabet Dilemma\"? Big stack play late in a MTT
 

Yeh, I think there are situations where a cEV+ gamble is $EV-. This occurs a lot in SNGs and of course in supersatellites, and sometimes in MTTs at the final table.

For example, I you have enough chips to make the top 3, you may not want to go allin against another big stack. Sometimes it is worthwhile to play tight until small stacks bust out.

If the payout in a small tournament is 4-3-2-1, it pays to play cautiously as in a 2-table SNG.

Brenson talks in Super System about how he learned Moss' strategy for winning the WSOP was to play cautiously earlier. Now if you are Brunson or Moss and playing in the WSOP when it was 6-30 players, then this approach may work.

I was playing at a final table where I was in 4th place of 10 with 2.7xBB. There is some ante. I push from middle position with A7s, tournament leader calls with 99, and BB, who is pot committed to call anything calls with 77. I have thought a lot about the play, because I took 9th for $5K. I probably could have folded my may to $12K. If a diamond or ace had hit on the river, I would have been in first place with an expectation of about $35K. In this case, the push was probably slightly cEV+. It may also have been $EV+, but cEV+ does not necessarily imply $EV+ in this type of situation.

Re: Is there a \"reverse Gigabet Dilemma\"? Big stack play late in a MTT
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point was instead of making -cEV plays to gain big stack (the Gigabet Dilemma) ,you pass +cEV plays to keep big stack (the "Reverse" Gigabet Dilemma).

[/ QUOTE ]

Your point makes no sense. In the long term, making +cEV calls is just that ... +cEV. SO, you're deciding to pass on a long term gathering of chips to maintain a steady stack while others increase theirs? I can understand passing on marginally -cEV situations if you feel you need those chips to balance being outplayed by other players. However, passing on +cEV situations, especially as the big stack, will be -$EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're wrong. passing on +EV situations in the short term can be very +$EV in the long run. this idea is nothing new. traditional tournament wisdom tells you to be very aggressive with the small stack, but very conservative with the big stack. there's no need to gamble it up when you're already in the lead.

in most cases a very slight +EV play is dependent on your analysis of the hand, which is always an inexact science. one slight miscue makes the hand -EV. with the a small stack you don't have the luxury of waiting for a better situation, you just have to go with the read you have and do the best you can.

that luxury does exist when you have a chip lead. the big stack buys you the time to sit and wait. that way you can get your chips in when you KNOW you're making a +EV play. this isn't a fear of being outplayed by other players. it is, in fact, out playing them by making a smart tactical decision.

i'm not saying this is always the right thing to do. bullying a table with a big stack can be very effective, but it can also backfire in a hurry. it can be better to sit and wait.

Re: Is there a \"reverse Gigabet Dilemma\"? Big stack play late in a MTT
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think it comes down to whether or not you know how to play the big stack online effectively on a consistant type basis. It will always come down to being lucky and not risking chips when you don't have to but some have the ability to play those stacks and some don't. Neither method is necessarily better over the other but used correctly both can work. Personally I have never been able to play a large stack aggressivly but have been working on it recently. I've taken a small hit in my bankroll because I have not been cashing as much but I seem to be a coinflip or bad beat away from a big lead and advantage late in these tournaments. I think it can be smart to play how you described you played to finish 27th, but unless you get REALLY lucky, I doubt you'll ever finish higher than that unless you pick your spots PERFECT and get a lil lucky on your way up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Learning to play with a big stack is a great reason to not jump immediately out of your comfort zone when you get one. A big stack plus a few well placed steals, really semi-bluffs, plus maybe showing AQo when your raise doesn't get called keeps your image as big & tight. Mo matter what, if you have 10% of the chips at the bubble, someone else will have you 9:1 if you get HU without improving. Play your game and flip a kind coin!

Re: Is there a \"reverse Gigabet Dilemma\"? Big stack play late in a MTT
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it comes down to whether or not you know how to play the big stack online effectively on a consistant type basis. It will always come down to being lucky and not risking chips when you don't have to but some have the ability to play those stacks and some don't. Neither method is necessarily better over the other but used correctly both can work. Personally I have never been able to play a large stack aggressivly but have been working on it recently. I've taken a small hit in my bankroll because I have not been cashing as much but I seem to be a coinflip or bad beat away from a big lead and advantage late in these tournaments. I think it can be smart to play how you described you played to finish 27th, but unless you get REALLY lucky, I doubt you'll ever finish higher than that unless you pick your spots PERFECT and get a lil lucky on your way up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Learning to play with a big stack is a great reason to not jump immediately out of your comfort zone when you get one. A big stack plus a few well placed steals, really semi-bluffs, plus maybe showing AQo when your raise doesn't get called keeps your image as big & tight. Mo matter what, if you have 10% of the chips at the bubble, someone else will have you 9:1 if you get HU without improving. Play your game and flip a kind coin!

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a bit of a hijack, but I liked the bolded line.

The first key when playing a big stack is to understand that people want to believe you when you raise. Unless you are a really good big stack player who has observed specific circumstances at your table to allow you to get away with being a maniac, good big stack play is not stealing every blind. Raise more often than you should, more often than people will give you credit for having a hand, but take enough hands off so that any particular time you raise you are reasonably likely have a hand that can call a push. The same opponents who tend to disbelieve maniac big stacks and decide to take a stand are perfectly willing to trust you while you steal them blind as long as you do it in moderation.

Re: Is there a \"reverse Gigabet Dilemma\"? Big stack play late in a MTT
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point was instead of making -cEV plays to gain big stack (the Gigabet Dilemma) ,you pass +cEV plays to keep big stack (the "Reverse" Gigabet Dilemma).

[/ QUOTE ]

Your point makes no sense. In the long term, making +cEV calls is just that ... +cEV. SO, you're deciding to pass on a long term gathering of chips to maintain a steady stack while others increase theirs? I can understand passing on marginally -cEV situations if you feel you need those chips to balance being outplayed by other players. However, passing on +cEV situations, especially as the big stack, will be -$EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're wrong. passing on +EV situations in the short term can be very +$EV in the long run. this idea is nothing new. traditional tournament wisdom tells you to be very aggressive with the small stack, but very conservative with the big stack. there's no need to gamble it up when you're already in the lead.

in most cases a very slight +EV play is dependent on your analysis of the hand, which is always an inexact science. one slight miscue makes the hand -EV. with the a small stack you don't have the luxury of waiting for a better situation, you just have to go with the read you have and do the best you can.

that luxury does exist when you have a chip lead. the big stack buys you the time to sit and wait. that way you can get your chips in when you KNOW you're making a +EV play. this isn't a fear of being outplayed by other players. it is, in fact, out playing them by making a smart tactical decision.

i'm not saying this is always the right thing to do. bullying a table with a big stack can be very effective, but it can also backfire in a hurry. it can be better to sit and wait.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm *not* wrong, and neither are you. I do like, however, how you brought in a discussion, someone goes in the other opinion, and you say he's wrong. That seems a little unfair, dontchathink?

On topic, I can understand your line about *certain* situations warranting a pass on +cEV calls. However, I think your logic is a little flawed (but maybe mine is, too). Let's look at this situation here:

12 people left, 2 tables of 6. At your table, you have the big stack of 100k. The following stacks are at the table:
60k
10k
20k
50k
40k
Blinds are: 1000/2000 (no ante for argument's sake)

You're in the CO with pp6, and UTG (10k) pushes all-in. From your experience with UTG, he's not great, so he's probably pushing a tighter range than us 2p2ers. Let's say it looks like this, once you figured a range:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 53.6506 % 53.22% 00.43% { 66 }
Hand 2: 46.3494 % 45.92% 00.43% { 22+, A2s+, K8s+, Q9s+, J9s+, A2o+, K8o+, QTo+, JTo }


Does this constitute a marginally +cEV call? Yes. Should you ever pass it up as a bigstack? Probably not. The call increases your +cEV while eliminated someone close to a pay increase, thus, +EV$ in the long term. If UTG had a higher stack, maybe 35-40k, I would understand (but not 100% agree with) folding.

While you nurse the big stack, passing on +cEV opportunities, others are grabbing chips that could have been yours, to increase your chip equity amongst the remaining players, while also creating a higher percentage of the prize pool for yourself.

Re: Is there a \"reverse Gigabet Dilemma\"? Big stack play late in a MTT
 

The point I was trying to make is that maybe passing when UTG does have 30-40K may be a +$EV move, even though since it is +cEV, some would call.

Also earlier icm44 stated "Many fish play as you describe: they nurse their big stack, hoping to slide into the big money. Don't be one of them." I wasn't talkig about shutting it down and sliding into the money (although I may be a fish!)You can't "slide" >350 places from the bubble to last 2-3 tables without playing the aggressive poker that the big stack allows, stealing blinds, etc; but calling raises, all-ins from stacks that represent > 1/3 of your stack with hands that may be ahead, but marginally so may cost you more when u lose than what u gain when win.

Re: Is there a \"reverse Gigabet Dilemma\"? Big stack play late in a MTT
 

Good post Ninja.

This isn't to say that a "reverse Gigabet Dilemma" situation never exists, but:

a) If you are close to the end of the tournament, there is a natural tendency for a borderline cEV call to have greater $EV than cEV for a big stack, because of the value of eliminating a player. I think this usually outweighs the decreasing marginal value of excess chips and the splashing around value of using big stack chips to accumulate without showdown; in fact, one could argue that the best possible use of excess chips is to take 50/50 shots at eliminating short stacks (since the wins have a built-in $EV bonus that any negative impact of taking the 50/50 has to overcome. Say you have 50K with 9 players left. Even if the difference between 60K/9 players and 50K/9 players is less than the difference between 40K/9 players and 50K/9 players, the difference between 50K/9 and 60K/8 is probably greater.

b) If you are earlier in a tournament, your "big stack" likely isn't big enough (i.e if you don't accumulate chips you won't be a big stack for long).

Re: Is there a \"reverse Gigabet Dilemma\"? Big stack play late in a MTT
 

I think we're finding our ideas to be pretty close, honestly. 40k stack wouldnt be a middle stack, and not a small stack, so the stipulations change a little. Still, say you lose to the 40k stack: you're still at 60k, which has decreased your prize pool equity. However, would jumping 140+k gain more prize equity than dropping to 60k lose prize equity? Does that make sense or did I word that horrendously?

Re: Is there a \"reverse Gigabet Dilemma\"? Big stack play late in a MTT
 

Yes, my post was intended to agree with yours, maybe the wording didn't make that clear.

With your 60/100/140 example - I think it's is generally the case that it is better to have

A) 140K w/ one player eliminated half the time
60K the other half (same # of players)

than

B) 100K (folding and 'preserving the big stack')

And I'm just pointing out that in scenario A) it matters (a lot) that you are eliminating a player half the time. That is, maybe B) is better than A) if you take away the value of eliminating a player late in the tournament. But the value of eliminating a player trumps and A) is better than B).

Re: Is there a \"reverse Gigabet Dilemma\"? Big stack play late in a MTT
 

Somewhere within the answer to that question lays the answer to the real question which is "What is the optimal way to play a big stack between the bubble and the FT?" This has been a real problem for me, because several weeks ago, for whatever reason, in 8/10 big MTT's I played I found myself on the bubble with top ten stack.

I think there are really two seperate issues. The one you raise concerning prize equity, etc. which I'll call "meta-considerations". I think these depend on:

What is my goal? (Win the tourney, FT, certain $ amount)

How big is your stack in relationship to the remaining field (your Q)?

When is the next "mini-bubble"? (next prize increase, FT bubble, etc.)

Then there are the considertions of the moment; how will my big stack at the table I am currently on help me on reach my loftier goals?

Again there are several things to consider:
How big is your stack in relationship to others at the table you are on ?

How long have you been at the table? Do you have a table image? Do you have reads on other players? When will tble break?

What is the real "value" of maintaining a big stack at your tble? Are blinds being folded to you? Do people respect your raises, steals, re-steals? Late in a tourney when blinds are say 5000/10000 this could make a huge difference as everyones M's drift down.

Is there a stack size where you lose this "value"?

Thinking about all of these issues has helped me reach several FT's after I gain a big stack on/shortly after bubble, esp in the pp $50-$100 MTT' the last week or so.