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

[etojim]

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.

[jcm4ccc]

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.

[etojim]

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).

[NinjaMan]

[ 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.

[elmitchbo]

[ 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.

[NinjaMan]

[ 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.

[Elon_Poker23]

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.

[Beachman42]

[ 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!

[LearnedfromTV]

[ 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.

[LearnedfromTV]

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.