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

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]
I think some of you are massively overestimating the amount that player's tend to adjust to a player like nath.

[/ QUOTE ] You can give the most favorable assumptions to this hand (the medium stacks reraise with only the top 5 percent, button and SB push with top 10 percent, bb pushes with top 20 percent), and it's still a minus EV play. And when he does win, typically he is winning 5k. When he loses, he is typically losing 30k. So the math doesn't work, either in present EV or future EV. No matter what his table image is, or who he's playing, or whatever. this hand is a piece of [censored].

if the math don't work, the theory don't work.

[footnbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
Harrington mentions "the 10% rule" - when a shortstack pushes and it's 10% or less of your stack, you should call wih any two".

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not the rule. The rule is actually the 10 to 1 rule. Harrington says that if you have a 10 to 1 chiplead over somebody, you should PUT THEM IN with any two, not call a push from them with any two. It only applies if you are the one doing the betting. He says that the combined chance of winning and the person folding makes the move profitable.

[Sherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Harrington mentions "the 10% rule" - when a shortstack pushes and it's 10% or less of your stack, you should call wih any two". Here you do the SAME THING but slightly in reverse - you bring action TO shorty in BB with just about any two. Also gives you some FE in the process, too.

I likes...

[/ QUOTE ]

I havent really read the HOH books, but is there any logic/reasoning behind this? It seems really ridiculously dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh...close but wrong. p. 287 of HOHII. Only if I have at least 10x the chips of a player, will I put him A/I w/Any Two. Not call his A/I with any two. He is counting on a few folds in some situations.

Shermn

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]
It appears, looking at results, that nath has this intuition, and he has attempted to justify this with some math. Whether or not it worked in this specific 47 UTG example, think about the big picture.

[/ QUOTE ] you must ALWAYS be able to justify your plays with math. ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS. No exceptions. Either the play is plus cEV, or plus future cEV, or plus $EV.

Nath is trying to get away from his specific example, but he can't, because his specific example fits perfectly with his theory (a crazy play that no one else would make). Nath made this play, he thought it was a good play, he was wrong. His theory led him astray. His theory is minus EV.

If this play is not a good example, then give us a play that is a good example.

[nath]

Also it only applies at the final table.
And he will call with a ridiculous range if he has a 10:1 CL over the pusher. See his hand from the 1995 WSOP FT where he calls Dastmalchi's all in with J3o.

[mornelth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Harrington mentions "the 10% rule" - when a shortstack pushes and it's 10% or less of your stack, you should call wih any two".

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not the rule. The rule is actually the 10 to 1 rule. Harrington says that if you have a 10 to 1 chiplead over somebody, you should PUT THEM IN with any two, not call a push from them with any two. It only applies if you are the one doing the betting. He says that the combined chance of winning and the person folding makes the move profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for reminding... Been a while since I read Vol II. In that case - this is a STRAIGHT-UP application with adjustment for possibility of other stacks coming in to play. I still like it.

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
if the math don't work, the theory don't work.

[/ QUOTE ]
What math? You said you did some but you didn't actually show it or give ranges or anything. What makes your assumptions more valid than mine, especially when you didn't show the work behind them, and you weren't at the table?

[ QUOTE ]
And when he does win, typically he is winning 5k. When he loses, he is typically losing 30k.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's INCLUDED in my EV calculations. You're just using it to make the move sound worse.

[ QUOTE ]
No matter what his table image is, or who he's playing, or whatever. this hand is a piece of [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, what the [censored] do I know, anyway.

[sdplayerb]

it is a definite call.
but i don't raise here because a bb that is so shortstacked is going to be much looser than a medium stack.
which is what happened here. somebody with a decent stack would muck 33 here.

if the bb has a decent stack, i can making that raise pf.

[flyingmoose]

Everyone is way overestimating the ability of Nath's opposition to properly adjust their ranges to aggression. You're all saying "If you constantly raise my big blind, then I'll play with you with a very wide range." Well, I'm sure he would recognize who at the table is willing to stand up to him and not go after those players with 7-high. So if it were your blind, he wouldn't be raising it.

Another thing nobody has mentioned is that the three shortstacks are on his left. If he doubles them up, then the fact that they have enough chips to resteal will actually work against them, because Nath wil be the one in a position to resteal -- not them.

[jafeather]

I'm getting off on this thread...and it kind of proves Nath's original point.

Nath's whole point in this thread (and in most of his PF "move hard" threads) is finding +EV in situations that most automatically disregard as -EV or, at best, break-even.

The fact that this thread has sparked huge debate, many agreeing and many more disagreeing, to his line is exactly the point.

Building a huge chip stack doesn't come easy, or by avoiding risks. When you have an enormous stack not only do you have to call down the short stack with hands like 74s once in a while, but you also have to put SS in a position where he has to call you when you hold 74s.

You cannot weigh this play on this move alone. The fact that Nath is willing to raise with many hands, call with many hands, call against reraises and re-reraise many reraises is what adds the twist here.

Sure, this play may be -EV if you figure the math in detail. Frankly, though, you CANNOT EVER figure the math in detail while in actual play. Against a horrificly LAGgy player like Nath you not only CANNOT figure the math in detail, but you also have a near impossible task measuring it even loosely. This is where Nath's frightening strategy comes into play. You have no idea where he raises. You have no idea where he calls. You can't re-raise him, because he's definitely calling. You can't push, because he will call. You have no idea where you stand when he pushes, because it could be with anything. His style play is the ultimate smokescreen.

Sure...this particular play may be-EV, and may be very -EV. If that's what you're seeing, you're missing the point. The point is he'll rarely make this move WAY -EV. When you're playing in such a way that your opponent never knows what you hold, you induce mistakes....even when you have a weak holding. That turns break-even or slightly -EV situations like the 74s example into HUGE +EV long-runs, based on the mistakes you create alone.

I don't fully understand the concepts of Nath's play either. But he's extraordinarily successful with it. If it's a good run, it's a hell of a long one. Try to look at his posts as a glimpse into a uniquely successful player's mind, instead of tearing it down like a common one.