Isolating with the Gigabet Dilemma (long)

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are vastly overrating how much you can control who has what kind of stack and where they are on the table (even moreso online, where players are constantly moved).

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP is specifically about FT, so players are not going to be moved anymore. Clearly there is a big advantage in having a better seat with regard to stack sizes and so, although applying advanced techniques would only make sense when your opponents don't simply suck. But at most normal online FTs you'll very often be sitting with few bad players around you (in any case, they are not WC, like the ones Giga mentions), so I don't see the value in making some -EV moves against them in order to manipulate the order of stacks at the table. But when players are great the picture is different.

[Spee]

[ QUOTE ]
First, let me remind you that the best possible stack order would be with you having the largest stack, with the second largest stack on your immediate right. And each subsequent stack placed on his right, in descending order until the shortest stack is in your immediate left. Like this:

Seat 1 Me: (t10,000)
Seat 2. (t2,000)
Seat 3. (t3,000)......
.
.
Seat 9. (t9,000)

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for taking the time to write this essay. This is an awesome OP that will take more than today to digest.

While I can understand your rationale for the ideal desired starting chip position, and am in no position to challenge your level of expertise, I had always envisioned the ideal position as being different.

As chip leader starting the FT, the last thing in the world I want is a tussle with 2nd or 3rd right away at least until 3 or 4 have busted out, unless I am very sure to make a huge score. Conversely, it doesn't necessarily hurt me too much if 2nd, 3rd or 4th do get into a tussle unless their stacks are very close to mine and one would open a big lead by busting the other.

Based upon that, I would think that as chip leader in Seat 1, the best position for #2 is directly opposite me in Seat 5 or 6 with #3 and #4 to his immediate left and immediate right. This means that all 3 of my closest competitors have to be careful in choosing when to steal and bluff. This also puts all the smaller stacks to my right and left. This seems to offer the best of both worlds as far as pushing, folding or calling goes.

Is that totally whacked out thinking?

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you are vastly overrating how much you can control who has what kind of stack and where they are on the table (even moreso online, where players are constantly moved).

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP is specifically about FT, so players are not going to be moved anymore. Clearly there is a big advantage in having a better seat with regard to stack sizes and so, although applying advanced techniques would only make sense when your opponents don't simply suck. But at most normal online FTs you'll very often be sitting with few bad players around you (in any case, they are not WC, like the ones Giga mentions), so I don't see the value in making some -EV moves against them in order to manipulate the order of stacks at the table. But when players are great the picture is different.

[/ QUOTE ]

By the time you make the final table in a MTT stack sizes are way beyond Gigabets control and you have less time to make up for -EV gambles.

It makes even less sense if he is talking about final tables.

In a tournament with really deep stacks it might be worth thinking about.

[Gigabet]

[ QUOTE ]
Based upon that, I would think that as chip leader in Seat 1, the best position for #2 is directly opposite me in Seat 5 or 6 with #3 and #4 to his immediate left and immediate right.

[/ QUOTE ]

This setup only guarantees that you will probably make it in the top 5 with no risk. What will happen here is the other stacks are going to be feasting on those small stacks directly accross from you, and they will absorb them. Or, if they aren't aggressive enough, because they just never get a holding that is good enough to raise through 3 or 4 short stacks(cause it is much more likely to get called, being that there are three shorties grouped together, and all of them need to double up)then the short stacks will be raising in the direction of the second largest stack, which if he takes a shot at them, which there is no reason he shouldn't, with just about any two cards, you will not be the big stack anymore.

The premise behind the shortest stacks being to your immediate left is that your presence protects them from anyone stealing from them, except for you. You say that you want to make certain that a few players get knocked out, before you worry about winning(or at least you implied that). If you start with this set up, in a perfect world, with no cards being random, the busts would look like this.

Seat 3 busts seat 2......seat 4 busts seat 3....seat 5 busts seat 4....seat 6 busts seat 5 and on and on.

because each stack has the ability to only put pressure on a stack that actually needs the chips, that stack is then, the most likely to bust the shortest stack. With you there to protect the small stacks from the other larger stacks on your right, you allow the shortest stack enough time to steal against the next shortes stack to the point where the next shortest stack, is either going to have to call with something marginal, or start stealing from the stack directly in front of it, and it continues like that, until it gets to a point where someone is eventually forced to steal from you, the big stack, but....since you are the only one that cannot go broke, and can bust everyone, the only stacks that should have no real fear raising you, are stacks #2 and #3, the two furthest away from you, when you have a blind.

[Gigabet]

[ QUOTE ]
By the time you make the final table in a MTT stack sizes are way beyond Gigabets control and you have less time to make up for -EV gambles.

It makes even less sense if he is talking about final tables.

In a tournament with really deep stacks it might be worth thinking about

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think that I wrote this post because I was bored? What is the relevance behind your post, I spend 3 hours writing a detailed post with reasoning behind every action, that follows a pattern of very identifiable logic, and you refute it in 41 one words.

Do you have some kind of reasoning to back up your refutation? HH maybe that can detail what it is that makes the stacks out of control? Or maybe it is your personal experience.....you have been to enough final tables where you are fairly certain that this concept doesn't work, because every single time that you attempted to put this concept to work you weren't able to?

One trick to changing the order of drastically inflated stacks relative to yours is to call utg raises. It works, but it is risky, you probably did that enough times where you know that doesn't work as well.

[gergery]

Great post.

I think of your main point as being,
“Create situations where the stacks that worry you have a hard time getting more chips, even if it costs you some chips”

The key question I’d have is, ‘how do you figure out whether you are paying too much to create these situations”?

I realize its not so easy to answer that question simply, but that seems to be the crux of whether your stratgegy will be successful or not.

-g

[Gigabet]

[ QUOTE ]
The key question I’d have is, ‘how do you figure out whether you are paying too much to create these situations”?


[/ QUOTE ]

you will know, trust me. if you play for any amount of time at all, you will easily be able recognize when you need to stop dusting your chips off, and start playing as if they mean something.

You have to realize that the example I created showed the very best situation possible; IMO. What this situation can do is show you #1. If you see a shortstack push, you will be able to analyze whether it is worth the risk to isolate the stack, based on how much your position improves, and sometimes, your position declines, because a short stack moves. This ten handed example is an example of something that I strive for, and when i am able successfully create the situation, it is usually 4 or 5 handed. I am pretty certain that I have never intentionally moved enough chips around to change the position of several stacks to get an optimal position in a 9 or 10 handed field.

Some of the tactics required take a long time to complete, once set into motion. The idea is to have a specific plan that you are following, if you start 10 handed play, with specific goals in mind, by the time you get to 5 handed play, you may have accomplished enough to set up a perfect 4 handed game, but not 5 handed, cause the shortest stack is in the wrong place.

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]

This whole post was written because Irieguy asked exactly the right question on a day where I have nothing to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you in Tunica still? I'm doing nothing today too and would like to meet you/talk to you. PM me or something, or find me at the Grand, or I'll PM you my number and hope your box isn't full.

[Gigabet]

I am playing the ME tomorrow at the Grand, so I will be here for awhile yet.

[Scary_Tiger]

Thank you very much for contributing so much to these forums Giga. Now I just need to figure out how to get to the final table with chips.