Isolating with the Gigabet Dilemma (long)

[Gigabet]

DMK,

[ QUOTE ]
summary: steal from medium stacks




[/ QUOTE ]

That is just about as close to the opposite of the what I am driving at as you could get. If you were to summarize it....Resteal from the big stacks, cause you got position.

How are you stealing from the middle stacks? Did you see the order that I had prearranged the stacks? They are the furthest away from you, so there is alot more inherent risk in stealing from them, not to mention the fact that you have raise through the shortest stacks to get to the middle stacks, and at the very least, two of the short stacks are looking to double up, so you may be forced allin with them while you are trying to "steal" from the middle stacks. Thanks for the well thought out summary, though.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reasoning is by the time you end up on a final table stack sizes vary greatly and seating is random.

Sure in an hypothetical situation you could probably create a scenario that is good for exploiting stacksizes and position (in fact you did). But the picture you paint of being some sort of master of puppets of a final table is somewhat silly. Sure you can get involved in a lot of spots you shouldn't, hoping to get lucky and get the small stacks in the right spots. But if you take -EV gambles to do it there is a big chance of it backfiring and you according to your own theory end up in a disadvantageous position.

I know you are a very good player but is it possible that this theory of yours is the reason you has gone out early in the live final tables lately on seemingly very risky plays?

[Gigabet]

[ QUOTE ]
I know you are a very good player but is it possible that this theory of yours is the reason you has gone out early in the live final tables lately on seemingly very risky plays?




[/ QUOTE ]

You are goofy, you have no idea what you are talking about. Give me an example of a final table where I exited late due to a risky play?

I got third at the mirage poker showdown last april due to a very risky play. But that play was purely read based. I acquired all of those chips that I had at that time, because I was able to successfully create a fairly optimal positional advantage over the rest of the table. An example of the idea in place and working. When chad brown was on my right, I reraised his open raise 4 consecutive hands in a row. And was able to take the pot then, or postflop with very little added risk.

Another example from the previous day...remember the 63 hand I played? Using bubble aggression as a positional tool, same ideas presented here.

As far as I know, that third at the Mirage was my only bust that occured that no other knowledgeable player would have made.

[EnderW27]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has been an interesting thread and I appreciate you taking the time to fully clarify your thoughts. I'm still trying to digest everything you've written above but I had a question regarding this particular section.

Assume a standard WPT setup where there's a "final" table of 9-10 and a FINAL table (with seat redraws) when you get down to 6. Thus, any work done to shift stacks around could potentially be negated.
What strategy changes would you employ at the first final table that differ from any normal final table?

[NinjaMan]

This post has me amazed. This is incredibly deep poker thinking. I also understand the posters who aren't so quick to jump on the idea. I think they need to be a little more courteous though.

Thank you for the post.

[BPA234]

Excellent post. Thank you for taking the time to post here.

[bugman68]

I know this is a big thing to ask, but I would love to see either a full single table tourney hand history with this theory at work or a multi table hand history with this theory at work. Also, not that it matters, but I wonder what sklansky or other top pros think about your theory. Personally, I think its the best thing Ive heard in 7 years of online poker. This is like hearing something that would be in the 5th book in a series of 5 harrington books. I also think a handful of touring pros use your theory, but never put it into words or knew they were doing it. Thank you for your extremely enlightening posts.

[bugman68]

PS If hand history is out of the question, maybe you could post as to where you might be playing your next few online multi with a time. thanks

[Gigabet]

[ QUOTE ]
Assume a standard WPT setup where there's a "final" table of 9-10 and a FINAL table (with seat redraws) when you get down to 6. Thus, any work done to shift stacks around could potentially be negated.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is no redraw at 6 players