Isolating with the Gigabet Dilemma (long)

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
Seat 1 Me: (t10,000)

What does t mean?
Sorry for the ignorance.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Tournament" - used to distinguish tournament chips from cash chips. Sort of unnecessary when the context is defined, but standard.

[Melchiades]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
This really hit home for me, and is probably the only thing I can take into my STT game right away. Very interesting post.

I would also like an example were you made such a play at a FT, and the way you think when putting villain on 23%.

[HesseJam]

[ QUOTE ]
This was great brain food. I think it would benefit everybody to think about what might be the best way to play if we were the 1) smallest stack or 2) average (median) stack.

So at our fictional nine-handed final table we would have stacks of
1k, 2k, 3k, ..., 9k.

For both scenarios of being the 1k stack and the 5k stack:

How would you position the other stacks so that it favors you the most?

How would you position the other stacks so that it hinders you the most?

How would your strategy differ between the two?



I'll start:

For being the smallest (1k) stack:

How would you position the other stacks so that it favors you the most?

-I think my goal as a short-stack is to get higher up in the money, so I want big stacks to have position on some small stacks.

-Since its beneficial for a big stack to have small stacks on its left I would not want a big stack on my right. But does that mean I want a big stack on my left? I don’t think that would be good, because the big stack would be more likely to call my desperation steals than a medium stack (as long as I had more than a few big blinds as the shortest stack).

-So my idea of the best stack positions would be me with the biggest stack across from me with the other stacks aligned so that they decrease on both sides from the big stack with the stacks alternating sides filling up the positions closest to me starting on my left (sort of like those fancy double staircases we’ve all seen in movies going up in like a curve with me being between the two at the bottom).

-So if I am in the 1 seat, I want the next smallest in the 2, then the next smallest in the 9, then the next smallest in the 3, then the next smallest in the 8, and so on until we get to the big stack that will be sitting furthest away from me.



I think something like this would facilitate the death of players before me the quickest if I have enough to survive and move up in the money.

How would you position the other stacks so that it hinders you the most?

-This one I think is probably just the exact opposite in that we can go straight-off Gigabet’s post and say that pretty much any layout having the biggest stacks to your right is the worst for us as the smallest stack and that the other chip layouts will not matter very much.


How would your strategy differ between the two?

-When the stacks favor me (although a small favor) the most I think I would just fold and hope a player(s) will bust before I do.

-When the stacks do not favor me I think I would just push any two from any position and go out with a blaze.



For being the average (5k) stack:

How would you position the other stacks so that it favors you the most?

-I think my goal as the average stack is to steal from the other average stacks, swallow the small stacks when I have a good hand, and to avoid big pots with big stacks and leaking chips to them so this, once again, immediately eliminates the biggest stacks being to my immediate right.

-Right now I am thinking that just having the same layout that favors the biggest stack and go 9k, 8k, 7k, 6k, 5k (me), 4k, 3k, 2k, 1k may actually favor me the most, but since there is only a limited amount of favor (both big stack and me cannot share) I want to think of another layout that might be better.

-Maybe something like this might work? :



-This layout keeps the average stacks closest to me, the shorter stacks to my left and the stacks I want to die away from me near the big stack (the most dangerous) that is furthest away.

How would you position the other stacks so that it hinders you the most?

-Again, the big stack being on our immediate right will be a big problem so on our right he goes.

-Having another big stack on our left, however, would also suck as we are now stuck between a rock and a hard-place and it really [censored] with our mobility to gain chips from either end.

-The rest of the stacks I will probably have cascading down (alternating) like my staircase but in the other direction like so:




How would your strategy differ between the two?

-In a favorable position I think we can revert to normal tournament strategy for the average stack and steal some blinds and stay out of big pots with the bigger stacks and wait for hands while we wait for the small stacks to bust (hopefully to us so we can increase our stack position).

-In an unfavorable position I think we are pretty much [censored] and I think I would scratch and claw my way out of that hole with any little edge I can find (or maybe even slightly negative “edge” if the big stack is willing to gamble). Is this wrong? Probably, but from the position we are in it looks like we are screwed anyways, so might as well gamble it up and try and double through a big stack if he is willing to risk squashing me.

I am not an MTTer, but I thought this might spur some good discussion, so have at it and rip it apat and reply with your own thoughts on what stack positions would be beneficial/harmful with respect to our stack size. I’d really like to get better at MTTs.

Thanks for reading,
Fuji

This was great brain food. I think it would benefit everybody to think about what might be the best way to play if we were the 1) smallest stack or 2) average (median) stack.

So at our fictional nine-handed final table we would have stacks of
1k, 2k, 3k, ..., 9k.

For both scenarios of being the 1k stack and the 5k stack:

How would you position the other stacks so that it favors you the most?

How would you position the other stacks so that it hinders you the most?

How would your strategy differ between the two?



For being the smallest (1k) stack:

How would you position the other stacks so that it favors you the most?

-I think my goal as a short-stack is to get higher up in the money, so I want big stacks to have position on some small stacks.

-Since its beneficial for a big stack to have small stacks on its left I would not want a big stack on my right. But does that mean I want a big stack on my left? I don’t think that would be good, because the big stack would be more likely to call my desperation steals than a medium stack (as long as I had more than a few big blinds as the shortest stack).

-So my idea of the best stack positions would be me with the biggest stack across from me with the other stacks aligned so that they decrease on both sides from the big stack with the stacks alternating sides filling up the positions closest to me starting on my left (sort of like those fancy double staircases we’ve all seen in movies going up in like a curve with me being between the two at the bottom).

-So if I am in the 1 seat, I want the next smallest in the 2, then the next smallest in the 9, then the next smallest in the 3, then the next smallest in the 8, and so on until we get to the big stack that will be sitting furthest away from me.



I think something like this would facilitate the death of players before me the quickest if I have enough to survive and move up in the money.

How would you position the other stacks so that it hinders you the most?

-This one I think is probably just the exact opposite in that we can go straight-off Gigabet’s post and say that pretty much any layout having the biggest stacks to your right is the worst for us as the smallest stack and that the other chip layouts will not matter very much.


How would your strategy differ between the two?

-When the stacks favor me (although a small favor) the most I think I would just fold and hope a player(s) will bust before I do.

-When the stacks do not favor me I think I would just push any two from any position and go out with a blaze.



For being the average (5k) stack:

How would you position the other stacks so that it favors you the most?

-I think my goal as the average stack is to steal from the other average stacks, swallow the small stacks when I have a good hand, and to avoid big pots with big stacks and leaking chips to them so this, once again, immediately eliminates the biggest stacks being to my immediate right.

-Right now I am thinking that just having the same layout that favors the biggest stack and go 9k, 8k, 7k, 6k, 5k (me), 4k, 3k, 2k, 1k may actually favor me the most, but since there is only a limited amount of favor (both big stack and me cannot share) I want to think of another layout that might be better.

-Maybe something like this might work? :



-This layout keeps the average stacks closest to me, the shorter stacks to my left and the stacks I want to die away from me near the big stack (the most dangerous) that is furthest away.

How would you position the other stacks so that it hinders you the most?

-Again, the big stack being on our immediate right will be a big problem so on our right he goes.

-Having another big stack on our left, however, would also suck as we are now stuck between a rock and a hard-place and it really [censored] with our mobility to gain chips from either end.

-The rest of the stacks I will probably have cascading down (alternating) like my staircase but in the other direction like so:




How would your strategy differ between the two?

-In a favorable position I think we can revert to normal tournament strategy for the average stack and steal some blinds and stay out of big pots with the bigger stacks and wait for hands while we wait for the small stacks to bust (hopefully to us so we can increase our stack position).

-In an unfavorable position I think we are pretty much [censored] and I think I would scratch and claw my way out of that hole with any little edge I can find (or maybe even slightly negative “edge” if the big stack is willing to gamble). Is this wrong? Probably, but from the position we are in it looks like we are screwed anyways, so might as well gamble it up and try and double through a big stack if he is willing to risk squashing me.

I am not an MTTer, but I thought this might spur some good discussion, so have at it and rip it apart, I’d really like to get better at MTTs.

Thanks for reading,
Fuji

[/ QUOTE ]

Instead of arguing, people should take the time and read the posts that try to contribute to the cause. Lots of efforts go into posts like these.

However, Fuji, when people arrive at your post they are already exhausted. Given the not really trivial subject matter the pure length and multitude of scenarios in your post is quite intimidating and I guess it will take some time before you get a response. I'll read it but give me a day or two.

[bilbo-san]

[ QUOTE ]
1. I don't know what you mean with #1. as it relates to my conundrem.

2. I think 2 is even more scary than originaly given credit for.

3. I don't know what that has to do with my conundrem.

I don't think you get what I was saying at all. Gigabet called the push. I was saying that he should fold to the push.

Also, I am angry that you left off my BPA234 Conundrem title. For clarity, I should retitle it to the BETGO conundrem. I would apprecitate that you use that if you are going to respond further.\

Thanks!

[/ QUOTE ]

1) is important because when Villain calls, we get to see a flop. If we get a KT9 flop, we just might be able to play the hand profitably, no?

2) is not scary at all. Sometimes it is profitable to call when you are behind. Did you read my sentence about KK vs. AA?

3) is relevant because you are pretending that SB's (potential) actions in the example given are the only relevant ones.

Lastly this:

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you get what I was saying at all. Gigabet called the push. I was saying that he should fold to the push.

[/ QUOTE ]

is false. I'm perfectly aware that that is what you are saying. And I'm saying that it is absurd. Gigabet is being given the right price to call even though he knows he is behind. If you fold in situations like this, you are leaving money on the table.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]


Instead of arguing, people should take the time and read the posts that try to contribute to the cause. Lots of efforts go into posts like these.

However, Fuji, when people arrive at your post they are already exhausted. Given the not really trivial subject matter the pure length and multitude of scenarios in your post is quite intimidating and I guess it will take some time before you get a response. I'll read it but give me a day or two.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just wanted to second this. Fuji's post is on my "print, read, and file" list, which unfortunately doesn't necessarily mean I'll ever post a response to it, given that a meaningful response would require a great deal of effort and time constraints being what they are.

Frankly, I may not even be capable of a meaningful, contributory response (this also applies to the Gigabet threads in general and some other great threads), and my standard procedure in that situation is to keep my mouth shut until I have something original to add. Since others do the same, good posts and threads may seem underappreciated. They aren't.

[suzzer99]

[ QUOTE ]
When people tell me that I am just flat out wrong about the Gigabet Dilemma(intentionally taking -cev situations with the idea that if the gamble works, the +$ev gained later in the tournament from the power of the big stack, will outweigh the long term net loss of chips) being a reality inside the game of poker. This situation described above is what makes me certain that tournaments that use a freezeout structure fall outside of alot of the rules that Sklansky set forth in TOP. I have created and maintained this situation often enough to know that it enhances your chance to win the event outright by such a margin, that arguing that it cannot make up for several bad calls that were made earlier in the tournament, with the intention of eventually getting to this model, is completely ludicrous.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW (nothing) - my gut instinct tells me this is correct. In the hands of a good player, more chips beget more chips beget more chips etc. Like a rolling snowball. It's not a linear progression, it's geometric. Therefore -cEV risks to get into that bigstack position and get the ball rolling seem imminently logical. Now how much -cEV is worth it, when, for what gain, that's the question.

[DCJ311]

The important gist of Gigabet's post is simply taking advantage of stack sizes relative to your stack size and position at the table.

I have no disputes that you would like small(ish) stacks on your left, as your allins against them will be 'no brainers'. You won't have to worry about the possibility of a re-steal where they take advantage of their position. Simple.

And obviously, you want bigger stacks on your right, since they don't have allin equity against you, while you have re-steal/position equity on them.

The basic bullet point is: Eliminate short stacks that are attacking your stack, or are feeding the certain medium or short stacks stacks on your right that are a threat to you.

I have no dispute with this logic.

However, I think it's absurd to put your stack in constant -cEV jeopardy to set this situation up, since the conductor has little power over what the orchestra members do, so to speak. Once the situation is set up, you will be lucky if this type of format will retain itself for more than a round of hands.

If one is FORTUNATE enough to walk into this type of situation Gigabet has tried to set up, it should be extremely profitable. Whether or not it can be set up without taking enormous -EV risks and also be expected to sustain itself for a long enough interval for the big stack to profit from is something I am highly skeptical of.

[tagteam]

[ QUOTE ]
I just look for the spots where they aren't as far ahead as they think they are, and use those to get "blocks" of chips, or, more frequently lose handfuls of chips to them that won't hurt my place in the tournament as it currently is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Giga, thanks for taking the time to post this and don't pay attention to the idiots.

This is really a 901 level post and will be impossible for a those who only think at a 101 level to understand. There is a lot more strategy under the surface than is evident by what is presented here.

I understand the concept of this where you are esentially controlling the flow of chips to you in an orderly fashion. How to do this in practice will need more thought.

I don't understand the quote above and would appreciate some more clarification. I think it is key to putting this into practice.

This is something that I think can be practiced in multi-table sng's with 27 or 45 players. It is something that will take some time to master and concepts can only be mastered through practice.

I won one of these sng's last night by atacking the small stacks and medium stacks, but this (ordering the stacks at my table) will be fun to try to see if I can accomplish. It will truly show who is in control of the table.

[Gotmilk]

[ QUOTE ]
The basic bullet point is: Eliminate short stacks that are attacking your stack, or are feeding the certain medium or short stacks stacks on your right that are a threat to you.

I have no dispute with this logic.

However, I think it's absurd to put your stack in constant -cEV jeopardy to set this situation up, since the conductor has little power over what the orchestra members do, so to speak. Once the situation is set up, you will be lucky if this type of format will retain itself for more than a round of hands.

If one is FORTUNATE enough to walk into this type of situation Gigabet has tried to set up, it should be extremely profitable. Whether or not it can be set up without taking enormous -EV risks and also be expected to sustain itself for a long enough interval for the big stack to profit from is something I am highly skeptical of.


[/ QUOTE ]

spot on my man. btw, a lot of the "-cev" plays might not be quite as "-cev" as people give them credit for, a lot of them are just good poker (and many are just bad poker as well).

[bearly]

the whole wide world? what's your name in the hendon mob data-base?...............b