The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table) - Page 7

jafeather · #1 07-06-2006, 01:23 AM

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.

adanthar · #2 07-06-2006, 01:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes that's great, except the reasonable raising range mentioned later on in this thread shows it's -EV based on that, too.

tubasteve · #3 07-06-2006, 04:05 AM

Ignoring all the crazy math, as the big stack (and assuming he plays well postflop) I think Nath can do whatever the [censored] he wants UTG with whatever cards he wants if he thinks he has the edge over the table.

If he has to call a shortstacks all-in with 47s, then whatever, chalk that one up to shania/metagame. Next time he raises utg with AA, the bb can push 33 into him again and its whiz-bang-ship-holla-pwned.

If he gets reraised, he's said repeatedly he has no problem gambling (or maybe he can fold) and he can still chalk it up to shania/metagame/whizbang.

No matter what happens in the hand, if Nath is observant he can use the outcome to his advantage since he's not going to put any kind of significant part of his stack in danger, while he can still stop those blinds from helping someone else. Win, lose, or draw, as the uber-huge stack and possibly the best player at some of these tables he can use the hand to set up future plays, image, and possibly gain some chips in the process.

It just seems that with a ton of chips, the cards become less important than psychological dominance over the table, which can be accomplished by raised whatever the [censored] he wants UTG then saying "hey I'm [censored] crazy don't mess around or I'll pwn you with random [censored]".

apefish · #4 07-06-2006, 04:50 AM

I had been trying to figure out how to say this and then it crystallized when I read MLGs thread about taking the worst of it.
Shaniac replies there that one of the intangible aspects of tournament play is finding "good" situations to take the worst of it.
From watching Nath thru some tourneys I have been repeatedly reminded of how often he is getting in "better" bad situations than many players I see. the 74s hand is one example.
He ends up in a coin flip with the shortest stack on the table which is the best possible "bad" situation he can find here.
On the surface it is a pretty unremarkable posting of a hand
where arguably Nath's play is -EV. (slightly maybe)
However if there is this concept- let's call it N where N= the ability of Nath to get what he wants (chips) in a tournament, this play is quite possibly a great example of the how and why of it. Probe enough to find the "bad" spots that arent so bad and they likely appear. Lather, rinse, repeat.
First- it doesnt take running incredibly hot in these "bad" but not extremely so situations for them to contribute to incredibly deep tournament finishes- in any given tournament running better than normal in close situations can have a huge impact.
The flip side is- if they are for rather manageable/small portions of your stack you have to run bad for them to noticeably hurt you.
Second- the totality of the plays he makes has some upside that you can't just measure in terms of slightly -EV here and there.
If he gets in more "good" bad situations than others, I think it becomes a bit more clear why he can also get more "good" good situations than many players. Show down 47 suited and I cant imagine how many times he gets in with AQ for a good portion against a worse ace etc. I would think he is much more likely to get better good situations than he is a truly bad ones when playing well.
Finding spots like this one seem to be a key part of the arsenal.

#5 07-06-2006, 08:22 AM

Nath -

It appears you may have gotten your valuable discussion...

jcm4ccc · #6 07-06-2006, 10:08 AM

I've summarized the arguments for this play below:

Barry Bonds is a great player/Barry Bonds struck out/Therefore striking out is a great play
<ul type="square">[*]It's a big reason why I go so deep and go to multiple wins when I'm running well[*]I just assumed that because moves like these worked and I won tournaments that they must be profitable[*]I win more when I make more wild plays and do more things that most people think are donkey moves[*]At what point do people stop assuming I just run well and start considering that maybe I understand something about tournaments that most people don't[*]I was "running well" when I was at 480% ROI over a 3 month period last fall[*]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[/list]E=mc2
<ul type="square">[*]a play that looks like it should be an obvious loser really isn't, in the right set of circumstances, and tournaments are often more about finding and exploiting these situations than playing good poker[*]I'm trying to give back a little of my thought processes, even when I don't always understand them[*]I don't think about tournaments like most people do. I'm trying my best to articulate ideas that aren't very common or easy to articulate[*]It might be that there's some bit of conventional MTT wisdom that may be turned on its head[*]it may be that people struggle to understand things that go against conventional wisdom and aren't getting what I say or how to apply it[*]ometimes working it backwards shows you what you wouldn't see working it forward. Like an inventor or programmer working an existing product from completion to beginning in order to improve it. Reverse engineering isn't an out-of-the-ordinary concept in poker, but I think improves the understanding of this particular thought process[*]if there is this concept- let's call it N where N= the ability of Nath to get what he wants (chips) in a tournament, this play is quite possibly a great example of the how and why of it. Probe enough to find the "bad" spots that arent so bad and they likely appear[/list] betgo's Red Zone Theory, Reversed
<ul type="square">[*]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[/list]She’s a maniac, maniac
<ul type="square">[*]if I'm playing like a lunatic it's probably because the table is playing weak[*]my aggression and unpredictability both picks up enough chips to keep me ahead of the game and builds monster pots when I have a big hand[*]My image is usually that of a complete lunatic who is not only raising all sorts of random garbage but also calling with it. And who wants to take a hand that might be marginally +cEV against a psycho who's definitely calling and might have you crushed?[*]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[*]If he has to call a shortstacks all-in with 47s, then whatever, chalk that one up to shania/metagame. Next time he raises utg with AA, the bb can push 33 into him again and its whiz-bang-ship-holla-pwned[/list]F Poker Math
<ul type="square">[*]I should just stick to being a mystical philosopher-sage of tournament poker and let others do the math[*]If someone else wants to do the math to prove me wrong, fine. Math isn't my strongest suit.[*]Whether or not you can prove the math is wrong in this case, I'm pretty sure I'm still doing something right.[*]i like this hand because it shows an extreme example. so extreme, its probably not even a good move, but who cares, the math needs to include the image/read which is too subjective to include[*]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[*]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[*]No one has the poker skill and mathematical capacity to factor all the variables in accurately enough that a solution to any poker problem using math could possibly be complete. You'd have to quantify things that are difficult or impossible to quantify[/list]F Chips
<ul type="square">[*]I have the chips to do it, and losing those chips doesn't affect my position at the table[*]Those chips are easy to reacquire as I've been terrorizing the table[*]occasionally you'll want to err on the side of aggression, even when it might costs you chips in the short run[*]the crucial point is that these are the so called "excess chips" some are willing to gamble with (i.e., make potentially -cEV moves to create +$EV situations)[*]this particular play may be-EV, and may be very -EV. If that's what you're seeing, you're missing the point[*]the totality of the plays he makes has some upside that you can't just measure in terms of slightly -EV here and there[*]so really it only cost you the T9800 in chips when you called the AI. You will make far more than 9800 when you do catch something PF against the bigger stacks[*]It just seems that with a ton of chips, the cards become less important than psychological dominance over the table[/list]

mlagoo · #7 07-06-2006, 10:29 AM

yowza

#8 07-06-2006, 10:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
yowza

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, I see a hint of my initial argument about correlation and causation in there.

Sweet.

nath · #9 07-06-2006, 11:21 AM

I'm pretty busy today, which is a shame because the discussion is getting so good. One quick point I wanted to hit:

[ QUOTE ]
Barry Bonds is a great player/Barry Bonds struck out/Therefore striking out is a great play

[/ QUOTE ]

Is better expressed as

Barry Bonds is a great player / Barry Bonds swings for the fences repeatedly / Therefore swinging for the fences is a great play, because there are lots of ways to make an out, and baseball players make outs all the time, but only one way has the possibility to net you a home run

NHFunkii · #10 07-06-2006, 11:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty busy today, which is a shame because the discussion is getting so good. One quick point I wanted to hit:

[ QUOTE ]
Barry Bonds is a great player/Barry Bonds struck out/Therefore striking out is a great play

[/ QUOTE ]

Is better expressed as

Barry Bonds is a great player / Barry Bonds swings for the fences repeatedly / Therefore swinging for the fences is a great play, because there are lots of ways to make an out, and baseball players make outs all the time, but only one way has the possibility to net you a home run

[/ QUOTE ]

that's basically the problem with your thinking here. It does not logically follow that swinging for the fences is a good play. It also does not logically follow that because you've been having success, making insane batshit raises is a good play.