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

[NHFunkii]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
think chris ferguson, most likely the greatest math mind in all of poker and no doubt one of the best tourney players in the world. but is he the best? probably not. ask yourself why.

[/ QUOTE ] Chris Ferguson is the greatest math mind in all of poker. Chris Ferguson is probably not the greatest poker player in the world. Therefore, math is not important in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

jcm is freakin demolishing this thread



[/ QUOTE ]

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
First post in this thread seems way way overly complicated to me, and has at least a few points that I feel are mostly irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was so complicated because I was hoping to expand the discussion beyond the hand at hand and how it plays into a broader strategy. I think the points are all relevant, if not as groundbreaking as I may have originally thought.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
First post in this thread seems way way overly complicated to me, and has at least a few points that I feel are mostly irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was so complicated because I was hoping to expand the discussion beyond the hand at hand and how it plays into a broader strategy. I think the points are all relevant, if not as groundbreaking as I may have originally thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well ok, the one thing that you seem to make a big deal about, something like your opponents know you will call them if they go allin over the top of you, I think is pretty irrelevant, especially in some random $109 online tournament.

[ QUOTE ]
This is extremely doable-- and believe it or not, it's MORE doabale, not LESS, with my image, because even though people know I raise lots of junk, I raise all my good hands too, and THEY KNOW I WILL CALL THEM IF THEY RERAISE."

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean do you really think that because people see you allin with something like 74s they are going to let you run over them more? I just don't get it. Also its online and for all I know half the people aren't even paying that close attention when they aren't in the hand.

[ QUOTE ]
"This is the key point! If I opened and folded to reraises a lot, I couldn't get away with all the moves I make."

[/ QUOTE ]


Again probably irrelevant. I don't believe everyone is sitting there thinking, "wow he raises with junk, but I won't be able to push him off it", so I'll fold my marginally strong hand against this guy who seems to raise every single hand with junk, yet also makes the exact same raise with real hands and OMG what if he has a real hand this time!


I also thought that theres no reason the BB would play more than 21% of hands, as I think Strassa insisted they would earlier in the thread. I mean cmon, they are going to just randomly push with A2o to an EP raiser when less than 1/5th of their chips are in the pot? I mean you have them pushing JTo? Highly unlikely that some random $109 MTTer is playing that hand in this situation, and I think that's pretty obvious. Even though including such hands sort of hurts your case, it struck me as a bit odd. I mean this is a FT where 2 others are reasonably close to busting, they are going to play reasonably tight for the most part.

Anyway to be honest, its probably a reasonable raise, I just think you went overboard giving reasons why you should do it. Once you got into psychological/image stuff I just felt like you were grasping at straws. I definitely don't think its TERRIBLE. I would usually fold, and try to use my power in more highly advantageous situations though. I mean really, raising every hand is not going to help your image as you seem to imply, its only going to hurt it for future hands, and if this hand is +EV somehow, its going to be very thin IMO.

[Idahoholdem]

You have to be an econ major to do that math. That is SICK. But, i like the reference to one of my favorite books!

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
For all the nath lovvas out there...I watched the entire final table replay, and must say I've rarely, if ever, saw a final table that passive before. If you argue that taking one hand out of context (74s) is incorrect, it's equally incorrect to take one FT and say 'look! this works across the board 100%!'.

Also...I see nath folding a lot when played back on after raising with crap (94o, Ax etc)...

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
For all the nath lovvas out there...I watched the entire final table replay, and must say I've rarely, if ever, saw a final table that passive before. If you argue that taking one hand out of context (74s) is incorrect, it's equally incorrect to take one FT and say 'look! this works across the board 100%!'

Also...I see nath folding a lot when played back on after raising with crap (94o, Ax etc)...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the circumstances are right. If I don't have a stack to maraud the other players or the table has been fighting back at my raises frequently, when making those questionable calls has a much more severe impact on my standing and table situation, I play tighter.
If I have a medium stack and there's some bunching of stacks and possibly 1-2 big stacks and 1-2 small ones, I try to get a handle on the table dynamic before letting loose. Are they weak or strong? Tight or loose? Can I steal if I see the opportunity? Are they easy to resteal from? Savvy enough to resteal or squeeze light?

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]
For all the nath lovvas out there...I watched the entire final table replay, and must say I've rarely, if ever, saw a final table that passive before. If you argue that taking one hand out of context (74s) is incorrect, it's equally incorrect to take one FT and say 'look! this works across the board 100%!'

Also...I see nath folding a lot when played back on after raising with crap (94o, Ax etc)...

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, the circumstances are right. If I don't have a stack to maraud the other players or the table has been fighting back at my raises frequently, when making those questionable calls has a much more severe impact on my standing and table situation, I play tighter.
If I have a medium stack and there's some bunching of stacks and possibly 1-2 big stacks and 1-2 small ones, I try to get a handle on the table dynamic before letting loose. Are they weak or strong? Tight or loose? Can I steal if I see the opportunity? Are they easy to resteal from? Savvy enough to resteal or squeeze light?

[/ QUOTE ] There were 26 hands at the FT before the 74o hand. Of these 26 hands, 7 involved somebody pushing (27%). Of these 7 hands, 5 involved the most aggressive type of pushing (pf raise, somebody pushing over the pf raise).

You guys gotta give it a rest.

[SpeakEasy]

So, to recap and summarize, while at the same time avoiding messy math discussions and remain at the theory/strategy level, as requested by Nath:

1. When the table is playing tight and I am the big stack, its profitable to randomly steal with any two cards.

2. Occasionaly, when I am stealing with junk, the situation arises where its profitable to call a player's all-in raise when I have correct pot odds.

3. When I call in this situation and I do, in fact, have junk, it has an affect on my table image, so that I will get paid off when I "steal" raise with my good hands.

Sounds like a winning big-stack strategy. I think it may have been used a few times by other successful players.

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]
So, to recap and summarize, while at the same time avoiding messy math discussions and remain at the theory/strategy level, as requested by Nath

[/ QUOTE ] yes, best keep it on a theoretical level, where the play is great when you win (more chips) and the play is great when you lose (lousy table image to exploit later). It's the perfect play, as long as you avoid the messy math.

[gergery]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I think your play here is clearly EV- tho maybe not by a huge margin depending on table conditions.

You're making the wrong comparison: it isn't play this hand or fold. It's play this hand or play the next one. Since you can't profitably play every hand without your opponents changing strategies.

I'm sure you have lots of tournament success, and I'm sure its despite this play not because of it.

-g

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read the whole thread, but I think your play here is clearly EV- tho maybe not by a huge margin depending on table conditions.

You're making the wrong comparison: it isn't play this hand or fold. It's play this hand or play the next one. Since you can't profitably play every hand without your opponents changing strategies.

I'm sure you have lots of tournament success, and I'm sure its despite this play not because of it.

-g

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah I think this is a key point. You can't just raise every hand until forever. Even if this somehow is +EV (which if it is, it will be slight), every time you do this you make it harder to get respect for your future raises. I'd save my raises here for a spot where Im not first to act with 74s. You can try to be a bully while at the same time making it look somewhat realistic. Once you get looked up with 74s in EP, you are in danger of getting very little respect for the rest of the event.

The above would all be meaningless if the play on its own was somehow clear +EV, but it's extremely debatable to begin with. It's much better if you can pick spots where the BB isn't so short and the bigger stacks are in the blinds and etc etc. You basically have a fantastic situation where you will have tons of great stealing oppurtunities, and you choose to attempt to steal in perhaps the least favorable situation possible, one which could also ruin your credibility for future steals if you are caught. Your standing is so good that it isn't such a terrible play, but I really don't like it.