|
|
#1
01-23-2006, 02:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Isolating with the Gigabet Dilemma (long)
Irieguy had recently posted a question as to whether or not certain isolation plays(on short stack allin bets) that he frequently makes on final tables were the most optimal way to play in those situations. This post is really a continuation of the Choose Life post, but it directly solves Irieguy's confusion as to when it is correct to isolate an allin short stack.
This isolation play that he is referring to has its place, and oftentimes, if you are at a table where it is advantageous to isolate a short stack, it is usually a situation in which isolating the short stacks will be your whole theme for that table. I'll start from the beginning. Not to long ago I wrote a post referring to a certain order of stacks relative to yours, that I feel, greatly improves your chances of winning the tournament. The question becomes, how can you be certain that placing the stacks in specific places will improve your chances of winning. 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) Ok, we all know that there is alot of variance in poker, it almost seems like a crapshoot at the end, when the blinds get to very high levels. It is obvious that the more circumstances you can control, the less luck becomes a factor. One thing that you cannot control is what cards you are dealt, and what cards come out on the flop turn and river. Because we cannot control that, we try to avoid all in situations for as long as possible. And when we do have to play for all of our chips, we try and get them all in on the flop, when we have more information about the most likely outcome. Now we can deduce that if we could somehow avoid putting all of our chips in preflop(where we have 2/7's of the information), and get them in postflop instead(where we have 5/7's of the information), it would give us alot more control over our chances of winning. Ideally, you would like to have one all in confrontation, and that would be when you are HU with the only other survivor of the tournament. By engineering this order of stack sizes, you can essentially eliminate any need for taking allin confrontations. Using the model shown above, think about how the different sized stacks are going to start playing as the blinds increase. Obviously, the shortest stacks are going to be desperate to steal, so the blinds won't cripple them. So the shortest stacks start pushing allin. When the short stacks start becoming desperate, the most likely time they are going to push allin is while they are in late position, which means they are stealing from stacks bigger than they are, but still stealing from stacks that need the chips. So what happens? Marginal hands eventually call the push and someone busts or one gets crippled and the other one doubles. One less showdown for you if someone busts, and slightly easier blinds for you to steal when someone doubles. Another factor with this specific model of stacks, is your own blind. It will rarely be stolen by one of those short stacks who are forced to push to survive. Those stacks want to have the greatest chance of surviving, so they aren't going to be open pushing from early position because they do not want to run into a big hand. Your blinds will still be stolen by the larger stacks who are in late position on your blind, but you can defend against those other stacks. Another benefit of the players on your left being in survival mode, is that it becomes much easier for you to steal from them. They cannot resteal your late position raises without committing their whole stack, and they probably think(as they should) that you will call their resteal all in with anything you raised with, because your standard raise commits you to their stack. So, all in all, when I said that you don't have to do anything to win when the stacks are set up that well for you, this is the actual why of it. The survivalists are stealing from the players who are on the edge of being a survivalist. You and the other largest stack are stealing from the survivalists. So, basically, until someone calls an all in bet, the survivalists are taking from the players near that point, and are giving me and one other stack those chips(which is why I said I think the best spot for the second largest stack is really two to my right, so he isn't getting any of the survivalists chips). Now, back to Irieguys question, if the stacks were setup in this fashion, there is very little chance that he will even have an opportunity to isolate a short stack, makes a paradoxical kind of sense. By being positioned in the best situation imaginable, you have to depend on the other players to knock the short stacks out, which means that you are playing in such a way that is counterproductive to what most players think is the standard way to play in situations like that; ie, keep short stacks around until you can take enough chips from the larger stacks so they will not be a threat to you. You still do that, but it is a fine balance of keeping the shortest stack healthy enough where he isn't pushing every hand, but short enough(so it is apparent that they could bust at any moment) that you still have that threat over the stacks that are close(in size) to you. Ok, now, if the stacks are not situated in this extremely favorable fashion, how do you play, and what happens if it is just obvious that you will not be able to orchestrate that situation, for instance, the 3 stacks closest to your stack size are on your immediate left, instead of right. The isolation play Irieguy is referring to is pretty much your only real opportunity to gain equity over the average. Now, if it appears that you may be able to get the stacks closest to the optimal positions, and a small stack shoves, look at where that small stack is positioned, relative to all of the other stacks, would your long term position be hurt if he doubled or would it hurt your stack if he doubled. If either of those are yes, make sure that you have alot of added equity before you make the decision to isolate him. If that short stack busted, would that greatly improve your chances of getting to that optimal situation, if that answer is yes, isolate that stack with any two cards from any position. Alot of times, there will be two middle stacks to your left, with a short stack on their left. Now those two stacks are feeding off of that short stack, and the short stack is feeding off of the bigger stacks, who are right where they should be, on your right. That is the type of short stack that you can make a very risky isolation play against. If you bust that player, those two middle stacks on your left will quickly become short. They usually will not want to steal from larger stacks than they themselves are, becaue they usually feel like they are too deep to risk going broke at that time. So they have to start stealing from each other, with me continuing to take from that direction, they are essentially taking from one, then giving those chips to me. In situations where there are a couple big stacks on your left and a couple short stacks on your right, the best way to play is just isolate the two shorties whenever you have anything reasonable, and they are pushing on the blinds of one of the larger stacks on your left. That accomplishes two things, it starves the two larger stacks and it keeps those larger stacks from getting even bigger by busting the allin short stacks. If you happen to double a short stack that is positioned on your right while making an isolation play, it won't matter, by doubling him, you have slightly improved your position. Once that stack doubles, it probably won't be a short stack, so you have essentially taken a short stack off of your right side. 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. I know how to play a TAG style as well as anyone in the world, and I have played that style often enough to know that accumulating small edges over a long period of time is not how you get into the situation shown above. Because most of the players that I am in games with, are very advanced, or even WC, it is very difficult to get alot of chips from them, playing a TAG style. These players just don't put alot of chips in, unless they know they are ahead. 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. This whole post was written because Irieguy asked exactly the right question on a day where I have nothing to do. I hope everyone who reads this gets something out of it. I probably will not respond much in this thread after today, so if someone grasps an idea that someone else is asking about, please post a reply. Gigabet 
|
|
#2
01-23-2006, 03:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Isolating with the Gigabet Dilemma (long)
Sticky this
|
|
#3
01-23-2006, 03:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Isolating with the Gigabet Dilemma (long)
[ QUOTE ]
So, all in all, when I said that you don't have to do anything to win when the stacks are set up that well for you, this is the actual why of it. The survivalists are stealing from the players who are on the edge of being a survivalist. You and the other largest stack are stealing from the survivalists. So, basically, until someone calls an all in bet, the survivalists are taking from the players near that point, and are giving me and one other stack those chips(which is why I said I think the best spot for the second largest stack is really two to my right, so he isn't getting any of the survivalists chips). [/ QUOTE ] I felt that this paragraph was the most clear and helpful for me - as it (for me) added yet another factor in the isolation push/fold decision (i.e., the degree to which stack sizes are correctly orientated w/ the "ideal" stack model). Now, to find out if I can actually apply it [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] Thanks Giga.
|
|
#5
01-23-2006, 03:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Isolating with the Gigabet Dilemma (long)
I know how to play a TAG style as well as anyone in the world, and I have played that style often enough to know that accumulating small edges over a long period of time is not how you get into the situation shown above. Because most of the players that I am in games with, are very advanced, or even WC, it is very difficult to get alot of chips from them, playing a TAG style. These players just don't put alot of chips in, unless they know they are ahead. 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.
I have no idea what you are talking about. How does losing handfuls of chips help you advance? Are you willing to lose blocks of chips 7 out of 10 times to get a monster stack? Bruce
|
|
#7
01-23-2006, 04:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Isolating with the Gigabet Dilemma (long)
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). And taking -EV plays to arrange it that way seems even more pointless (for obvious reasons). I think you should have stuck with the "I can accumulate more chips when I am big so I will take -EV plays to get big" theory.
I do agree that when you find yourself in a favourable table position, it is definately an edge.
|
|
#8
01-23-2006, 04:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Isolating with the Gigabet Dilemma (long)
[ QUOTE ]
If that short stack busted, would that greatly improve your chances of getting to that optimal situation, if that answer is yes, isolate that stack with any two cards from any position. Alot of times, there will be two middle stacks to your left, with a short stack on their left. Now those two stacks are feeding off of that short stack, and the short stack is feeding off of the bigger stacks, who are right where they should be, on your right. That is the type of short stack that you can make a very risky isolation play against. If you bust that player, those two middle stacks on your left will quickly become short. They usually will not want to steal from larger stacks than they themselves are, becaue they usually feel like they are too deep to risk going broke at that time. So they have to start stealing from each other, with me continuing to take from that direction, they are essentially taking from one, then giving those chips to me. [/ QUOTE ] How much do you raise in order to prevent the big stacks from being involved in the hand? Do you raise a % of their stack with any two or just push all-in to isolate?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
