Isolating with the Gigabet Dilemma (long)

[MLG]

Freudian, he did define a risky play already. Specifically he is talking about gambles that he takes that other top players would not. Pretty much any winning player makes this call. Its really only slightly close. This isnt a thread which should be geared to talking about basic pot odds, if you feel you need to continue arguing this fairly basic point, take it to another thread.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
Freudian, he did define a risky play already. Specifically he is talking about gambles that he takes that other top players would not. Pretty much any winning player makes this call. Its really only slightly close. This isnt a thread which should be geared to talking about basic pot odds, if you feel you need to continue arguing this fairly basic point, take it to another thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and I am asking him to give an example of a risky play according to him. With him not giving examples of what neighborhood he is talking about it is hard knowing what he means.

I don't think every other pro would play that QJ hand like Gigabet did, but have a higher focus on stack preservation. The way it is talked about here almost make it seem like a trap play (and if that was the purpose, I think there would be better spots to catch Renee restealing).

[Gigabet]

[ QUOTE ]
No definition of risky play?


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, this is quite funny, now rather than creating a position that looks similar to mine, and then saying that it is bad....ie, raising to 500k with 87....so therefore my position is also bad; you are asking me to create a new position, so you can similie it to my QJ hand and then prove how the two have a platonic relationship. Eventually maybe saying something of the effect of....your definition of Risk implies that not raising with QJ is safe, so obviously, raising with it is risky, trying to get me to prove it with my own words using your proof that the two actions are platonic. close?

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No definition of risky play?


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, this is quite funny, now rather than creating a position that looks similar to mine, and then saying that it is bad....ie, raising to 500k with 87....so therefore my position is also bad; you are asking me to create a new position, so you can similie it to my QJ hand and then prove how the two have a platonic relationship. Eventually maybe saying something of the effect of....your definition of Risk implies that not raising with QJ is safe, so obviously, raising with it is risky, trying to get me to prove it with my own words using your proof that the two actions are platonic. close?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not even close.

Just trying to figure out what kind of risks you are willing to take to arrange the final table after your taste. But it seems I should give up since it is obvious you rather talk about me than the issue.

[MLG]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think every other pro would play that QJ hand like Gigabet did, but have a higher focus on stack preservation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, quite frankly you are wrong. I don't think we can say it any more clearly than that. Once he has put in the raise, then he has to call the push. Its as automatic as it gets.

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
You open raise with the intention of calling off over half of your stack as a dog 25% of the time (or even more often depending on your read on BB if he resteals). If this isn't a risky strategy to you what is?

I think you need to define what you mean with risky play. I think it is quite possible that there is no realistic situation that fits your criteria.

If you had open raised to 500k with 87s you also would have had the pot odds to call his push. Would that also not have been a risky play?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow Freudian. It's getting painful. I hope for your benefit you can take some time away from this and come back at a later date to see this conversation with a fresh eye.

[Edizon]

Hey

Gigabet, your theory seems plausible (though perhaps tricky to actually perform), as long as there is only one player playing according to it. Hence, my quesion is of a logical character: What happens, if one or more of your opponents are using the same strategy as you are? One extreme is that all players at the table are using the strategy; if that is the case, surely the strategy can't add value to anyone using it (I realise this isn't realistic, as not everyone at the table can have big stacks, just considering this extreme for the logical purpose). The other extreme is just one player, as in your example. My question aims at the in-between. What happens if 3 bigstacks are all trying to relocate chips according to your strategy? 2? 4? My point is this: Would several "Gigabets" at the same table actually course the strategy to lose it's value? And is it reasonable to think that at some point (2,3,4 "Gigabets") the "non-Gigabets" are actually gaining from the presence of several "Gigabets", partly because the play is now obviously very lose, but mainly because none of the "Gigabets" are achieving their goals; rather than relocating the chips precisely where they want to, the "Gigabets" are now continiously moving the chips on - simply because Gigabet-A wants the chips to be somewhere else than Gigabet-B, who again doesn't agree with Gigabet-C, etc...

I hope you get my point, English no first language here

Regards, Edizon!

[Freudian]

All I am asking is that Gigabet give more specific examples of "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 thought the QJ was such an example but it is obviously a standard play that everyone makes. So I have asked him over and over again to elaborate on this. All I get is personal attacks from Gigabet.

I hope I return to this thread at a later date and see Gigabet give examples of the kind of -EV plays he makes at a final table in order to arrange the final table to his liking.

[MLG]

Freudian,

I agree, I would like to see specific examples of how to implement these situations (I asked that earlier in this thread). However, you spent like 5 posts asserting that the QJo hand was an example of that. Thats what I, and I presume Gigabet were reacting harshly to.

[FUJItheFISH]

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