Isolating with the Gigabet Dilemma (long)

[mornelth]

[ QUOTE ]
Excellent post. Thank you for taking the time to post here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ditto.

From my donkeyish perspective - it wll be a VERY long time before I can start incorporating these concepts into my game, but it's definitely good to know that THERE IS a next level of strategy (meaning, beyond just "survive the blinds and grow your stack").

Thanks Gigabet.

[mornelth]

I'm a donkey - but I'll answer this. Giga will NOT isolate a short stack with marginal holdings IF THE SHORTIE'S POSITION is good (i.e. on Giga's left). However, if shorty is on Giga's immediate right - ot 1-2 off to the right - then isolating - and eliminating the shorty will "improve" relative position - then it's RRRRAISE with less than pure nuts.

right? . . .

[Lurshy]

Mornelth, in my humble opinion, yours is a very clear summary, except that the isolation can be made with way 'less than pure nuts',

I think this also fits into intuitive play that many folks make, and basic positional play. If the shortie is on your left and acting before you, he is in early position. The early position shorty likely opens with a better range of hands than the LP shorty on our right. This is because the early position shorty knows with so many people left to act, someone is more likely to wake up with a real hand (or there are more people with the chance to take a shot heads-up).

So naturally we are inclined to let shorties on our left battle with other stacks to our right - as that stage is set before the action gets to us. Similarly, we are more likely to isolate the shorty on our right, because of opportunity and lower risk (fewer people to act after us).

If you accept that because the opporunities to isolate shorties often get set-up because of position (you have more opportunity to isolate shorties to your right), the question then really becomes and I think this is the essence of the dilema - what range of hands do you isolate with? If I interpret correctly, Gigabet is making a case for isolating with a wide range of hands, if the resulting stack sizes with either outcome is ok.

It is ok to eliminate the shorty and take his chips, and it is ok to double up the shorty if you remain in the same chip-level block, and the chips move to your right.

The chips flowing to your right may move that former shorty up a block, but will also put him in a better position to take out shorties to his right (late in tourney you are happy with any elimination). It also leaves you still with positional advantage over those chips, so you have a higher likelyhood to recapture them. If you double up someone to your left, those chips are harder to get back.

- Lurshy

[gurka456]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a noob.
But still I totally get what the man is saying and the qoute above is what gave it away (for me...).
If you're willing to accept that tourny poker follows another 'law of physics' than regular (or TOP) poker, it is all very clear.
I think many in this thread has got it already, and wrote this only to show how basic this really is.
(Coz if I get it anyone can.)

[zambonidrivr]

from what i have seen, you really need to spend some money on a book. your short handed play is awful

[Alex Jacob]

OK, I'm confused. I took Freudian's point to be that maybe it would be prudent to avoid putting yourself in a situation of investing say 1/8th your stack and being forced to call off 1/2 your stack in total. Yes, of course, the call of the reraise is optimal, and ****READ THIS PART CAREFULLY**** I'm not saying that I agree that open-raising with QJ there with the intention of calling 900k more is not profitable. In fact, I think it is profitable. But, it seems like Freudian is more asking to define why maybe raising with QJ in that position with that bet size was an overall +EV action taking into account all probabilities of being reraised and stop and go'ed and etc. And why maybe opening for 500k with 87s UTG is a worse play.

I thought maybe this post could clear up the argument as it seems like both sides (Freudian, and everyone) were getting frustrated. Again, I'm not sure this is actually Freudian's question, it's possible he's just an idiot. It just seemed like no one was getting the point and kept hammering on about the call being +EV. Anyway, it would be a good exercise for most players to go through what kind of factors go into deciding when a steal will be a profitable move. This is the main thing I am thinking about all the time at big tournaments.

-alex

[Erik Blazynski]

I understand the concepts here (after creating a book of your posts and reading them on the shitter.

Blazman's dilemma - Lets say you get the table where you are big stack with (26 BB) and progressively decreasing stacks to the small stack on your left. The person 2 positions to your right raises, to 5x BB. I re-raise to 10x BB, everyone fold and the original raiser goes all-in. Well mission accomplished (not allowing a small to creep in) so I'm folding assuming that my holding is marginal. Now lets assume that this player has 22 BB, and we are no longer the big stack. Are you still running with the strategy? If the guy immediately to you right raises, we are going to have to commit a significant amount of our stack to re-raise and try to keep the smalls from doubling up. If you extrapolate this scenario there becomes a point where you become the short stack and the people to your left are able enjoy the fruits of your labor (always sit directly to the right of gigabet)

So I have 2 questions..

1. Is this strategy a core strategy for you, is it routinely driving your decisions? or is this a consideration when you are faced with a marginal decision?

2. If it's core, there has to be a point were the above scenario plays out and you have to abandon, where is that point?

Thanks
Blazman

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, I'm confused. I took Freudian's point to be that maybe it would be prudent to avoid putting yourself in a situation of investing say 1/8th your stack and being forced to call off 1/2 your stack in total. Yes, of course, the call of the reraise is optimal, and ****READ THIS PART CAREFULLY**** I'm not saying that I agree that open-raising with QJ there with the intention of calling 900k more is not profitable. In fact, I think it is profitable. But, it seems like Freudian is more asking to define why maybe raising with QJ in that position with that bet size was an overall +EV action taking into account all probabilities of being reraised and stop and go'ed and etc. And why maybe opening for 500k with 87s UTG is a worse play.

I thought maybe this post could clear up the argument as it seems like both sides (Freudian, and everyone) were getting frustrated. Again, I'm not sure this is actually Freudian's question, it's possible he's just an idiot. It just seemed like no one was getting the point and kept hammering on about the call being +EV. Anyway, it would be a good exercise for most players to go through what kind of factors go into deciding when a steal will be a profitable move. This is the main thing I am thinking about all the time at big tournaments.

-alex

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you understood me. Since Gigabets postflop action is decided preflop (assuming Renee only will push/fold, which seems reasonable given Gigabets read on him (which by the way I did not know before posting the hand of course, nor do I know it is correct since Renee knows that Gigabet knows etc ad nauseum)) the 300k preflop is an important factor when evaluating the hand.

It is easier to evaluate the play if one thinks of it as a Gigabet push into Renee that will call with top 23% of hands (this is ignoring BB of course) because that is basically what it is.

Anyway, the whole QJ thing is not all that important. It was just a way to get Gigabet to be more precise on what he means when he says he has used risky -EV plays successfully. So the issue should be what kind of -EV plays/at what stage in the tournament/any requrirement for table texture when doing so/what kind of reads of opponents are needed to try this etc etc. While being vague and sagelike probably has some allure, some precision would probably help a bit in this discussion.

[Exitonly]

Ok. Gigabet you kept arguing with Freudian over somethign silly, but you never addressed where the hell you got the 23% of hands number.

[BPA234]

From a standard pot odds view, at the micro level, debating the call with QJ is a waste of time. Mathematically you have to call and there is no point arguing that point any further.

But, if you look at this from a tournament perspective, is a fold not the right play? Is it not better to yield a long term +ev play in the short-term of a final table?

I believe the answer is yes for the following reasons:

Since the call is automatic, the villain in the hand has to know this as well. The villain raises all-in and guarantees your call. Therefore, I think we can narrow the range and credit the villain accordingly. I think we can then state that the holding of QJ is now very likely behind.

Hero’s percentage of superiority to rest of the table factors into the decision. You are better than X numbers of players (in skill and chip stack or both ), present and if soon increasing blinds and antes, total table chip stack considerations etc., all of the above listed variables are entered into the equation as well as any other variables-6 players left and needing at least 5th place money to get unstuck etc. ).

The math that was requiring a call, now finds a fold resulting in yielding a long term +ev play.

Is it possible that the early/mid stage tournament -ev play known as the Gigabet Dilemma has a final table polar opposite counterpart? I believe that this is the case and I claim authorship for what I call the BPA234 Conundrum.