Isolating with the Gigabet Dilemma (long)

[bruce]

that's Gigabet's quote, certainly not mine Bruce

[cocarondelle]

Hi!
thanks for the post, very deep thoughts.
I was just wondering about your "remodeling of the stack sizes and order to your taste":
Do you use a different strategy according to the level of plays of your opponents?

I mean, If you feel you have a strong edge on your opponents (either because they are weak, or because they are good BUT you have loads of notes on their betting patterns and ranges) are you going to play more straight forward poker ?
In other words, do you only keep those advanced "arranging stack sizes strategies" when confronted to a very strong opposition at finale table where obviously your edge is reduced?Or do you try to do it most of the time, no matter the level of opponents?

Thanks.

[Spivvy]

Excellent Post!
As usual, Gigabet has provided us with a concept that has been obviously well thought out, and is indeed thought provoking.
As I understand it, I believe that Gigabet will make his decisions based with an underlying theme based on his original Gigabet Dilemma along with the tactics laid out in this post.
The fact of the matter seems to be, the amount of chips in terms of blocks(amounts) versus the position of these stacks (blocks) in relation to us.

The total amount of -EV that we can stand in any given situation I believe would depend on the advantages gained via both these principles i.e. "Blocks" gained vs. lost along with the positions to where these blocks go.



Now, I may be way off base with this, but perhaps the Q3 hand that Gigabet called the all-in with illustrates this.

http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/...730&page=0

The fact that the short stack is on his right, in addition to the amount of chips at risk in Gigabets stack (block) intertwined with pure pot odds, makes this a no brainer all in. If he loses this -EV play the chips move to his right and not to his left.
As a side note, the fact that tolumax had KK was never a consideration. Anyway I didn't want to re-open that thread, I was just looking to find an example.

Gigabet, I hope I'm on the right lines. If not please let me know.

[TripDaddy]

Of course, just when I think I am starting to understand this game, I read a thread like this and realize I don't know squat.

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't a small edge here for me either, this is a situation that i cannot pass up. My equity in the pot is 38%, which means there is approximately 50k that I am just giving to rehne by folding. I am making 50k in chips, every time I call that reraise. How could you fold when you know that you are getting 50k by calling? That would be insane.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gigabet - great initial post and follow ups. My head is still trying to get around much of it. But, can you or someone please explain the above to me?? I just do not get it.

You have 300K in the pot. So if you fold arent you giving the villian a whole lot more that 50K? Is that what you mean by pot equity? Maybe I just dont understand pot equity. Help...

[flight2q]

The raise means 1.6 mil in the pot and it is 900k to call. Gigabet estimates he is 38% to win if he calls. If he calls the pot will be 2.5 mil and 38% of 2.5 mil is 950k. So the pot equity would be 950k. With the 900k to call, ipso the quote "I am making 50k in chips, every time I call that reraise".

When I first looked at that Q3 hand I thought it was bizarre. When I looked at it a couple of months ago, I felt neutral to it. Perhaps this is progress. I wish I knew how to play with a big stack on my left; this might be part of it.