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

[nath]

I think Doyle was the first to realize 22 was ahead of AK preflop. At least, he writes in Super/System about taking a bet with two players where he took 22 and they took AK and they ran out the cards for $100 a hand.

That said, I don't know how many tournaments I've played, but I've got a pretty decent sample. My point is that I think I have some insight into counterintuitive tournament strategies that work well and nobody really seems to be interested in discussing them. It's easier to brush them off.

Whether or not the specific hand is a positive-expectation play is debatable for sure. But I'm more interested in using it as a lead-in to discuss my overall strategy, and it seems like a lot of posters-- good ones-- would rather insist that that hand is not +EV, and being a bully with a big stack is nothing new or interesting, so BFD.

[woodguy]

[ QUOTE ]
At what point do people stop assuming I just run well and start considering that maybe I understand something about tournaments that most people don't?

It might be that there's some bit of conventional MTT wisdom that may be turned on its head. It may be possible that in large field events it's okay to take slightly the worst of it to build a big stack because it improves your ability to continue accumulating chips. It may be possible that it's okay to take slightly the worst of it in an all-in situation when you have a big a big stack if doing so allows you to continue to pick up pots at will.


[/ QUOTE ]

Its been discussed at some length, and alot of players here agree that taking the slight worst of it to gain a stack is pretty standard, as well as liberally calling all in's when losing the chips doesn't drastically affect your stack.

I don't want to take the air out of your ballon, but these are hardly ground breaking concepts.

Also, your initial post had 74s in EP, that's usually not taking the slight worst of it, but just taking the worst of it.

I think there is a significant difference between taking the slight worst of it in a situation, and creating a situation where you have the slight worst of it out of whole cloth.

I am not saying you are wrong, far from it. I've always been a thin edge guy, but I don't go out of my way to create these situations.......maybe I should. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Usually when I start hucking chips with both hands its in position, although I have taken to raising UTG as a steal because it works so often, but I'll try not to pot commit myself with pure crap.

Regards,
Woodguy

[woodguy]

MLG's thread on knowingly taking the worst of it.

There are some good links inside this post too.

Its just so freaking tough to quantify, but instinctually most players agree that its worth taking the slight worst of it to build a stack.


Regards,
Woodguy

[bucktotal]

[ QUOTE ]


Hey, you and everyone who says "I'd play at you with way more than 21% of my hands":

GIVE ME A [censored] RANGE OF HANDS YOU WOULD PLAY BACK WITH, KNOWING I WILL CALL, AND TELL ME WHAT % OF TOTAL HANDS THAT IS. I DID.

[/ QUOTE ]

with an M of 3/4.... i'd like to say any two... but realistically, acting after an UTG raise from you, i'd say i'd push top 50% of total hands.

[ QUOTE ]

I have the feeling that it is one of those things in poker where, depending on your assumptions, it can be made out to be a +EV or a -EV play quite convincingly. And since no one seems to want to discuss validity of assumptions here, the whole argument seems to be rather moot.


[/ QUOTE ]

like others have said... in a vacuum this is a horrible move. but its not a vacuum. this action is clearly image based and read dependant (which i think is the crux of the OP). find these spots wherever you can and make a play.

the crucial point is that these are the so called "excess chips" some are willing to gamble with (i.e., make potentially -cEV moves to create +$EV situations), and there are definitely enough posts on these boards showing examples of this play. so there must be something to it. i like this hand because it shows an extreme example. so extreme, its probably not even a good move, but who cares, the math needs to include the image/read which is too subjective to nclude.

i like it... i probably couldn't make this move myself since i am not you... but i will try to incorporate this type of thinking in my own tourny strategy.

thanks for the hand

[mornelth]

here's about 26.1%.. 22+,A2s+,K9s+,QTs+,JTs,A2o+,KTo+,QJo.

If I see a bigstack raising 74s I'll play back from a shortstack with above range.

Having said that - I really like your opening post and I am learning from it.

[mornelth]

Harrington mentions "the 10% rule" - when a shortstack pushes and it's 10% or less of your stack, you should call wih any two". Here you do the SAME THING but slightly in reverse - you bring action TO shorty in BB with just about any two. Also gives you some FE in the process, too.

I likes...

[jafeather]

[ QUOTE ]
Harrington mentions "the 10% rule" - when a shortstack pushes and it's 10% or less of your stack, you should call wih any two". Here you do the SAME THING but slightly in reverse - you bring action TO shorty in BB with just about any two. Also gives you some FE in the process, too.

I likes...

[/ QUOTE ]


I really like this line of thought on this OP. Sometimes working it backwards shows you what you wouldn't see working it forward. Like an inventor or programmer working an existing product from completion to beginning in order to improve it. Reverse engineering isn't an out-of-the-ordinary concept in poker, but I think improves the understanding of this particular thought process.

[Ansky]

[ QUOTE ]
Harrington mentions "the 10% rule" - when a shortstack pushes and it's 10% or less of your stack, you should call wih any two". Here you do the SAME THING but slightly in reverse - you bring action TO shorty in BB with just about any two. Also gives you some FE in the process, too.

I likes...

[/ QUOTE ]

I havent really read the HOH books, but is there any logic/reasoning behind this? It seems really ridiculously dumb.

[DLizzle]

I think some of you are massively overestimating the amount that player's tend to adjust to a player like nath. Just because we in all our wisdom would push here with a large range of hands, the average player doesn't. nath is not doing this every single hand, I'm sure he plays tightly enough to leave some doubt about his hand. And he's UTG. That really means a lot to people. He's talking the blinds here a lot.

Tournaments take a certain degree of feel. Not feel like, I feel I have this player beat, or I feel like I can bluff this guy off his hand, but more like I feel this play is in my best interests as far as making the maximum amount of money in this tournament is concerned. It appears, looking at results, that nath has this intuition, and he has attempted to justify this with some math. Whether or not it worked in this specific 47 UTG example, think about the big picture. I don't expect I would or could try to do it, but it's interesting. There are so many ideas about tournaments that swirl in the back of my mind, I couldn't begin. But I think the math in the OP could go deeper, though I don't know how. I'll stop with the vague [censored] now, ignore me if you want.

[DLizzle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Harrington mentions "the 10% rule" - when a shortstack pushes and it's 10% or less of your stack, you should call wih any two". Here you do the SAME THING but slightly in reverse - you bring action TO shorty in BB with just about any two. Also gives you some FE in the process, too.

I likes...

[/ QUOTE ]

I havent really read the HOH books, but is there any logic/reasoning behind this? It seems really ridiculously dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]

I also think this is pretty dumb. 'rule' and 'calling with any two' should never be related.