Isolating with the Gigabet Dilemma (long)

[bilbo-san]

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, this logic is absurd.

1) Villain won't always re-steal with the top 23% of hands, and will sometimes call

2) Gigabet is not calling because he might be ahead. He is calling even though he is quite sure he is behind, but he is getting the right price. We've already narrowed down Villain's range.

By the way, and this is important, the fact that Villain knows Gigabet must call does not make him calling incorrect. If you had 90% of your stack in the middle with KK, and your opponent pushes the last 10% with AA and flips his cards over, is it correct for you to fold?

3) The big blind is also in the picture.

So you are basically telling Gigabet that raising the blinds with QJ at a final table, when blinds are huge, is a -EV play because the small blind might have a top 23% hand and will push with it.

Do you realize how freaking absurd that sounds?

Find me one player that's made a WPT final table that thinks QJ is too weak to open-raise with. Just one.

[BPA234]

1. I don't know what you mean with #1. as it relates to my conundrem.

2. I think 2 is even more scary than originaly given credit for.

3. I don't know what that has to do with my conundrem.

I don't think you get what I was saying at all. Gigabet called the push. I was saying that he should fold to the push.

Also, I am angry that you left off my BPA234 Conundrem title. For clarity, I should retitle it to the BETGO conundrem. I would apprecitate that you use that if you are going to respond further.\

Thanks!

[mornelth]

I'll try to answer this (and in answering will try to understand it more myself).

The basic premis behind all this is that
1) You are he big stack
2) You have a block of chips above the line that are "useless" sitting there in your stack
3) You use these extra chips to make occasional moves that have immediate -ev but serve to rearrange stacks/eliminate shorties to your right, etc. - use them to play a meta-game, if you will.
4) Once you run out of these "extra" chips - you can no longer play a meta-game - you need to switch to a more sound (and more generally accepted) poker tournament strategy to try and accumulate some extra chips that will allow you to play meta-game again, etc.

Having said that - I do not think that your example really applies, because re-raising 40% of my stack and then folding is bad, real- or meta-game.

P.S In the point 2) above I mentioned "the line". I'm still myself not very clear how to determine where this line is. The anthology post is sort of all about that, and I THOUGHT I got it, but I do not think I really do.

I hope Gigabet's next post in the series is titled "GToSS - figuring out where the line is..."

[Erik Blazynski]

yes of course, how could I miss that point.. Only deploy the arms in the arsenal that are above the line.

I view my stack like an arsenal, my opponents are the armories that temporarily house the components of my arsenal. At the base of my stack are a couple of fighter jets and a couple abrams tanks, the next tier has a couple humvees, a couple m-60s (this is about where the line is I think) the next tier contains boxes of M-16s and hand guns and bullets. So what giga is is really saying is that you can risk your less valuable arms, the m-16s and handguns and bullets, to create a situation where you have bigger stacks to your right and smaller stacks to your left, even if the immediate play is way -ev.

Thanks for the clarification
blazman

[Erik Blazynski]

I decided to try this out in a few 2 table tournaments. So I bought into some $5 tournaments and I just wanted to practice manipulating the situation to move chips to my right. I was able to do this with some degree of effectiveness. One thing that I noticed is that I stopped paying attention to position relative to the button and started concentrating on position relative to ME (imagine what this will do to my ego [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]) I was making looser calls/raises from players that were to the right, and laying down stuff I might have called or raised to my left if everyone to my right folds.

In the first 2 I was pretty effective, in the 3rd I accidentally doubled up a medium stack to my left, and then he busted another guy, and became the big stack. He was unafraid to deploy the troops and it really sucked having the big stack to my left. Never has the importance of having position on the big stack been underscored more that at that time, it really had a big impact on my ability to see a flop and steal.

I also noticed that players to my right stopped limping, as I would punish them for doing so with a raise. Now they become TAGS and started doing my work for me, and I could for the most part put them on a hand because they have learned that if they limp with crap I am going to put them to a decision with my extra chips.

As I see it, this whole thing is about manipulating the table so that it becomes much more predictable. For everyone that says that it's silly to make the -EV play, is underestimating that value of creating this situation.

Very small sample size, but the results...............
2 first place finishes
1 4th
1 early bust out with KQ trying to get the big stack...

Peace
Blazman

One last question.. Why is this a dilemma for Gigabet?

[Gigabet]

BPA, I have already discussed this concept in one of my posts, and this idea is definitely not in place in the QJ hand. Rehne doesn't know that I am going to call, or that I am even very likely to call. He knows that I could just as easily hold 92 in this situation, and his reraise will send me folding.

Another factor is the blinds and the positions. There are very few things that rehne can do to represent a hand real enough in this situation that is going to make me fold a better hand here. The blinds are at a point where he just cannot fold certain holdings, and because of that, my range should actually have increased when i figured the equity, but I felt it was better safe than sorry.

[mornelth]

[ QUOTE ]

One last question.. Why is this a dilemma for Gigabet?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a Dilemma for Gigabet... Dilemma that is being discussed is -
can certain -ev moves improve your chances to WIN and thus generate an overall +$ev?

[aplunk]

An excellent original post that i will use - thank you

i thought it was a shame that it developed into an argument between giga and freud about a hand that was nothing to do with the original concept

but then i had another thought - please don't be too hard on me if it's stupid

Raise the blinds with QJ - fair enough
SB pushes with top 23% - fair enough
Then maybe we can apply the gigabet dilemma and make the -EV play of folding the QJ to keep the stack on the left as a small one? Certainly would be an example of a risky play that most pro's would not make - any thoughts as to it's validity?

[Chicos75]

Seat 1 Me: (t10,000)

What does t mean?
Sorry for the ignorance.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
An excellent original post that i will use - thank you

i thought it was a shame that it developed into an argument between giga and freud about a hand that was nothing to do with the original concept

but then i had another thought - please don't be too hard on me if it's stupid

Raise the blinds with QJ - fair enough
SB pushes with top 23% - fair enough
Then maybe we can apply the gigabet dilemma and make the -EV play of folding the QJ to keep the stack on the left as a small one? Certainly would be an example of a risky play that most pro's would not make - any thoughts as to it's validity?

[/ QUOTE ]

Except the small blind only doubles up something like 13% of the time. 77% of the time he just folds. 10% of the time he busts, and any negative effect that comes from losing a short stack to his left is more than compensated for by the EV increase from knocking a player out.

Edit: it is a valid point that before raising QJ, you should factor in all expected future action (as in, 23% of the time I'll be raised another 900k and have to call, with the second call being +EV but the overall preflop action being -EV - because the second call is caused by the opening raise with what turned out, 23% of the time, to be something like 40% equity versus the SB's push range), but even considering this the original raise is almost certainly correct, mostly because it usually takes the blinds, or if, say, called by the BB, sets up a favorable postflop situation.