The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table) - Page 9

#81 07-06-2006, 10:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
yowza

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, I see a hint of my initial argument about correlation and causation in there.

Sweet.

wagon30 · #82 07-06-2006, 11:08 AM

Ok, it seems like a lot of people just glossed over my earlier post, so I'm going to summarize it. The original math by nath is only slightly off, but most imporatantly we need to look at what the 31.1% reraise by any player that is not the short stack is, and what a 21% short stack range is.

Here is the 21% range nath gave.
22+, A5s+, KTs+, QTs, JTs, A8o+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo

Here is a good 6.2% range
77+, AQ+, AJs

This move breaks even if the BB calls 21% of the time and everyone else (the other 5 players) reraise 6.2% of the time. It loses money if either range is too narrow.

So you agree with nath, if the other 5 players are folding 55, 66, AJ, ATs and AT. If you agree with that, then you also need to agree that the shorty is folding A2 - A7, A2 -A4s, K9, Q9, J9.

I don't agree with Nath.

Does that mean Nath is a bad player? No, it doesn't. Nath made a mistake here, but he usually makes correct decisions. And because he makes many more correct decisions than incorrect ones he wins money. Also, this probably isn't that costly of a mistake at a tight table.

nath · #83 07-06-2006, 11:21 AM

I'm pretty busy today, which is a shame because the discussion is getting so good. One quick point I wanted to hit:

[ QUOTE ]
Barry Bonds is a great player/Barry Bonds struck out/Therefore striking out is a great play

[/ QUOTE ]

Is better expressed as

Barry Bonds is a great player / Barry Bonds swings for the fences repeatedly / Therefore swinging for the fences is a great play, because there are lots of ways to make an out, and baseball players make outs all the time, but only one way has the possibility to net you a home run

NHFunkii · #84 07-06-2006, 11:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty busy today, which is a shame because the discussion is getting so good. One quick point I wanted to hit:

[ QUOTE ]
Barry Bonds is a great player/Barry Bonds struck out/Therefore striking out is a great play

[/ QUOTE ]

Is better expressed as

Barry Bonds is a great player / Barry Bonds swings for the fences repeatedly / Therefore swinging for the fences is a great play, because there are lots of ways to make an out, and baseball players make outs all the time, but only one way has the possibility to net you a home run

[/ QUOTE ]

that's basically the problem with your thinking here. It does not logically follow that swinging for the fences is a good play. It also does not logically follow that because you've been having success, making insane batshit raises is a good play.

timex · #85 07-06-2006, 11:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What follows is a brief and rough defense of a hand I played last night that probably no one else on the forum would have played the same way. Here I attempt to explain briefly why and hopefully provide a glimmer of insight into what I feel is a big part of my tournament philosophy.

So Funkii made a comment about a hand from last night's 109 where I raised 74s UTG into a short stack's big blind and had to call a push. To most people this looks obviously insane and stupid. For me it's close to standard.
Here I attempt a brief defense of the hand using some math and reasoning.

The hand as it starts:

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t3000 (7 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: 2+2 Forums)

saw flop|saw showdown

MP1 (t46074)
MP2 (t93938)
CO (t60968)
Button (t27983)
SB (t20080)
BB (t17767)
Hero (t156190)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with 7[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img].

Ok, setting up the hand: Blinds are 1500/3000 with 150 antes, 7-handed. So the pot is 5650 to start. I have the biggest stack at the table by far, 156k or so.

My raise is to 7800, standard for me at this level no matter what hand I'm raising with (which i just ran a quick stove of and realized is close to 1/3 of hands from EP, barring a bad situation). BB is really short and looking to make a move. The range I estimated he would be willing to throw all his chips in at this point (after the fact, since I didn't bother with ranges getting like 2.5:1), knowing I'm going to call, is any pair, any two broadway, A5s+, A8o+, and obviously I'm calling with my stack and getting close to 2.5:1.

I stoved this:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 34.8790 % 34.45% 00.42% { 74s }
Hand 2: 65.1210 % 64.70% 00.42% { 22+, A5s+, KTs+, QTs, JTs, A8o+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo }

His hand range comprises 21% of hands. (For the sake of simplicity I assumed he pushes all pairs, and folds hands like 87s. In reality, some players may stop and go with smaller pairs, mid suited connectors, low Ax hands, or really any two cards if they're smart. I did not consider this villain to be this tricky.)

So 79% of the time he folds and I pick up 5650 chips.

.79 * 5650 = 4463.50

21% of the time he pushes all-in and I call.

If you ignore the money I put in the pot, there's 23267 in there. ~34.88% of the 21% of the times I am called, I win this. ~65.12% of the time, I lose 17617 chips (his stack size).

.21 ((.3488 * 23267) - (.6512 * 17617))
.21 (8115.5296 - 11472.1904)
.21 (-3356.6608)
~-705 chips.

4463.5 - 705 = +3758.5 chips on average. "PLUS EV!"

Of course, these numbers don't consider that someone with a bigger stack might push in and I would have to fold. However, there are one or two stacks at the table short enough that I would have to call; in addition, many of the players with larger stacks are wary of me and are waiting for the short stacks to bust.
If I'm reraised all in and I have to fold I lose 7800 chips. I tried to estimate the breakeven point for how often this happens before this move becomes negative EV. Solving for X, the percentage of times I am reraised:

3758.5(1-x) - 7800x = 0
3758.5(1-x) = 7800x
3758.5 - 3758.5x = 7800x
3758.5 = 11558.5x
.325 ~ x

So I have to be reraised at least 32.5% of the time by someone else for this to be a -cEV play given these assumptions.

Even if you think that's likely (and I don't, given that the table was still frequently folding to my open raises even after I had showed down weak hands repeatedly), and you think this play is marginal if not outright boneheaded, several things still sway me towards making the move:

1)I have the chips to do it, and losing those chips doesn't affect my position at the table.
2)Those chips are easy to reacquire as I've been terrorizing the table. BB has an M of 3, so if I lose, I only have to steal 3 pots of blinds and antes to get it back. This is extremely doable-- and believe it or not, it's MORE doabale, not LESS, with my image, because even though people know I raise lots of junk, I raise all my good hands too, and THEY KNOW I WILL CALL THEM IF THEY RERAISE. This is the key point! If I opened and folded to reraises a lot, I couldn't get away with all the moves I make.
3)It may be +$EV to make a marginal cEV move to bust a short stack when the price of doing so is cheap and does not affect my position at the table.

What's the point of all this? Nothing specific, really, just that my crazy moves aren't as crazy as they seem. I've always said you have to gamble more, not less, to win tournaments, and hands like these are where I find my hidden edge. It's a big reason why I go so deep and go to multiple wins when I'm running well.

Oh, and here's how the hand played out:

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t3000 (7 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: 2+2 Forums)

saw flop|saw showdown

MP1 (t46074)
MP2 (t93938)
CO (t60968)
Button (t27983)
SB (t20080)
BB (t17767)
Hero (t156190)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with 7[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img].
Hero raises to t7800, 5 folds, BB raises to t17617, Hero calls t9817.

Flop: (t35984) 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], T[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (2 players)

Turn: (t35984) K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (2 players)

River: (t35984) 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (2 players)

Final Pot: t35984

Results in white below: 
Hero has 7c 4c (high card, king).
BB has 3c 3d (three of a kind, threes).
Outcome: BB wins t35984. 

[/ QUOTE ]

79%(1-x) of the time you get those 5650 chips
So 4463.5 chips (1-x)

21% (1-x) you get all-in in a pot with 20317 chips, 3150 chips of BB's have already been posted.

.21(.3488*20317) - (.6512*17617)
.21(4385.62)
=~ - 921 chips

So it really nets more like 3542.5 chips, not trying to be a nit, but every chip counts.

This now means that 32.5% is only ~31.2%

If we think BB's range is 21% of hands, SB will be getting similarly good odds, with only one player to act, so how about he plays 16% of hands? The button has slightly more chips with two players to act, so he may only play 10% of hands, and the other two players have chips, and we'll say they only play 6% of hands. Obviously some players could do dumb stuff like call and then fold, but even if we take:
1* (100-6%) *(100-6%) *(100-10%) *(100 -16%)

It will be folded to the big blind about 66.8% of the time which is 33.2% of the time being pushed, more than my number and more than your number.

These ranges are likely too tight, and your pushing range for the BB is also likely much too tight, I just showing that even if marginally, this doesn't seem to workout.

Another thing that many poker players don't seem to look at is simply the value of being at the table. For every time that you decide to raise a hand, you are minimizing your potential to earn chips by raising future marginal hands. By raising here, you are not creating an opportunity to earn a small number of chips by your numbers minimized or maximized at every stage to convince yourself and now us that it is correct, you are burning your bridges in an attempt at a short-term gain. Obviously if your opponents have no insight whatsoever, taking marginal situations like this may be not awful, but at the same time you must take into account the fact that they do learn. After raising UTG here, what are your chances of raising UTG next orbit UTG?

A random hand does about 2% better against this range than your 74s, but I am fairly confident that if you were delt 74s, or even a hand like 96s, you would not be raising in the next orbit. What I am saying by this is that after raising this hand, you are not only giving up FE, you are limitting your future plays. As mentioned in your post, you can steal blinds extremely trivially in other situations, so why must you do it here.

By the wording of your post:

the table.
2)Those chips are easy to reacquire as I've been terrorizing the table. BB has an M of 3, so if I lose, I only have to steal 3 pots of blinds and antes to get it back. This is extremely doable-- and believe it or not, it's MORE doabale, not LESS, with my image etc.

You are saying that you can get free chips if you want, so why is this situation even important. If I were you, I would be opening up more tournaments so you can just steal with junk and win free chips and win those tournaments. Against competent players, they will catch on and your mistakes will become more and more costly.

Obviously you made this situation with good intentions because you have convinced yourself to the extent that you believe this is a good play because future alterations to opponents play are not as measurable as netting 5500 chips, but in this situation, would you raise 72s? 72o? 72o if you know your opponents ranges are all 1% looser... you must obviously draw the line somewhere, and there are so many situations that you have to potentially net chips in a poker tournament that it is not worthwhile to get a bird in your hand when two are waiting in a bush.

wagon30 · #86 07-06-2006, 12:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]

1* (100-6%) *(100-6%) *(100-10%) *(100 -16%)

It will be folded to the big blind about 66.8% of the time which is 33.2% of the time being pushed, more than my number and more than your number.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I had already done a lot of this, but I do like this part. It should have one more person in it though, as there are five less to act.

so 1 - 66.8%*(100-6)= 37.208%

Not very close, even with your tight ranges.

timex · #87 07-06-2006, 12:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1* (100-6%) *(100-6%) *(100-10%) *(100 -16%)

It will be folded to the big blind about 66.8% of the time which is 33.2% of the time being pushed, more than my number and more than your number.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I had already done a lot of this, but I do like this part. It should have one more person in it though, as there are five less to act.

so 1 - 66.8%*(100-6)= 37.208%

Not very close, even with your tight ranges.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oops, I suck

raindust · #88 07-06-2006, 01:47 PM

Nath, i love the way you are playing. i am a no one in the poker world that no one has heard of and have yet to win a big tourney so no one really gives a [censored] about what i say. all i have to say is if everyone else is so brilliant why aren't they all over cardplayer magazine? don't get me wrong, i believe in making +ev plays for the most part but like you said, there is alot more to it. no one is going to bash gus hansen or daniel negreanu or devilfish or phil ivey or greg raymer for coming in to the hand with questionable cards but if Nath tries the same thing he is making a mistake. One of the most important aspects aside from metagame to ask yourself when playing these cards in my humble(or not so humble) opinion would be if other players with deeper stacks will stack off when they call and hit a decent hand themselves. No to champions have ever played the same way, though most USUALLY make +ev plays. So, always make sure your play is not a leak FOR YOU, and then play the way that makes you the most money. Let the doubters spend their time running numbers through pokerstove. Take it easy.

jcm4ccc · #89 07-06-2006, 01:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
all i have to say is if everyone else is so brilliant why aren't they all over cardplayer magazine? . . . Let the doubters spend their time running numbers through pokerstove.

[/ QUOTE ] god, I would love to add these to the list. Too late to edit, however. Sigh.

raindust · #90 07-06-2006, 02:07 PM

think chris ferguson, most likely the greatest math mind in all of poker and no doubt one of the best tourney players in the world. but is he the best? probably not. ask yourself why.