Meta-Game Trade-off : Making a bad call in exchange for image
 

This concept may be discussed ad nauseum here, but I'm not a regular in this forum. If it is discussed, could you please point me to the appropriate search words or some juicy threads?

In an MTT, there will be times when it is advantageous to make a bad mathematical call in exchange for tournament momentum, whereby one's table image gives carte blanche for blind stealing, and if one wins the unfavorable gamble, one might be left with a very healthy stack as the bubble approaches, further adding to the momentum.

Have there been any discussions here on how to approach this mathematically or somewhat systematically? I suspect the ICM stuff may come into play, but it's not so much about the ICM value as it is about the table image values as they derive from folding to a re-pot or push versus making a mathematically incorrect call.

(Originally posted in MTT Strategy. Maybe it belongs in Theory?)

Re: Meta-Game Trade-off : Making a bad call in exchange for image
 

I dont think this is a mathematical issue. Its more of a psychology issue.
Some plays do set up later plays of course. The way I see it most for example if I check raise you with second pair and get caught...or make a bad river raise, get called and lose...alot of times it sets you up to make that play again, only this time you will be stronger. How do you think the maniacs win any hands? Because when they do, they arent given credit for it.

Re: Meta-Game Trade-off : Making a bad call in exchange for image
 

maniacs win big hands b/c a) everyone hits a hand sometimes b) bad players pay them off

Re: Meta-Game Trade-off : Making a bad call in exchange for image
 

I advise you to search for posts by Gigabet. I'm sorry, I don't have URLs to hand, but he explains why you would make these calls sometimes. Look for a thread that he starts.

Re: Meta-Game Trade-off : Making a bad call in exchange for image
 

...playing on the assumption that good hands will follow your bad call...

If you are playing at an aware table, one bad call is not going to change anyones mind about your play. If you are playing at a normal table, everyone will think your call was okay.

Re: Meta-Game Trade-off : Making a bad call in exchange for image
 

I don't think a call is worth it. I do this with a raise. My logic is if the fold, I win. If we show down, I look like a maniac and will hopefully get an opportunity to play off that. But decent players won't think you are a maniac, anyway, only the dumb ones.

Re: Meta-Game Trade-off : Making a bad call in exchange for image
 

I don`t think that any image gives a carte blanche for blind stealing unless you play against 8 brain-dead people and even then it wont last for long because of the table reshuffles which is also the biggest reason why the "sacrifice" will most likely not pay off.
I see it as a fancy play complex.

In cash games anything goes and I`m willing to look at lot of unorthodox concepts and ideas but when it comes to tournaments basic simple strategies have carried me the deepest. [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

Re: Meta-Game Trade-off : Making a bad call in exchange for image
 

[ QUOTE ]
maniacs win big hands b/c a) everyone hits a hand sometimes b) bad players pay them off

[/ QUOTE ]

If they really are maniacs, don't good players have to pay them off sometimes too?

Re: Meta-Game Trade-off : Making a bad call in exchange for image
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
maniacs win big hands b/c a) everyone hits a hand sometimes b) bad players pay them off

[/ QUOTE ]

If they really are maniacs, don't good players have to pay them off sometimes too?

[/ QUOTE ]

this is trivially true. even so, only a very small % of the time, b/c they only hit hands a small % of the time

edit: also, note that i'm talking about big pots. sure, good players will dump hands that may be good in smaller pots against a maniac, but when all the money goes in they will be winning the pot the vast majority of the time.

Re: Meta-Game Trade-off : Making a bad call in exchange for image
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
maniacs win big hands b/c a) everyone hits a hand sometimes b) bad players pay them off

[/ QUOTE ]

If they really are maniacs, don't good players have to pay them off sometimes too?

[/ QUOTE ]

this is trivially true. even so, only a very small % of the time, b/c they only hit hands a small % of the time

edit: also, note that i'm talking about big pots. sure, good players will dump hands that may be good in smaller pots against a maniac, but when all the money goes in they will be winning the pot the vast majority of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I suggest that point b) should be that when they hit a hand they get paid off more readily (by virture of being maniacs). Because I'm saying that 'paying them off' is usually correct.