Thoughts on VP$IP as a function of M during a MTT
 

Hi All,

I am trying hard to model a theoretically good loosening up factor during a MTT.

I have a strong preference to use Harrington's M as my independent variable.

I believe the majority agree that starting of tight early (= High M above 20) and then loosening your game up as you M decreases below 20 during the MTT isn't way of!

My real challenge is the degree of HOW MUCH to loosening your starting requierement and here I really like to hear some ideas.

Here is my idea:

Assume full table of 9-10 person on average.

Early (M > 20) I like to start of playing my share of the best hands of the table. That would be 1 hand each round or VP$IP = 10% as my base. Say top 5% UTG and top 15% on BTN.

This works great for me, but once your M starts decreasing below 20...downto 10 .. 5 due the the increasing blinds what should be your VP$IP??

One idea is to increase you VP$IP by adding 1/M to you VP$IP. This means increasing your VP$IP by 10% point to 20% with and M of 10 - or equally playing on average 2 hands each round - Top 20% starting hands on average. With an M of 5 the number would increase to 30% VP$IP.

If anyone have some comments, ideas or especially references to something like this, then I would be greatful to know.

The above works ok for me, but it's based on my intuition not an a game theory and math!

Concretely I have an Excel spreasheet doing this to "advice" me on loosening up!

I hope very much for some responds on this.

Best regards
Rama96ab

Re: Thoughts on VP$IP as a function of M during a MTT
 

Have you read both of Harrington's books? He has suggestions for hand modifications as your M changes. In particular treating it as something that modified VPIP isn't right, because it's not the percentage of hands that you should be playing that changes, but what *types* of hands. For example, as I recall, small pocket pairs can basically not be played when your M is between 5 and 10. Below 5 and you should be pushing if you're first in, above 10 and you should be limping after early limpers or calling moderate bets. Below M=5 your VPIP actually jumps considerably because you'll be pushing almost any A high, any pocket pair, and some more random hands in later positions. (The specifics here might be wrong, it's been over a year since I've played NL holdem tournaments).

Re: Thoughts on VP$IP as a function of M during a MTT
 

Kill Everyone has exact equilibrium plays for M <= 8 for all positions.

Higher than that, the right VP$IP may even dip slightly and then rise again with deeper stacks. You're not going to have an easy equation that gives you a magic answer. Plus as the previous poster pointed out, the right types of hands go in and out of favor as you change the stack size.

Tysen

Re: Thoughts on VP$IP as a function of M during a MTT
 

[ QUOTE ]
Kill Everyone has exact equilibrium plays for M <= 8 for all positions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Did you really overcome the hand ranking and overcall limitations you mentioned a few months ago? If so, kudos, that's quite an accomplishment.

(still waiting on Amazon for my book)

Re: Thoughts on VP$IP as a function of M during a MTT
 

Thank you for you response.

Yes I've read Harrington's two first books several times and my VP$IP seems to fit pretty good his many problems / examples regarding playable hands in ther different M zones. Actually this is what I have base my whole idea on!

For example with the M=5 in late position the mentioned idea will suggest all but the very worst hands to move all in - (Of course I'll only do this with first-in vigorish!)

I also am aware of the different playable hands in different M scenarios. I control this using a Odds Calculator which also display's hand rank's (Texas Calculatem). In this software you can choose to view the hand rank by, flop, river or a mix of both. Switching between these rankings, I can switch between different hand groups more or less playable for differetn M's.

/Rama96ab

Re: Thoughts on VP$IP as a function of M during a MTT
 

Great response for me... I didn't know about this "kill everyone", but are now ordering to know more!

Just to satisfy my eager and curiousity - Are you saying that this book suggest playing percentage for all possition with M<=8 ?? And even theoretically or mathematiccaly correct?? This is just what I'm looking for. I can't wait to receive and read this!

Can you give my a few examples?

Thank you once again for this information!

/Rama96ab

Re: Thoughts on VP$IP as a function of M during a MTT
 

I don't think low M, high desparation situations in MTT translates into high VPIP.

What I change is how strongly I play. Yes, I come in first in a hand for a raise with a wider range. However, the real difference is the postflop play. Unless of course, the first in raise is an all-in.

I don't necessarily have a higher VPIP later in a tourney but I am much more inclined to be all-in pf or on the flop. As well, if my M is mid-low, I will be seeing some flops and either folding or commiting. Essentially, end game is long ball poker, but that doesn't necessarily mean my VPIP is shooting way up.

Re: Thoughts on VP$IP as a function of M during a MTT
 

[ QUOTE ]
Wow. Did you really overcome the hand ranking and overcall limitations you mentioned a few months ago? If so, kudos, that's quite an accomplishment.

(still waiting on Amazon for my book)

[/ QUOTE ]
No problems with hand rankings, but overcalls are still ignored. I have studied the overcall problem and it only has a minor effect, especially for an M of 4+.

I can understand the frustration with Amazon. They've sold out 3 times. This last time after they announced immediate availability they sold out in 12 hours. I guess that's good and bad news.

As far as an example, here's the equilibrium solution for pushing with an M of 6, with no antes:

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
Position No Antes
Small Blind 22+,A2+,K2+,Q6o+,Q2s+,J8o+,J3s+,T7o+,T4s+,97o+,95s +,87o,85s+,76o,74s+,64s+,53s+,43s (59.9%)
Button 22+,A2+,KTo+,K5s+,QTo+,Q8s+,JTo,J8s+,T7s+,97s+,86s +,76s (32.7%)
Cut-Off 22+,A4o+,A2s+,KTo+,K9s+,QJo,Q9s+,JTo,J8s+,T8s+,98s (27.0%)
Hijack 22+,A9o+,A2s+,KJo+,K9s+,QJo,Q9s+,J8s+,T8s+,98s (20.7%)
3-off 22+,ATo+,A7s+,A5s,KJo+,K9s+,Q9s+,J9s+,T9s (16.7%)
4-off 33+,AJo+,A8s+,KQo,K9s+,Q9s+,J9s+,T9s (13.9%)
5-off 55+,AJo+,A9s+,KQo,K9s+,QTs+,JTs,T9s (12.1%)
6-off 66+,AJo+,A9s+,KTs+,QTs+,JTs (10.1%)
7-off 77+,AQo+,ATs+,KTs+,QTs+,JTs (8.4%)
</pre><hr />
For those nit-picky game theorists, this does consider mixed strategies and these are the hands that are pushed at least 50% of the time.

Kill Everyone lists out the solutions for the other stack sizes and also does it with and without antes for comparison. I also list what the equilibrium calling ranges are as well for each case. And... there is some nice discussion about it including some shortcuts for helping you memorize approximate solutions for use at the table.

Hope that's enough of a teaser. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Tysen

Re: Thoughts on VP$IP as a function of M during a MTT
 

I certainly don't want you to give away too much of the goods if you're trying to make money off book sales but I do have a question about the push equilibrium hand rankings you just listed in this thread. How stable is this Nash Equilibrium?

Re: Thoughts on VP$IP as a function of M during a MTT
 

[ QUOTE ]
I certainly don't want you to give away too much of the goods if you're trying to make money off book sales but I do have a question about the push equilibrium hand rankings you just listed in this thread. How stable is this Nash Equilibrium?

[/ QUOTE ]
There is no dependence on arbitrary hand rankings - the strategy for each hand is considered individually. For the conditions specified (i.e. mixed solutions okay but no overcalls) the equilibrium is 100% stable.

Tysen