[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Since the call is about 6% of the effective stack size, and the initial raise was from a relatively early position hence will be a strong hand on the flop more frequently, it looks like it is a close call to me. I think it might be right due to the chance to win against missed overcards, not set value alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even though I think it wouldn't have made a difference in this particular situation, would that make it correct for me to raise 4bb instead of 3bb?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's one of the considerations, but not the only one. After all, there is less than a 50% chance that someone will have a lower pair. If someone does, it might be in the blinds, where it will be harder for them to get paid off out of position.

[ QUOTE ]
I figure that perhaps then a 4bb is more appropriate in early rounds?


[/ QUOTE ]
I tend to open-raise to 4 BB in the early levels because I feel it better exploits the tendency to call too much, and not just with small pairs. People also call too much with hands like AT and KQ.

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I would have to keep that amount for other hands as well as to not give free information?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's pretty well accepted that you can vary the size of your raises based on other factors than your hand, e.g., you might open-raise to 3 BB when you are in early position, but to 4 or 5 BB in late position when there is less danger of someone finding AA behind you. You should usually raise to a larger amount after people have limped. You don't need to raise as much when your opponents are playing tighter, such as on the bubble. You should raise a bit more when there are antes.

It's controversial whether to let the hand you have affect your raise size. While you give away some information by doing this, the benefits may be worth it. After all, you give away some information by raising some hands instead of limping with everything you want to play, but the benefits are supposed to be worth it. Harrington On Hold'em Vol. 1 has some preflop guidelines where the raise sizes depend on the cards, but little usable information is given away, in part because the amounts are slightly randomized. I agree with HOH that it is right to vary your raise sizes based on your hand, but you can still win without doing this.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In tournaments, doubling up doesn't double your expected prize. That also decreases the potential reward relative to the amount risked by calling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder, doesn't doubling up early on double your chances of winning?

[/ QUOTE ]
In some models, it does. If you assume you have a skill advantage, then it generally doesn't quite double your chance to win the tournament. After all, a very good player might win a 10 player SNG 14% of the time, but doubling up 3 times to 80% of the chips can't give the player an 8*14% = 112% chance to win the tournament. It certainly doesn't give the good player 8 times as much prize money, as the player might expect to get $13 back in an $11 SNG with equal stacks, but 8*$13 = $104 is much larger than the first prize of $50. At least one of those double-ups didn't double the winning chances and prize money, and most models say none of them did.

[ QUOTE ]
I remember reading some Raymer posts about that, but in a different context (close races with a slight edge in your favor). Even if the prize doesn't actually double as well, wouldn't the cost of calling with 22 with the hopes of stacking villain (which in this case would be me) make it worthy? Or is that an unrelated issue?

[/ QUOTE ]
One issue is that knocking a player out can help you more than just the accumulation of chips, but the value of knocking someone out is microscopic early in a tournament, and it is routinely overvalued by casual players even later in a tournament. The small benefit from knocking a player out is split among all of the players still in the tournament, and your share isn't worth many of your chips.

The dominant factor is that the reward of doubling up might be to multiply your equity by 1.8 instead of 2. You can see this using an ICM calculator. If you risk 10% of your chips to double up, the amount of prize money you are risking may be only about 1/8 as much as the potential gain, not 1/10 as much, so you need to win more often to make the risk worth it.

Some people feel that doubling up gives them the ability to bully the table more, and therefore accumulate even more chips on average. Sometimes this is correct, but I believe more people believe this than can actually get an advantage this way.