Theory of Stack Sizes---Hypothetical Response to the Gigabet Dilemma

[Mr. Now]

Giga,

Please chime in here.


Many of the reply-posts seem to be focused on the immediate results (won or lost chips)... and not the total combination of sub-optimal immediate EV and the other non-quantifyable but very real longer-term advantages you are building for future hands.

Correct?

Also related; True or false:
Your theory and practical application here is predicated COMPLETELY on the fact that the majority of the field that is actually WITNESSING your -EV play are good, strong, keenly observant players.

[Che]

Gigabet-

You have defined each players stack as a "block" of chips. If I understand you correctly, different "sub-blocks" of those chips have different relative values.

[ QUOTE ]
When situations like these occur, and your stack hovers above the line, then any part of your stack over the line is essentially meaningless. However, because the line is erratic at that level of play, using those meaningless chips to capture a "block" will make your stack a real force that controls the level of that line. Basically, capturing a block is nearly equivalent to doubling up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's how I interpret this:

Let L = number of chips at "the line"

Sub-block A = chips 1 through L

Sub-block A has very high value. This idea is equivalent to the idea that the very last chip in your stack has high value, but you (Gigabet) think in terms of blocks, not individual chips (as stated elsewhere in your post).

Sub-block B = chips L+1 through 2L

These chips have very little value. They are "essentially meaningless" chips. Thus, sub-block B has little value by itself.

Sub-block C = all chips above 2L

This sub-block is very valuable. Its presence allows you to bully the shorter stacks ("make your stack a real force") without risk of gambler's ruin. The extra value of sub-block C (even a small sub-block C) is the reason that capturing a "block" is equivalent to doubling up.

I am still unclear as to what you mean by "controls the level of the line" and I will have to do more thinking on that subject, but am I on the right track regarding the relative values of the different sub-blocks?

Thanks,
Che

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]


I really doubt I get it. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

you may not be on the same page as gigabet, but at least you're in the same book. i'm in a different library.

WARNING: DO NOT TRY THESE METAPHORS AT HOME. I AM A HIGHLY TRAINED ENGLISH MINOR FROM UNIVERSITY.

[Jay36489]

Some in this thread think he made this move for table image, but this is not the case, correct? He basically feels that risk (and consequences) of losing is not as great as the reward of getting the big stack? I know that is massively oversimplified, but I am just trying to begin to understand what he means.

[PrayingMantis]

Without starting any kind of true discussion about this post, I'd just like say one thing, which looks important to me.

Regardless of Giga's specific theory (or "theory"), this Q3 PF move we are talking about could certainly have some future +EV implications. HOWEVER, big part of these implications has a lot to do with the fact that Giga is playing against *regulars*, and the other part of it has to do with the fact that these people are playing on (relatively) a lot of money, which dictates a very different game than lower buy-in SNGs, specifically bubble game.

This is very very far from being the case for the huge majority of SNG players who are reading and posting here. Therefore, basically all of the "interpretations" I see in this thread, of people who "understand" (or partially understand) what Giga is talking about, are pretty much wrong, even laughable. That's my opinion, at least.

[voltron.]

[ QUOTE ]
I AM A HIGHLY TRAINED ENGLISH MINOR FROM UNIVERSITY.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

this last part took it from kinda funny to hilarious.

[Harv72b]

[ QUOTE ]
The KJ hand is a great example, but Q3 is still loopy...

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I understand this one, so I'll take a stab at it.

In the hand, Gigabet is the chip leader, but by a narrow margin with t2135. The closest competitor is at t2080, the next largest stack in the pot when Giga pushes is t1490. The short stack pushes for t410, making it 310 to call into a t760 pot...good pot odds if you can get it to HU. There were two medium stacks who limped in before the push and you cannot expect either of them to call if Giga overpushes (the openlimp by KK kinda ruined the plan, but stuff happens).

But what it comes down to is the blocks that Giga is talking about. The line in this instance would be running right around t1400, giving Giga t735 of "worthless" excess chips; not enough to fully take control of the table, just enough to prevent someone else from doing that. Winning this pot, by usually risking only t310 of his excess chips, would buy Giga an extra "block" of chips, moving him up to t2895 & doubling the line. Losing it would still leave him just above the line. Again, we're figuring on both limpers folding preflop. In the simplest terms, it's risk vs. reward--Giga's risk by making this move is usually very small, but the potential reward is huge. And that's not taking into account the fact that other players will think very hard before trying to steal his blinds in the future.

As it turned out in this case, the risk was greater than expected with tolumax calling the all in holding KK, but the reward was greater still when Giga was able to more than double his stack by sucking out on both opponents.

[Mr. Now]

Maybe I get this. Maybe I don’t. I have had what I call a STT “stack grouping” concept in my head for awhile so maybe that's why I’m intrigued here….

My basic theory is that at any point in time, there are a subset players near your stack size. All the players with a similar stack size constitute a Gigabet ‘block’.

I'm looking for Giga to reply to my analysis here:

[ QUOTE ]
As the tourney goes on for a time, and the blinds get to a certain point, your line will get very erratic, and there will be times, when the size of the blinds will equal, or nearly equal the size of a "block" that is near the level of your line. When situations like these occur, and your stack hovers above the line, then any part of your stack over the line is essentially meaningless. However, because the line is erratic at that level of play, using those meaningless translation: “lesser valued” chips to capture a "block" will make your stack a real force that controls the level of that line. Basically, capturing a block is nearly equivalent to doubling up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Translation:


Everyone starts with the same size stack. Initially there is one ‘cap’ line that represents the starting level of all stacks.

Play takes place. Now, stacks sizes change, and tend to bunch up in groups. A typical configuration is two chip leaders with near equal stacks, a group in the middle, and one or two shortest stacks. Giga seems to be calling these player (stack) groupings ‘blocks’

What Giga seems to be saying is, it is important to at least keep pace with the group you are in, whatever group that is. Each group has it’s own ‘line’ that you must be near or over to keep pace in that group. Chips you have over the average stack line of your ‘block’ of players can be deployed in possible –EV plays that have several goals in mind (making an impression, keeping pace with your group or 'block') that make the overall play work. The other chips you have below that “average-stack-size-for-your-block-of-players” is currently core, and to be protected.

Thus, the chips over the average stack size for that block (“meaningless chips over the line”) can be deployed in plays that have several goals in mind. You may even make a -EV play because of the relationship between the values of the blind, the pot size, and especially the average stack size in your group. You will find yourself in situations where a player in your group is making a play when the blinds, the pot and his stack (and yours) are around the same size. Right there (if I understand Giga correctly) you can theoretically call the all-in with Q3 or push with it. He strongly implies this in the post.

For example if you are a medium stack in the medium stack group, you are OK taking –EV shots at other mid-size opponents when they make a stand. OK it’s obvious you want to avoid the big stacks with any –EV situations that may come up. What is less obvious is that you also want to avoid –EV spots with the small stacks. This is likely true because a) they cannot actually double you up, making the play “super –EV” even when you win and b) the small stacks statistically will probably not finish in the top 3, so there is much less need to make an impression on them. The smalls will likely NOT be players you have to deal with at the end.

If you are small, you are looking for an opportunity to double through the other small guy, especially if he is making a bid to double up himself. Because once he does that, he pulls away and you are now by yourself, stack-isolated, no neighbors around, and looking like “lunch” to the other players. This is especially true when you are in the smallest-stack group.

This idea in theory means that if you are part a group of 3 chip leaders with roughly equal stacks, when one of them makes a move you have to consider involving yourself in –EV situations. But this assumption is not true. In Gigabet’s post he never says that about playing a big stack, and the rest of the post strongly implies that these –EV plays are valid when you are in one of the other, non-chip leader groups or ‘blocks’. Therefore, the idea that this –EV concept advocated by Giga is invalid because it makes no sense when you are in the chip-leader group does not invalidate the concept for situations when you are in one of the trailing groups in an STT.

Giga, what do you say? Please define what constitutes a ‘block’. I believe you are talking about several players with roughly equal stacks, and that the –EV plays you describe are NOT applicable when you are in the chip-leader “block’ or group.

Please clarify.

[voltron.]

ok, ive been thinking about a bit, and sort of get it. but not really.

my question is: it seems like this is a bit of a paradox, in the Q3 hand you both don't mind losing those chips and think they will be incredibly valuable if you win them. does anyone see what i mean? i think giga is both saying "i can afford to lose those chips" and "if I win the hand they are important to me".

i get the whole block and line bit, but im blanking on the importance of the "line" and its relation to everyones chipstack.

[the shadow]

[ QUOTE ]
For those that do not know, there was a very long and controversial thread(in the MTT forum) about another hand that I had played. Basically, I had made a -ev call because I had felt that the positive ev I would gain later in the game, if I win the hand, outweighs the negative ev of the specific hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

See Step 5 hand versus GIGABET.

mosdef already linked to it above, but the call with Q3 thread is raptor's WHAT THE F*** explain this one..????????

The Shadow