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

[rabbitlover]

I like your posts nath, who are you on Stars?

For that matter, who are you?

Good cards

[ QUOTE ]
I like your posts nath, who are you on Stars?

[/ QUOTE ]

Cap'nJackpot

[ QUOTE ]
For that matter, who are you?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Maestro.

[timex]

[ QUOTE ]
I like your posts nath, who are you on Stars?

For that matter,what are you wearing ?

Good cards

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[Frank Zappy]

I'm deadly freaking serious. Remember, this is in the context of playing against a Big Stack trying to run over a Final Table.

As I said, I may leave a Final Table earlier by playing like this but when I do double-up against the Big Stack the rest of the table better run for cover because when the Big Stack isn't pushing them I sure as hell will be.

You think you're only playing one hand at a time and whipping out your PokerStove computations then patting yourself on the back when you make these imaginary +EV plays and folding the -EV one. But guess what happens? The bigger the Big Stack grow against you from passing up these plays, the WORSE your situation gets! Don't you see that? Every subsequent hand becomes more "life and death" for you as Big Stack piles up play money.

Also, when you demonstrate weakness by folding in the face of a playback, you invite the whole remainder of the final table to pick at you; you think that's a good place to be?

Sometimes it's poker and sometimes it's Fight Club.

If you have no intention of sticking up for yourself until you pick up AA you might as well just sit out, blind out and enjoy your "extra" winnings. In fact, maybe you should hire someone to sit in the chair in your place. I'm there to play, and to enjoy the struggle.

[DLizzle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

This is an important point to remember, especially at final tables: While everyone wants somebody to stand up to the big stack, almost nobody actually wants to do it, because taking a stand with a hand that might be a slight +cEV favorite (and might NOT) could cost them a lot of real money equity if it busts them.

So I scoop small pot after small pot until someone stands up to me. Then I either bust them or double them up, and either way I get right back to it, because if I double them up those chips come from all the pots I've stolen.

(That last paragraph is basically paraphrasing an idea in Super/System. It's still astoundingly effective.)

[/ QUOTE ]

This explanation works for me better than most. This is a final people play being discussed. People love folding up the pay ladder. There's a lot of 'next time I'm coming over the top', or 'man someone needs to stand up to this guy', but no one likes to actually do it.

Adanthar, regarding your post about your reversal of opinion (sarcasm?, I'm not 100% sure). Anyway, I get the feeling you may be alluding to the possible misapplication of these ideas and would love to see this at your tables. While that is true, if these ideas are applied correctly, they wouldn't be used with you at the table.

[jason75]

So far a fascinating discussion. . . .

While I agree that in a vacuum this play is likely -cEV, I think we take these plays out of context far too often. If instead we looked at a series of plays in a series of situations, we might find that this type of play is +cEV over a larger range of hands.

I'm sure anyone who has ever finished at a final table has experienced what I like to call "table freeze" - where a big stack is literally beating the table to death raising any unopened pot while the other players, confident the big stack will finish 1st, play to out-survive each other and move into a 2-3 finish. I've seen tables where suddenly the VPIP drops into sub 10% range for everyone except the massive chipleader . . .

Is this that type of situation? I don't know. But rather than argue endlessly about this particular play, I'd rather find out a little bit about Nath's decision making process during the tournament (e.g., with the pressure on).

Specifically, I'd like to know:

1) What verbal thoughts go through your head here?
2) What information do you evaluate, and how important is each type of information in this situation (e.g., stack sizes, stack positions, player types, etc)? Why do you rank these types of information in the order you rank them?
3) Are you thinking ahead to what your play in the blinds will be? Are you considering previous plays UTG? If so, could you give an example?

I'm sure it will be difficult to articulate some of this information (you may have even forgotten it by now), but I think some of the most important knowledge I gain in these examples isn't the mathematics, but the table thought processes of other successful players.

[Frank Zappy]

Also the best raise for the CL to make UTG with 74s is a mini 2BB raise.

Think of it!

It's either AA or a stone cold bluff, no?

[DLizzle]

I watched the full hh of this tourney, and I'd just like to encourage others to do so, because nath makes similar UTG raises numerous times, and just see how many times he takes the blinds uncontested.

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]
I watched the full hh of this tourney, and I'd just like to encourage others to do so, because nath makes similar UTG raises numerous times, and just see how many times he takes the blinds uncontested.

[/ QUOTE ] I watched the FT, where this hand occurred. I tallied nath's UTG raises from when it was 8-handed to when it was 5-handed. He played in the UTG position 11 times. He raised 6 times. Two of those times he had a good hand (AK, 88). He was called twice (in other words, he was called 33% of the time). Net outcome: negative 25k chips.

For those who argue that nath had the table running scared, he was called by a 33 and by an A9. Sounds like the table adjusted well to nath's playing style.

Sorry to bring up the facts. I know you defenders of Nath like to go with the "feel of the thing" and ignore the inconvenient facts.

[UF_Gators]

I think all this mathmatical gibberish is really a conspiracy to loosen up Nath's opponents. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]