Is there a "reverse Gigabet Dilemma"? Big stack play late in a MTT

[NinjaMan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point was instead of making -cEV plays to gain big stack (the Gigabet Dilemma) ,you pass +cEV plays to keep big stack (the "Reverse" Gigabet Dilemma).

[/ QUOTE ]

Your point makes no sense. In the long term, making +cEV calls is just that ... +cEV. SO, you're deciding to pass on a long term gathering of chips to maintain a steady stack while others increase theirs? I can understand passing on marginally -cEV situations if you feel you need those chips to balance being outplayed by other players. However, passing on +cEV situations, especially as the big stack, will be -$EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're wrong. passing on +EV situations in the short term can be very +$EV in the long run. this idea is nothing new. traditional tournament wisdom tells you to be very aggressive with the small stack, but very conservative with the big stack. there's no need to gamble it up when you're already in the lead.

in most cases a very slight +EV play is dependent on your analysis of the hand, which is always an inexact science. one slight miscue makes the hand -EV. with the a small stack you don't have the luxury of waiting for a better situation, you just have to go with the read you have and do the best you can.

that luxury does exist when you have a chip lead. the big stack buys you the time to sit and wait. that way you can get your chips in when you KNOW you're making a +EV play. this isn't a fear of being outplayed by other players. it is, in fact, out playing them by making a smart tactical decision.

i'm not saying this is always the right thing to do. bullying a table with a big stack can be very effective, but it can also backfire in a hurry. it can be better to sit and wait.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm *not* wrong, and neither are you. I do like, however, how you brought in a discussion, someone goes in the other opinion, and you say he's wrong. That seems a little unfair, dontchathink?

On topic, I can understand your line about *certain* situations warranting a pass on +cEV calls. However, I think your logic is a little flawed (but maybe mine is, too). Let's look at this situation here:

12 people left, 2 tables of 6. At your table, you have the big stack of 100k. The following stacks are at the table:
60k
10k
20k
50k
40k
Blinds are: 1000/2000 (no ante for argument's sake)

You're in the CO with pp6, and UTG (10k) pushes all-in. From your experience with UTG, he's not great, so he's probably pushing a tighter range than us 2p2ers. Let's say it looks like this, once you figured a range:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 53.6506 % 53.22% 00.43% { 66 }
Hand 2: 46.3494 % 45.92% 00.43% { 22+, A2s+, K8s+, Q9s+, J9s+, A2o+, K8o+, QTo+, JTo }


Does this constitute a marginally +cEV call? Yes. Should you ever pass it up as a bigstack? Probably not. The call increases your +cEV while eliminated someone close to a pay increase, thus, +EV$ in the long term. If UTG had a higher stack, maybe 35-40k, I would understand (but not 100% agree with) folding.

While you nurse the big stack, passing on +cEV opportunities, others are grabbing chips that could have been yours, to increase your chip equity amongst the remaining players, while also creating a higher percentage of the prize pool for yourself.

[etojim]

The point I was trying to make is that maybe passing when UTG does have 30-40K may be a +$EV move, even though since it is +cEV, some would call.

Also earlier icm44 stated "Many fish play as you describe: they nurse their big stack, hoping to slide into the big money. Don't be one of them." I wasn't talkig about shutting it down and sliding into the money (although I may be a fish!)You can't "slide" >350 places from the bubble to last 2-3 tables without playing the aggressive poker that the big stack allows, stealing blinds, etc; but calling raises, all-ins from stacks that represent > 1/3 of your stack with hands that may be ahead, but marginally so may cost you more when u lose than what u gain when win.

[LearnedfromTV]

Good post Ninja.

This isn't to say that a "reverse Gigabet Dilemma" situation never exists, but:

a) If you are close to the end of the tournament, there is a natural tendency for a borderline cEV call to have greater $EV than cEV for a big stack, because of the value of eliminating a player. I think this usually outweighs the decreasing marginal value of excess chips and the splashing around value of using big stack chips to accumulate without showdown; in fact, one could argue that the best possible use of excess chips is to take 50/50 shots at eliminating short stacks (since the wins have a built-in $EV bonus that any negative impact of taking the 50/50 has to overcome. Say you have 50K with 9 players left. Even if the difference between 60K/9 players and 50K/9 players is less than the difference between 40K/9 players and 50K/9 players, the difference between 50K/9 and 60K/8 is probably greater.

b) If you are earlier in a tournament, your "big stack" likely isn't big enough (i.e if you don't accumulate chips you won't be a big stack for long).

[NinjaMan]

I think we're finding our ideas to be pretty close, honestly. 40k stack wouldnt be a middle stack, and not a small stack, so the stipulations change a little. Still, say you lose to the 40k stack: you're still at 60k, which has decreased your prize pool equity. However, would jumping 140+k gain more prize equity than dropping to 60k lose prize equity? Does that make sense or did I word that horrendously?

[LearnedfromTV]

Yes, my post was intended to agree with yours, maybe the wording didn't make that clear.

With your 60/100/140 example - I think it's is generally the case that it is better to have

A) 140K w/ one player eliminated half the time
60K the other half (same # of players)

than

B) 100K (folding and 'preserving the big stack')

And I'm just pointing out that in scenario A) it matters (a lot) that you are eliminating a player half the time. That is, maybe B) is better than A) if you take away the value of eliminating a player late in the tournament. But the value of eliminating a player trumps and A) is better than B).

[etojim]

Somewhere within the answer to that question lays the answer to the real question which is "What is the optimal way to play a big stack between the bubble and the FT?" This has been a real problem for me, because several weeks ago, for whatever reason, in 8/10 big MTT's I played I found myself on the bubble with top ten stack.

I think there are really two seperate issues. The one you raise concerning prize equity, etc. which I'll call "meta-considerations". I think these depend on:

What is my goal? (Win the tourney, FT, certain $ amount)

How big is your stack in relationship to the remaining field (your Q)?

When is the next "mini-bubble"? (next prize increase, FT bubble, etc.)

Then there are the considertions of the moment; how will my big stack at the table I am currently on help me on reach my loftier goals?

Again there are several things to consider:
How big is your stack in relationship to others at the table you are on ?

How long have you been at the table? Do you have a table image? Do you have reads on other players? When will tble break?

What is the real "value" of maintaining a big stack at your tble? Are blinds being folded to you? Do people respect your raises, steals, re-steals? Late in a tourney when blinds are say 5000/10000 this could make a huge difference as everyones M's drift down.

Is there a stack size where you lose this "value"?

Thinking about all of these issues has helped me reach several FT's after I gain a big stack on/shortly after bubble, esp in the pp $50-$100 MTT' the last week or so.