The Gigabet dilemma in action

[mikeJ]

My understanding is that taking -cEV gamble is acceptable if the following two conditions are met...

Condition 1) By winning, it allows you to access +cEV spots that aren't accessible to your current stack.
Condition 2) When you lose, the set of +cEV spots available to you is not greatly affected.



Gigabet's example: If you're in a SnG, there's a big difference between a 28 bb stack and a 20 bb stack, but not a big diff between a 17 bb stack and a 20 bb stack.

(Condition 1 is met) If he wins the gamble, he has 28 bbs and the 2nd CL has 20 bbs, so he would cover everybody by a decent amount. Once the bubble rolls around, he will have an easier time abusing the bubble w/ a decent CL, than if he was even w/ 1 or 2 people. He can do more stuff w/ a 28 bb stack than he can w/ a 20 bb stack. @ the next level, blinds double, and having a 14 bb stack, when everybody is 10 bbs or under is a pretty big advantage in a SnG.

(Condition 2 is met) If he loses the gamble, he has 17 bbs and a very similar set of +cEV spots available to him (relative to having a 20 bb stack). He can do the same stuff w/ an 17 bb stack that he can w/ a 20 bb stack.



In your example, if you win you have 22.5 bbs, if you lose you have 13.5 bbs, if you fold you have 17.5 bbs, which corresponds to 17, 10, 13, bbs respectively @ the next level, 800/1600.

(Is condition 1 met?) Personally, If I have 22.5 bbs, I am not able to coldcall any more than w/ the 17.5 bb stack, my opening raising range is about the same. There's no bubble to abuse, and when we win the flip, we'll be an avg. stack @ the table. Perhaps Gavin is able to do a lot more w/ a 22.5 bb stack than a 17.5 bb stack, but I don't know how.

(Is condition 2 met?) If you lose, your resteal FE is hurt @ this level and the next. Personally, I am comparably tight on a 17.5 bb and 13.5 bb stack when there are much bigger stacks @ the table.

So really, the positives of winning the gamble are not substantial, but the negatives of losing the gamble are not substantial either.

[LearnedfromTV]

ahhhhhhhhhh it's back nooooooooo

[LearnedfromTV]

i say this despite finding the whole thing interesting.

[Bond18]

[ QUOTE ]
this isnt reasonable though. K5s is not reasonable. A8 is reasonable, 44 is reasonable. This is just insanity, you can afford to lose those chips at all. That 5k is the difference between having FE and not having FE on a resteal when the blinds go up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is spot on. Having enough to jam on a raise with FE is to important to give up by shoving a severely speculative hand. What advantage really, does the extra 6000 give us at the blind increase after all?

[WarDekar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this isnt reasonable though. K5s is not reasonable. A8 is reasonable, 44 is reasonable. This is just insanity, you can afford to lose those chips at all. That 5k is the difference between having FE and not having FE on a resteal when the blinds go up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is spot on. Having enough to jam on a raise with FE is to important to give up by shoving a severely speculative hand. What advantage really, does the extra 6000 give us at the blind increase after all?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Gigabet's theory was when you could jump into a new block "bracket" without risk giving up your current zone. You're giving up too much here.

[flyingmoose]

This is a pretty poor example of the Gigabet dilemma, in my opinion. That post was about excess chips over a block, but that's not what you're risking. You're dipping into a block to make this call and if you win you don't even win a whole block.