Things it took me a while to learn part 1, Stack Sizes

[BarryLyndon]

Actually, 16-20BB stack is very difficult for me. Say, 50/100 blinds, 2000, in the UTG, UTG+1, and sometimes MP1. I'm almost entirely unsure what to do with 66-88, AJ-AQ. I itch to play those hands. My default is to raise to 275, but there are always a myriad of problems:

1. A big stack who floats me and goes to school on me when I miss.

2. A stack at around 1000 - 1200 that comes over the top.

Should I open limp and give up to a raise, assuming the raise isn't coming from a shorty? Open fold? How does table dynamics effect things here?

Barry

[Bond18]

Sherman, i think you bring up a valid point.

I've recently been playing a few smaller stakes tournaments to try and get a good HH to post here about how LAG you can get. What i've noticed is that few players know they can resteal so i think at tables full of weak/tights at 14-20 BB's raise/folding is totally fine.

Barry, i think utg at like 16 BB's i end up folding AJ but raising AQ intending to fold to a reraise in most spots.

I prolly fold 66, maybe 77, but i'm opening 88.

Agreed that it's an awkward spot. I think basically if you raise one of these hands in EP at this stack just play it super straight forward and don't expect people to get out of line with you.

[21times20]

there already is this term called "M" that the majority of people know and understand, is there some fundamental flaw in the concept of M that requires you to replace it with this "true BB"? it doesn't seem conceptually different in any way at all except that you are using 2/3 of the pot instead of the whole pot in making your calculations

[Bond18]

[ QUOTE ]
there already is this term called "M" that the majority of people know and understand, is there some fundamental flaw in the concept of M that requires you to replace it with this "true BB"? it doesn't seem conceptually different in any way at all except that you are using 2/3 of the pot instead of the whole pot in making your calculations

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll be 100% honest with you. MikeJ and Curtains were the big proponents to me with the true BB. At first i resisted, then once i converted over to it i really liked it. I'll ask one of them to come and explain why it's good, as they are way smarter with technical/mathematical stuff.

[curtains]

M is retarded, true BB is much more accurate and easier to grasp, but maybe that's because I grew up playing SnGs in which it's really ridiculous to not think in terms of BBs.

btw is true BB same thing that I do? Basically just take 2/3rds of antes, add them to BB etc etc and thats the new effective BB? I wrote article on this over a year ago.

[Bond18]

[ QUOTE ]
M is retarded, true BB is much more accurate and easier to grasp, but maybe that's because I grew up playing SnGs in which it's really ridiculous to not think in terms of BBs.

btw is true BB same thing that I do? Basically just take 2/3rds of antes, add them to BB etc etc and thats the new effective BB? I wrote article on this over a year ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the one curtains. Do you mind explaining a little in detail why you find it preferable to M?

[Sherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
M is retarded, true BB is much more accurate and easier to grasp, but maybe that's because I grew up playing SnGs in which it's really ridiculous to not think in terms of BBs.

btw is true BB same thing that I do? Basically just take 2/3rds of antes, add them to BB etc etc and thats the new effective BB? I wrote article on this over a year ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the one curtains. Do you mind explaining a little in detail why you find it preferable to M?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never used it before, but I would find it preferable b/c it is the most equivalent with what you are using the rest of the tournament (i.e. 1 BB = 2/3 the starting pot before antes are in play).

Sherman

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
M is retarded, true BB is much more accurate and easier to grasp, but maybe that's because I grew up playing SnGs in which it's really ridiculous to not think in terms of BBs.

btw is true BB same thing that I do? Basically just take 2/3rds of antes, add them to BB etc etc and thats the new effective BB? I wrote article on this over a year ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the one curtains. Do you mind explaining a little in detail why you find it preferable to M?

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't it just seem really natural to think in terms of # of BBs? Here's my article listed below although I wouldn't say its extremely advanced:


How to account for antes in NL Tournaments (# of Theoretical Big Blinds)


As many One table tournament players know, you generally think of your stack size in terms of # of Big Blinds. I definitely do this because its exceptionally easy, and makes it very simple to determine whether or not you should raise in a given situation. Also all of the math I have ever done on poker involves # fo BBs. I am going to coin a term called the tBB, which is the theoretical big blind in ante based situations.


Recently the former WSOP Champion, Dan Harrington, coined a term called "M". This term stands for your stack size divided by the BB,SB and the antes. The number you get is supposed to guide you towards making your decisions. While I'm sure it's reasonably effective, I find it incredibly annoying that it doesn't use # of BB's as it's measurement unit.

To combat that I have created what I think is a much more valuable system to those who wish to think in terms of # of BB's. Let's say for example that you have 3000 chips in the SB where the blinds are 100-200. The table is 9 handed. You obviously have 15x the BB, which is generally enough so that you shouldn't just be opening allin from the SB with hands like Q7o.

Now let's talk about how to adjust our calculations once we take antes into account. Let's say that there is a 25 chip ante as well. What I think is the best way to handle this, is to take the sum of the antes, and put 2/3rds of them towards the BB, and the other third towards the SB. So there are 225 ante chips in play because there are (9 players * 25 chips). 2/3rds of 225 = 150. 1/3rd of 225 = 75. So now we add the 150 to the BB and we see that the actual blind structure is 175-350. Suddenly we don't even have 10x the BB! We actually have just 8.5x the BB. I believe that this sudden change in our calculations makes Q7o a clear allin, based on its figure of 9x the BB on the famous Karlsen and Sklansky charts.


Also note that you should generally be SLIGHTLY looser than even these figures suggest, as the blinds will have less money committed than usual. Yes the blinds may theoretically be 175/350, but the BB only has 225 in the pot, thus making him less committed and probably slightly tighter.


Anyway I hope that this article should provide a reasonable alternative to those of you who hate thinking in terms of "M" and would prefer to keep their thinking in terms of # of BB's. Just remember to make this simple calculation at the beginning of each level, so you know what the theoretical blind structure actually is. Below are a few examples for you to figure out on your own:




1. The blinds are 300-600 with a 75 chip ante. The table is 9 handed. You have 4800 chips. How many multiples of the theoretical BB do you have?


2. The blinds are 300-600 with a 50 chip ante. The table is 9 handed and you have 4200 chips. How many multiples of the theoretical BB do you have.


3. The blinds are 1000-2000 and the antes are 100. The table is 6 handed. You have 34000 chips. How many multiples of the theoretical BB do you have?




(4.5) instead of (8).

This should show you how drastic an effect the antes have. You have nearly half as many multiples of the BB that you would if ante's werent involved. You should see how pointless it can be to say something like "I had 8x the BB but there were antes involved". Instead just do this calculation at the beginning of each level.



(4.67) instead of (7).


This is an example of how important the ante amount is. Despite having less chips we actually have more multiples of the BB than in example 1, just because the ante size was 33% less.


(14.167) instead of (17)


This shows that the effects will be lessened somewhat when the table is shorter and the antes are only 1/20th of the BB. However there still is a serious difference between 14 and 17x the BB. If the table was 9 handed we would have just 13x the tBB.









**** - Another method of calculating your tBB is to look at the total pot size before the hand. Most online sites provide this information in clear view on the playing table. You can then take 2/3rds of this figure and have an approximate BB size to use for your calculations. In fact this method may be simpler than the one I have written about above. It's the same concept it just allows you to skip a step, namely the adding of 2/3rds of the ante to the BB.

[21times20]

yeah that's what i figured, basically there is no difference in effectiveness at all, it just comes down to whether you are used to thinking in terms of M or big blinds

since i did very little strategic thinking regarding stack sizes in tournaments before HOH 2, advice given in terms of BB's is just as awkward and foreign to me as im sure M is to some people

[Boise123]

Great post, looking forward to part 2