The Gigabet dilemma in action

[gergery]

I definitely think Giga is onto something with these posts.

Consider on this hand you’re getting ~2:1 pots odds. Against a relatively tight range that shorty could have, you have ~35% equity.
equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 63.5905 % 62.91% 00.68% { 99+, 77-44, A2s+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, A6o+, KJo+ }
Hand 2: 36.4095 % 35.73% 00.68% { Ks5s }

You’ll be a big dog if called by blinds, so maybe you really a bit more, so lets say this play costs you ~T150 or something in isolation. It's really pretty small.

But what do you gain? First, none of 2 stacks to your left can call, and one of them would have almost 100% of the time. So this avoids BB potentially having you outstacked by 12k instead of 4k.

Second, losing means that even with blinds up you are at ~10x BB. With blinds here you are at ~14xBB. Those are awkward stack sizes to play. But if you win you get to 20-28BB, which gives much more room.

Third, even if shorty doubles, he is still just to your right, meaning the flow of chips is likely to bring them back.

So I think the logic is very good here. The question I have is, how do you evaluate whether that T150 is good spend? ie. Is Q4o good enough to jam? What if shorty is 3 spots to your right and slightly bigger stacked? Does it change if guy to your right is very good player? Where do you draw the line? Or said another way, how many chips is shifting things around worth to you?


-g

[mornelth]

The ADDITIONAL point here is eliminating a short stack that is two to your RIGHT and thus improving your relative position at the table.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
Consider on this hand you’re getting ~2:1 pots odds. Against a relatively tight range that shorty could have, you have ~35% equity.
equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 63.5905 % 62.91% 00.68% { 99+, 77-44, A2s+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, A6o+, KJo+ }
Hand 2: 36.4095 % 35.73% 00.68% { Ks5s }

You’ll be a big dog if called by blinds, so maybe you really a bit more, so lets say this play costs you ~T150 or something in isolation. It's really pretty small.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are not getting 2-1 pot odds. You are betting 4480 to win 6955, so you are getting 1.55-1 and need to win 39% of the time to be cEV even.

Your average loss if you are called by the blinds is about 6K. If this happens 7% of the time, that's a loss of 400 just there. So I think the cEV- is a little higher. It may be about 600, one small blind. I agree it is not huge unless the blinds suspect what you are doing or are real calling stations.

I see the point of gambling big to build a big stack at certain points in a tournament, but I am not real clear about the benefits of this play.

That is a different theory of Gigabet's about depriving chips to the players to your left and I am not clear how this play has a big effect on that.

[A_PLUS]

[ QUOTE ]
That is a different theory of Gigabet's about depriving chips to the players to your left and I am not clear how this play has a big effect on that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe they are the same idea, depriving chips to the players on your left is a method to get the stacks the way you want. As is this play.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is a different theory of Gigabet's about depriving chips to the players to your left and I am not clear how this play has a big effect on that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe they are the same idea, depriving chips to the players on your left is a method to get the stacks the way you want. As is this play.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I understand it, the Gigabet dilemma is to gamble to build a big stack, since you can use a big stack to accumulate more chips and the main payout are for top places.

The other theory is to deprive the opponents to your left of chips to create short stacks to your left. This seems like a different theory.

I have a hard time believing that you will deprive the players to your left of enough chips with this sort of play to benefit you significantly.

[A_PLUS]

My only problem with this play is that you lose the ability to resteal if you lose. Which, from what I gathered, is necessary to take advantage of having the big stacks all to your right. If not, you just become another short stack playing push fold poker.

I guess it comes down to wether or not you see 16K vs 20K as playing differently. With, 16K you will be offering 2-1 to anyone who wants to call a resteal.

[gergery]

oops, yes, good correction.

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you should re-read the "Gigabet's theory on stack sizes" post in the Anthology post, he does a better job of explaining it.

[/ QUOTE ] Personally, I think it would have been better for you if you had never read it.

Gigabet is Picasso. You are Norman Rockwell. You do a great job when you are painting portaits and such. But man, when you attempt an abstract, you really stink up the place.

[Buckyinsc]

Stop!!! Your making me blow snot bubbles.

[gmac]

I have read Gigabets posts on the "Dilemma" and several others including this one... but one thing I don't understand is the "blocks" - what constitutes a block and why does he mention raising the blinds to find your correct model? When you say add or remove a block - in what sense do you mean this? Thanks.