Wtf.. I have no idea how to play sats..

[Jonathan]

[ QUOTE ]
so i did play it ok?

[/ QUOTE ]

You played it perfect!

[Jonathan]

[ QUOTE ]
yah but i think you are always ahead here. maybe turn and river card are tainting my decision but i shove flop all day;

[/ QUOTE ]

Yah.....after a raise and reraise allin, no one can EVER have AA or KK or
QQ or JJ or TT. Yah.....just shove it....you will NEVER EVER lose in this spot!

[Jonathan]

[ QUOTE ]
How many people have shorter stacks than you? That is a way more important question than if you are above or below average. In my experience, being above average at this point means you are about 5th or 6th in chips.

Anyhow, in sats., I always figure out what the average stack will be when the bubble breaks. That is always the key number to me. If I am above or just below that, I don't worry too much. There are almost always very short stacks and I can fold in with 4 BBs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Sherman,

I always calculate this number too, but lately I've been questioning
its usefulness. The problem is that there are often one or two
players who have accumulated very large stacks (especially true if there
are a large number of seats to be paid) so therefore many people who
have stacks well below average will qualify. If you are shooting for the
average stack size, then you could very easily overplay some weaker hands
and bust out unnecessarily.

For example, in last nights $1050 EPT London qualifier, there were
5 seats, and 7 players remaining. The "average stack size at bubble" =
36,900. But the actual stack sizes were something like this:

1. 22k
2. 75k
3. 24k
4. 23k
5. 15k
6. 9k
7. 6k

This with the blinds at 400/800 antes 50 (i think). So In this case,
all the players with stack sizes 20 - 25k have an excellent chance to win
the seat, even though their stack size is substantially less the calculated
average stack at bubble. One player with the 24k stack had been playing
a 3k stack super cautiously for hours, scraping along the bottom, and
finally picked up QQ AA AA and few other assorted goodies in a short
period of time to get to the 24k mark. Now had he been overconcerned
about the average number earlier, he may have been more inclined to
push some weaker hands and jeopardize his chances to win the seat.

Although I always calculate this number right away, I find that I am
relying upon it less and less. The number simply does not have an
impact on my actions, in the same way as my M would, for example.

Suerte,
jonathan

[Sherman]

Hi Jonathan,

I agree with you. In sats that pay many seats, the average chips at the bubble is less important, but I still want to know what that number is. Because if I go over that number, I can almost always safely fold into a seat because, like you said, people with much fewer than average chips are going to make it. I still think the average number is a good target for that reason. Because once I get there, if it is near the bubble, I can almost always fold in.

[illini43]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
folding nits what is he losing to?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not about what he is losing to. It is about what he could lose to.

Say hypothetically that if he folds this hand right now he is 95% to get a seat.

If he shoves, his opponents are certainly not drawing dead. But, let's say he is 75% to win the pot if he shoves. If he shoves and wins, he gets a seat 100% of the time.

When he shoves and loses, his chances of getting a seat drop to ~40%. Again this is hypothetical.

So 75% of the time, he increases his $EV from $204.25 (.95 * $215) to $215. A gain of $10.75.

25% of the time he decreases his $EV from $204.25 (.95 * $215) to $86 (.40 * $215), a loss of $129.

Now to complete the math: (.75 * $10.75) + (.25 * -$128) = $8.06 + -$32.25 ~= -$24.19.

Thus, shoving here costs the OP $24.19 everytime he does so, making a +cEV play -$EV.

This example is hypothetical to demonstrate why making a +cEV play in a Sat can be hugely -$EV. An even better one can be done in this case by 1) making better estimates of OP's chances of winning a seat if he folds 2) making estimates of his opponents' hand ranges 3) running the numbers in pokerstove and 4) making a better estimate of his chances of winning a seat if he loses.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a beautiful explanation Sherman. I don't know how else to put it. This post should somehow be added to adanthar's sat. strategy.

[plzleenowhammy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
folding nits what is he losing to?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not about what he is losing to. It is about what he could lose to.

Say hypothetically that if he folds this hand right now he is 95% to get a seat.

If he shoves, his opponents are certainly not drawing dead. But, let's say he is 75% to win the pot if he shoves. If he shoves and wins, he gets a seat 100% of the time.

When he shoves and loses, his chances of getting a seat drop to ~40%. Again this is hypothetical.

So 75% of the time, he increases his $EV from $204.25 (.95 * $215) to $215. A gain of $10.75.

25% of the time he decreases his $EV from $204.25 (.95 * $215) to $86 (.40 * $215), a loss of $129.

Now to complete the math: (.75 * $10.75) + (.25 * -$128) = $8.06 + -$32.25 ~= -$24.19.

Thus, shoving here costs the OP $24.19 everytime he does so, making a +cEV play -$EV.

This example is hypothetical to demonstrate why making a +cEV play in a Sat can be hugely -$EV. An even better one can be done in this case by 1) making better estimates of OP's chances of winning a seat if he folds 2) making estimates of his opponents' hand ranges 3) running the numbers in pokerstove and 4) making a better estimate of his chances of winning a seat if he loses.

[/ QUOTE ]

ty