Annie Duke... And Won Millions

[Red_Diamond]

I recently read Annie Duke’s biography (alright it was on sale for 8 bucks so give me a break!)

There was a little poker strategy section in the back and one little part has me puzzled.

She starts off by stating that the more chips you have in a tournament, the less each is worth because of the payout structure, etc. So a smaller stacks chips are worth more per chip than a bigger stack’s.

Ok, I understand this concept well and I have no problems with that.

But then she claims because of this, you should be gambling more when you have lots of chips. She further states that it is ok to take draws where you normally would not do because of the negative EV, since your chips do not have as much value when you are large.

What?

This is contradictory to what I remember seeing published in 2+2. IIRC, if you have a large stack you should NOT be looking to gamble with a small stack. If you’re in a coin-toss, the value you win is less than the value you lose. When the short stack doubles up through you, the value of his chips decreases less than the value of yours.

Thus the larger stack is getting the worst of it when gambling around in these tosses.

Someone else want to comment, clarify?

[JasonP530]

You are not looking to gamble "value of chips" You are looking to make +ev decisions based on all factor. If she really claims it is ok to make -ev decisions, that is wrong. The idea is to accumulate chips, not to engage in battle with people with higher or lower EV of chips. The reason for taking on small stacks is that you can face them with elimination and often make them(or medium stacks) fold by applying pressure in situations where they will have to commit all of their chips. Having a big stack allows you to avoid that problem(in most cases), and allows you to get away from your hand in certain spots where a smaller stack would be commmitted.

-Jason

[Red_Diamond]

I am surprised there is so few responses on this topic. Perhaps the name Annie Duke turns people off from even looking at this thread O_o

In any case, I will quote directly out of the horse’s mouth so there are no mis-interpretations.


p. 230-231

In tournaments, chips are valued in relation to the prize pool, so strange mathematical things can happen to the value of your chips, the most obvious of which is that the more chips you have, the less each chip is worth. Suppose you have a stack of one hundred chips and somebody else has a stack of five. Both of you are playing for the same prize pool. So, obviously, for the person with only five chips, each chip is worth a lot more than each of your one hundred chips. The reason: you’re playing for a finite number of dollars. There are certain strategies you’re supposed to play when your chips aren’t worth their face value.

Here’s an example. If you get hold of a lot of chips in a tournament, for both psychological and mathematical reasons you should play much looser. Individually, your chips are less valuable than the chips in the pot, so you’re actually getting a better price from the pot every time you play somebody who has a shorter stack.

So when you’re playing in a tournament against someone with a short stack, be looser in your draws. Because each chip is worth less, you can play more hands and bet more with the hope of drawing the right cards from the flop. Your chip may say $20, and there might be $100 in the pot, but the pot is giving you better than 5-to-1 odds because you have so many chips to play.

But if it’s you who has the short stack, you probably shouldn’t be chasing draws. Because each of your chips is worth more, you’re not actually getting a great price. Each card you pursue becomes more expensive. So it might look like the pot’s offering you 2-to-1 odds on hitting a particular card, but it’s not.

[npc]

[ QUOTE ]
Your chip may say $20, and there might be $100 in the pot, but the pot is giving you better than 5-to-1 odds because you have so many chips to play.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're correct in that this advice is messed up. Sure, the $20 it takes to call is worth less than $20 because of your big stack, but the $100 in the pot is also worth less than $100 to you if you win it, so the pot odds are still about 5 to 1.

In a tournament, each chip in your stack is always worth more to you than the corresponding chip in the pot. Unless you're in or very close to the money, this factor almost never comes into play, but generally this is a reason to marginally prefer draws in cash games than in the same situations in a tournament.

[fraac]

She's just saying that draws to big hands want big stacks to get your implied odds. It's not the same 'chips changing value' due to payout structure idea.

[fraac]

Oh. She isn't quite saying that. Yeah, mental.

[mucked4u]

Mason wrote an excellent article on this subject. Just do a search through his articles.

[RobNottsUk]

You gain TEV from busting someone, when you are near or in the money. Therefore, if you have chips to burn, you might take a little of the worst of it, against a smaller stack, because they are more dangerous to you, than their chip sizes suggest.

This is seperate, from making fold equity plays (raising with trash) and then calling desperate shortstacks AI re-raises, based on pot odds.

The general idea is, the short stack loses more real $, when busting out, than you lose when the suck out fails to materialise. Shaving 3% of a huge stack is not going to significantly alter your chances is it?

[HighStakesPro]

The problem here is the equivocation of "large" and "small". The stacks you're trying to attack are the ones who have enough chips so that they aren't forced to make a move, but are low enough that they can't put any real pressure on you by threatening to take a lot of your stack. This is of course if you have a large stack. Early in the tournament this isn't really applicable because even if you doubled up, most stacks can still seriously hurt you. Later in the tournament, a big stack might mean 5x or more as much as some of your oponents. That's when you can attack them. They can't put pressure on you so they'll need a hand to play back.