The old notion of passing up marginal +ev spots in tournaments...

[tmcdmck]

chip equity and cash equity are different. if you double your chips by busting someone out, you less than double your expected earnings in the tournament, since everyone else gains some tournament equity by another player busting out.

To conclude it is categorically wrong to say you should take ANY +ev spot in a tournament if you want to maximise your hourly rate. infact, if someone shoves the first hand of a ten man sitngo, calling is negative cash equity unless you are 54% favourite to win the hand. I have a link somewhere that explains this all much more clearly than I ever could; I will post it when I find it.

[r3vbr]

If you are playing bad opponents AND you have other opportunities to play bad opponents (wich is the case of internet poker in wich several sit n gos are starting every few minutes) then it is correct to take even slightly NEGATIVE gambles of say 48vs52 just in order to upper the stakes.

Say you have a double-than-average chance of winning the SNG, and there are two or more SNGs availible at the site you play, but you only like to play 1 table at a time.

Now if you take a 48% gamble with slightly negative EV, half the time you are out and lose your buyin. But the other half of the time, you are playing with the same edge as before, but with twice the stack.
This is the case also in a cash game. Imagine you are versus a huge fish who has 3k stack on a 5/10 game. You buyin with 1k. I think it's correct to take slightly -ev gambles vs. the fish just to make your stack grow and play more deepstack vs. him and have the opportunity to stackhim. You invest twice the capital and thus your ROI% is applied over twice the absolute value.

Of course once you've gambled you should stop taking -ev plays and play more conservatively.

Also in a tournament I think most people are overly focused on "chip equity vs. money equity" wich I know is a variable to take into consideration. I'm only arguing that the Hourly rate, and the capital employed, are more important factors to consider, and they trump these other considerations that usually people consider most important when playing mtt.

I don't have the math to back up these theories but would be glad if someone helped out and did some quantitative analysis. I'm pretty sure this will be proven accurate.

[PantsOnFire]

I thinks it's more important to recognize the marginal situations than it is to decide what to do there. If you start giving up AK pf if you think you are sure you are up against a pair then you might want to consider a little harder if villain could make whatever play he made with AQ, AJ or KQ.

Because folding AK thinking you don't want to face off against JJ when actually villain had AJ is a more monunmental error than deciding to flip a coin or not.

The same would apply to a hand like a pair with the nut flush draw on a (non-paired) flop. You very likely could have 14 outs which is close to a coin flip. You might have as few as 9 outs. However, if you are against an underpair or a straight draw or a lower flush draw, you are dominating.

My last point is related to how the coin flip scenario goes down. If I strongly feel I am in a coin flip, it is much better to have chips left and be the aggressor. That extra fold equity is everything and can turn a 50/50 into a potential 60/40 or 70/30 or better.

[The 13th 4postle]

Your thinking is good OP but, I think the general opinion is correct on this one. The name of the game in tournaments is too survive.... in cash game I will never ever lay down KK. I don't care how many pre-flop re-raises there are I would rather lose it to the chance of AA then fold it.

In tournament I might fold to a couple re-raises pre-flop because I do not want to get out of the tournament, it's not worth the risk.

I'm showing you this extreme example to show that the +EV marginal situation is bad in tournament and not in cash game.

Hourly rate is very important but, what good is it if your out of the tournament. Once your out, your out you can't re-buy unless of course you can in which case you play the same as cash game.

Believe this to be true and you will go farther in tournaments then you have before.

[Pokerfarian]

[ QUOTE ]
Your thinking is good OP but, I think the general opinion is correct on this one. The name of the game in tournaments is too survive.... in cash game I will never ever lay down KK. I don't care how many pre-flop re-raises there are I would rather lose it to the chance of AA then fold it.

In tournament I might fold to a couple re-raises pre-flop because I do not want to get out of the tournament, it's not worth the risk.

I'm showing you this extreme example to show that the +EV marginal situation is bad in tournament and not in cash game.

Hourly rate is very important but, what good is it if your out of the tournament. Once your out, your out you can't re-buy unless of course you can in which case you play the same as cash game.

Believe this to be true and you will go farther in tournaments then you have before.

[/ QUOTE ]
If we're talking MTTs then most of this post is just wrong :-o

[RobNottsUk]

[ QUOTE ]
but online if you bust you just register at another tourney. If you never pass a +ev spot (I'm talking even a 51% vs. 49% spot) then you will eventually win the most money on an HOURLY RATE basis because you wont grind hours and hours on a tournament just to reach the bubble or stuff like that.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you guys don´t have to pay a 10% Admin Fee to enter a tourney?

In the real world, if you´re playing worse players than you, online or not, it´s stupid to get All In on 51-49 shot as recommended by couple of posters.

You´ll take those shots so often that you´ll actually reduce your edge, because you´re not giving opponents the time needed to make a big error, that offers you a huge edge, in the rush to take a slim edge.

If you´re no better than your opponents, then you should push thinner edges, when you´re far from the money. But why are you entering this Tourney anyway in that case?

[pzhon]

This has been analyzed many times in the past. Most people who understand the subject are tired of it. That's why the level of discussion here has been so low.

Look up the article on flipping in tournaments by Matt Matros. Look up the discussion of a related, but worse article in the 2+2 Internet Magazine. There was a recent related thread in this forum, from about 2 weeks ago. "Calling just has to lose less than about half of the value of getting to play another tournament."

[JammyDodga]

[ QUOTE ]
This has been analyzed many times in the past. Most people who understand the subject are tired of it. That's why the level of discussion here has been so low.


[/ QUOTE ]

Harsh but fair.

[RobNottsUk]

[ QUOTE ]
Look up the article on flipping in tournaments by Matt Matros.

[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting article, but the author assumes that there is added value in having the big stack, if you add 10% to the stack size acheived with 0.538 probability you are going to skew the answer in favour of "flipping".

Against bad players who call too much and pay off, the value of a big stack is in riding beats, and the opportunity to play more speculative hands (but is this really worth 20% of the starting stack?). You´ld call in the BB with QQ, expecting frequently to see JJ..22 or AQ..A9, but do you really think calling against AKs is the TEV maximising decision against worse players?

462 x 1.1 = 508 cost BI´'s

538 profit, making + 30 BI´s per 1,000 tourneys.

Folding accepts accepts a hit of tc 50, out of stack 10,000.


But what is your TEV of the double up chip stack?

According to the article author, it´s not $20,000 but $22,000 to reflect a higher TEV and big stack benefits.

If it were a Winner Takes All, then clearly you take the shot, as there´s +ve TEV in the increased winning chances, each chip is worth the same.

But if you believe theory of multiple placings tournaments who calculate that each extra chip is actually worth less, due to the tourney pay out structure then you won´t agree with those article conclusions nor the working.

Flippers, as everyone in the long run is dealt the same cards, to profit in a tourney, you need to find some way of getting an edge, that is not dependant on "cards speak". If you were forced to flip every hand, it is obvious that you´ld be a losing player due to the entry fees in tourneys without added value.

Good spots do crop up against bad players, even in 8min blind level SnG´s online, the main beneficaries of flipping are the players who folded their hands, not those hoping to double up.

[El_Hombre_Grande]

Read or re-read the Harrington Books, as this is wrong on so many levels. In a large MTT if you are constantly seeking out coinflips early on, your hourly rate is likely to be zero. Those chips are not $$$, they are equity in the tournament. Virtually every pro uses a small ball game to accumulate chips, all the while attempting to trap a player on a huge hand.

But I think the biggest flaw in your logic is the fact that all your splashing around in very dangerous spots is not nearly as effective of a technique as becoming very aggressive when the blind stealing becomes worthwhile.

FWIW, I actually play your technique on FPP freerolls, etc. that aren't really worth my time. And the logic is: I want a hige stack early or go home early. The difference is I know its not optimal play, but I'd rather place no 500 out of 500 that 43 and win $11 for 3 hrs.