Pot odds and tournament theory

whangarei · #1 10-22-2007, 10:01 PM

Here is a specific example from this year's WSOP HORSE event. 3 players see 4th in Razz w/ respective chances of winning:

Matusow 48%
Tomko 34%
Pescatori 18%

Pescatori last to act on 4th, 20K to call, pot size is 145K. So it is correct to call according to pot odds if he is at least a 14% favorite (20/145). So, I assume the correct decision in a cash game is to call. But, can the correct decision change in a tournament based on stack sizes, blinds, etc?

jay_shark · #2 10-22-2007, 10:17 PM

This is pretty much an ICM problem where we may regard each of the players as equally skilled , all things being equal . So a player with twice as many chips as his equal counterpart , should have a stack that is "almost" twice as valuable .

Are you familiar with ICM ?

whangarei · #3 10-22-2007, 10:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This is pretty much an ICM problem where we may regard each of the players as equally skilled , all things being equal . So a player with twice as many chips as his equal counterpart , should have a stack that is "almost" twice as valuable .

Are you familiar with ICM ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Integrated Chip Model I think? I have seen the term in the STT forum but I never bothered to study it and I really do not know anything about it, even how it would apply to the question I posed.

RustyBrooks · #4 10-22-2007, 10:35 PM

The problem here is that you are considering all-in equity on an early street. If he could call and be all in, the call would be correct. However, he almost certainly would have to face more bets on future streets, making his effective pot odds far worse than his equity. He absolutely made the correct fold on 4th st.

The game you were referring to was razz, I'm pretty sure I remember the hand in question, assuming we're talking about the same hand. In that particular hand, Dewey Tomko was almost all in, so there is relatively little room to play, also. Pescatori had secretly paired his down card and was at a big disadvantage to what looked like (and were) 2 live 4-card lows. Since his pair was concealed it would not *necessarily* be a bad move to call and hope to hit well on the next street and take the hand away (he would appear to have a 7 low, and his opponents at best would have a 9 and an 8 low). He might convince them to throw their hands away. But when a player is nearly all in you have to expect to have the best hand at showdown to make a move like that.

RustyBrooks · #5 10-22-2007, 10:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is pretty much an ICM problem where we may regard each of the players as equally skilled , all things being equal . So a player with twice as many chips as his equal counterpart , should have a stack that is "almost" twice as valuable .

Are you familiar with ICM ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Integrated Chip Model I think? I have seen the term in the STT forum but I never bothered to study it and I really do not know anything about it, even how it would apply to the question I posed.

[/ QUOTE ]

He means independent chip model. Towards the end of a tournament, as you get close to the money, your position starts to have a relationship to how much money you can expect to make. So, your decisions start to be affected by actual $ outcomes, not just chip outcomes. For example, if 3 players enter a hand, and 2 of them will be all in, and you are very near making the money, or near a big movement upwards in the money, you'd rather fold and let the two of them get knocked out, even if you have a great hand. This is assuming your chip stack is very low, and you don't feel you have a good chance of winning the tournament if you double or triple up here, and you'd rather make the money than take the risk for a small chance at victory.

whangarei · #6 10-23-2007, 05:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The problem here is that you are considering all-in equity on an early street. If he could call and be all in, the call would be correct. However, he almost certainly would have to face more bets on future streets, making his effective pot odds far worse than his equity. He absolutely made the correct fold on 4th st.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not understand what you mean by "effective pot odds." If you could explain this I think it would be quite helpful, as I think whatever you are referring to gets to the heart of my question. To play devil's advocate, to me it seems that pot odds are pot odds. Would the decision be any different in a cash game vs. tournament?

pzhon · #7 10-23-2007, 07:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Pescatori 18%

Pescatori last to act on 4th, 20K to call, pot size is 145K. So it is correct to call according to pot odds if he is at least a 14% favorite (20/145). So, I assume the correct decision in a cash game is to call.

[/ QUOTE ]
These last two statements are wrong.

The Independent Chip Model is a red herring. It can mean you should be slightly more risk averse in tournaments than in cash games, but the main problem with your thinking is that there is a big difference between playing poker and playing showdown. In cash games as well as tournaments, you often have to fold when you would be happy to call all-in, when the fact that your opponents can bet on later streets hurts you. Calling doesn't buy the right to go to showdown. It buys the right to face more bets on later streets.

[ QUOTE ]

But, can the correct decision change in a tournament based on stack sizes, blinds, etc?

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course it can.

whangarei · #8 10-23-2007, 07:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Pescatori 18%

Pescatori last to act on 4th, 20K to call, pot size is 145K. So it is correct to call according to pot odds if he is at least a 14% favorite (20/145). So, I assume the correct decision in a cash game is to call.

[/ QUOTE ]
These last two statements are wrong.

The Independent Chip Model is a red herring. It can mean you should be slightly more risk averse in tournaments than in cash games, but the main problem with your thinking is that there is a big difference between playing poker and playing showdown. In cash games as well as tournaments, you often have to fold when you would be happy to call all-in, when the fact that your opponents can bet on later streets hurts you. Calling doesn't buy the right to go to showdown. It buys the right to face more bets on later streets.

[/ QUOTE ]

This gets to the heart of my question, but maybe I'm being stubborn because I just don't buy your point. Why isn't each street judged independently? If it's good value to call on 4th then it's good value. A call means an investment of 14% of a pot when your hand is worth 18% (bad terminology I'm sure but you get the point). Sounds like a good deal.

pzhon · #9 10-23-2007, 07:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In cash games as well as tournaments, you often have to fold when you would be happy to call all-in, when the fact that your opponents can bet on later streets hurts you. Calling doesn't buy the right to go to showdown. It buys the right to face more bets on later streets.

[/ QUOTE ]
This gets to the heart of my question, but maybe I'm being stubborn because I just don't buy your point. Why isn't each street judged independently?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a fundamental misconception about poker. I've explained why. If you aren't willing to believe me, or the many good poker books which say the same thing, then you should do some calculations that you believe.

whangarei · #10 10-23-2007, 07:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In cash games as well as tournaments, you often have to fold when you would be happy to call all-in, when the fact that your opponents can bet on later streets hurts you. Calling doesn't buy the right to go to showdown. It buys the right to face more bets on later streets.

[/ QUOTE ]
This gets to the heart of my question, but maybe I'm being stubborn because I just don't buy your point. Why isn't each street judged independently?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a fundamental misconception about poker. I've explained why. If you aren't willing to believe me, or the many good poker books which say the same thing, then you should do some calculations that you believe.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well I'm not just willing to believe many things, but you could certainly convince me if you provide justification for your argument. So say we call on 4th and we have to call following the same betting on 5th. The bet size is now 40K so we would need at least a 16% chance (40/245) of winning to call on 5th. Doesn't seem too unlikely. I would like to hear a well-thought out justification for why potential action on later streets makes an "all in type call" unwise, especially in limit poker where future betting is, uh, limited.