Choose Life: A Hypothetical Model for the Gigabet Dilemma

[Gigabet]

I just read through the responses of the my last post that was entitled "Theory of Stack Sizes: Hypothetical Response to the Gigabet Dilemma." I thought that I would answer some of the more frequent questions in this post.

Choose Life

To see if I can simplify it for the people who say that it is completely over their head, or those who say it is complete nonsense, I will put together the simplest hypothetical model that I can come up with.

The structure is a HU freezeout with starting stacks of 10,000. The blinds start at 10/20, and double every hour. The first hand of the tournament the button(SB) is dealt two black Aces. The BB is dealt two random cards. The button opens the pot for 100, and then accidentally exposes his hand. The BB sees the two Aces and moves to make the call, but accidentally throws an extra chip in. The dealer sees that the extra chip is over half the origanal raise, so declares the raise binding.

Now it is the buttons action, he knows that the BB has seen his hand, and he knows that the BB knows that he knows that the two Aces were seen. So what size of raise should the Button now make?

To simplify the situation, I will assume some things about the two players levels of thinking. First, they both are familiar with true pot odds and implied pot odds. Second, they both know that the other is familiar with both types of odds.

With that knowledge, the button raises the pot to 1800 straight. That raise makes it so that no matter what two cards the BB holds, he will be making a mistake to call.

Now it is the BBs action. Should he call?

Your first instinct is probably folding, because you know that you are behind, and it is a big raise. Then your second instinct is to call, because you know that with the size of his raise, he will go broke if he is outflopped. While thinking that, you quickly calculate your odds of outflopping the two aces, and realize that you aren't getting the correct odds to try and outflop the two aces.

Here is where the Gigabet Dilemma comes into effect. Remember that "line" I was talking about? Where is the line at? Right off hand it appears as if it is at 10,000, since both stacks are even, but that is not so. Because the blinds are so insignificant to the size of the two stacks, the line is actually much lower than 10,000. Remember, I said that the line will move if the size of the pot or the size of another stack becomes exceedingly large or exceedingly small relative to the field.

In my mind, I see the line right around 6,500. Because the size of the bet needed to call doesn't fall below that line, and the result of winning gains the BB a new "block," I believe that he should make the call.

In simpler terms, with blinds at 10/20, what is the difference between a stack of 8000 and a stack of 10,000?

For those that still cannot accept a play that results in a long term net loss of chips, let's raise the stakes of this freezeout HU tournament. Originally, I'll say that the buy in is 10,000 dollars for each particapant, which makes the total prize pool 20,000 dollars.

Now let's change the prize pool to...your life. If you win, you live. If you lose, you die.

Now would you call the raise?

The Gigabet Dilemma is a combination of the Lottery Concept and a reverse of Gamblers Ruin.

Gamblers Ruin states that, because you cannot recover from zero, you should avoid taking gambles that have long term postitive expected value, if the result of losing the gamble sets you at zero. If that theory is accepted, wouldn't the reverse of that theory also be true?

If it is a mistake for a person to avoid positive gambling situations, if the result of losing the gamble sets that person to zero, then wouldn't it be correct to offer those situations? I don't believe that this would be a case of both players making a mistake so the field benefits. Because you aren't going below the "line," the lottery concept essentially takes over.

This model is a perfect example of that theory in play. Even though the BB is taking a long term net loss of chips(that doesn't go below the line when called and lost, but creates a new block when won); because the button will be set to zero when he loses the gamble, wouldn't it then be correct to offer(call) the gamble?

Paradox?

One of the more prevalent responses in that last thread pointed out the obvious paradox of me stating that I take certain -ev gambles with loose(meaningless) chips to gain more meaningless(the responses' adjective, not mine) chips. The chips I am willing to lose are meaningless, but when they are added to the chips that I could potentially win, a block is created that has real value in my stack.

Why can't I identify a single chip as having any value? I guess it boils down your position over the rest of the table. Position is used to describe who acts last in an individual hand. Position is something else also, sometimes you are in a very good "position" at the table. Usually when a person makes that statement, they mean that the strongest players at the table are on the players immediate right, and the weakest players are on the players immediate left.

Most of the time, you cannot control where you are sitting relative to the rest of the field. However, with added "blocks" to your stack, you can control where the other players are sitting, relative to you.

I'll explain by reducing a final table of a MTT to pure position, meaning that you have to play the remainder of the tournament out without looking at your hand. Of course the other players do not know that you aren't looking.

In this final table you are chip leader. Because you cannot look at your cards, you get the added bonus of placing the remaining eight stacks wherever you want them. Where would you place those stacks?

Seat 1 - t10,000 (you)
Seat 2 - t3,000
seat 3 - t4,000
seat 4 - t5,000
seat 5 - t6,000
seat 6 - t7,000
seat 7 - t8,000
seat 8 - t9,000
seat 9 - t9,500

Without any knowledge of the players individual abilities, you could say that you have really good position at this final table.

You could fall into this setup of stack sizes, or you could, using your blocks, orchestrate this setup.

People watch me play tournaments that are nearing the end, and convince themselves that, regardless of what people say, I am the biggest donkey that plays the game. They watch me go from chip leader to short stack, and then back to chip leader. Seemingly playing any two cards from any position, behind any amount raised.

I understand that reraising J4 is not going to make me any chips in the long run, but I have an extra block, that will allow me to play through multiple streets. And the fact is, it doesn't matter if the original raiser gets my chips. What does matter though, is that the players behind me cannot have a chance to get the raisers chips.

When I raise UTG with Q2, I understand that I am going to get called and/or reraised by someone behind me too often to make that raise profitable. However, I do not want the players on my immediate left a chance to play marginal hands and pick up chips, whereas, the players who are later to act, can and will play marginal hands against my ep raises, can have my chips. The players directly behind me won't play their marginal hands, not because they fear my ep raise too much, but because of the small chance that I do have a real hand combined with the chance of someone behind them waking up with a hand.

What do I do if I am successful at orchestrating the position of all of the stacks at my table? I sit back and make the standard play and watch the chips flow to the left. It is like a stream blocked by a dam, and I am the dam.

There is nothing in particular that has to be done when that situation arises....it just happens.

Gigabet

[AlphaWice]

POTY


Only Gigabet would suggest playing a HU Freezeout for your life.

-----------

It took me a couple of reads to understand your post (the first part at least). Is this what you are saying?

When blinds are very low, the stack sizes don't matter that much, because %edge is compounded. It makes a -cev decision +EV, because the disadvantage that the ratio of chips says that you should have (ICM says 8k v 12k is 2:3) is weakened by the fact that your edge can compound, so your situation isn't as bad as it seems. Whereas, if you bust the player in the hand, you are getting the full value (EV = 1) of the move.

[rockin]

[ QUOTE ]
POTY


Only Gigabet would suggest playing a HU Freezeout for your life.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you were a cat, would this be a rebuy and you would have 8 more rebuys left?

[AlphaWice]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
POTY


Only Gigabet would suggest playing a HU Freezeout for your life.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you were a cat, would this be a rebuy and you would have 8 more rebuys left?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and it's not even close. Do you see why?

[rockin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
POTY


Only Gigabet would suggest playing a HU Freezeout for your life.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you were a cat, would this be a rebuy and you would have 8 more rebuys left?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and it's not even close. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

okay, i'll bite. why?

[rockin]

I guess this is just a little too far over my head, but given your hypothetical example of AA and the improper odds to call, why would we GAMBLE with odds that were not in our favor? Now, I can see this if this were say a game that consisted of just this one hand or maybe if you only played a total of 3 hands. This is not the case. We are basically talking about taking a huge -EV solely for the implied odds and a chance to add a block to our stack, but aren't the odds greater that we will be adding a block to VILLAIN's stack instead?

These implied odds are not always "real". they are sometimes "imaginary", especially if the texture of the board is very scary to the AA, that is why they are only "implied".

Your post is definitely thought provoking, but if this makes sense, it is WAY over my head. Can you explain a little further? I mean, if we know he has AA and this tourney is going to consist of hundreds/thousands more hands, why wouldn't we seek an edge in a later hand.

[A_PLUS]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess this is just a little too far over my head, but given your hypothetical example of AA and the improper odds to call, why would we GAMBLE with odds that were not in our favor? Now, I can see this if this were say a game that consisted of just this one hand or maybe if you only played a total of 3 hands. This is not the case. We are basically talking about taking a huge -EV solely for the implied odds and a chance to add a "block" to our stack, but aren't the odds greater that we will be adding a block to VILLAIN's stack instead?

These implied odds are not always "real". they are sometimes "imaginary", especially if the texture of the board is very scary to the AA, that is why they are only "implied".

Your post is definitely thought provoking, but if this makes sense, it is WAY over my head. Can you explain a little further?

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason that AA raised to 1800, is so that both players understand that he is committing himself to the pot. He can't fold now, or he is giving us chips. There is no 'safe' or 'scary' boards for AA when the other player pushes.

[rockin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess this is just a little too far over my head, but given your hypothetical example of AA and the improper odds to call, why would we GAMBLE with odds that were not in our favor? Now, I can see this if this were say a game that consisted of just this one hand or maybe if you only played a total of 3 hands. This is not the case. We are basically talking about taking a huge -EV solely for the implied odds and a chance to add a "block" to our stack, but aren't the odds greater that we will be adding a block to VILLAIN's stack instead?

These implied odds are not always "real". they are sometimes "imaginary", especially if the texture of the board is very scary to the AA, that is why they are only "implied".

Your post is definitely thought provoking, but if this makes sense, it is WAY over my head. Can you explain a little further?

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason that AA raised to 1800, is so that both players understand that he is committing himself to the pot. He can't fold now, or he is giving us chips. There is no 'safe' or 'scary' boards for AA when the other player pushes.

[/ QUOTE ]

i didn't ask why AA raised to 1800. i asked why we would call this raise knowing he has AA and knowing we can pick a better spot later.

[A_PLUS]

I was talking about this

[ QUOTE ]
These implied odds are not always "real". they are sometimes "imaginary", especially if the texture of the board is very scary to the AA, that is why they are only "implied".

[/ QUOTE ]

The point of the hypothetical is that we know we are stacking him if we out flop him. There is no 'scary' board.

[Gigabet]

[ QUOTE ]
We are basically talking about taking a huge -EV solely for the implied odds and a chance to add a block to our stack

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought that it would be obvious that when the button makes a raise to 1800, he is making it a mistake for the BB to call using the implied odds as real. That raise sends a message that there is nothing that can happen that will keep the button from going broke if the BB wants to put all of his chips in.

By making it 1800, the Button makes the hand cut and dried, there will be no psychological warfare on the flop and no snowjobs will be successfull.