X-Post from Books: Discussion about Poker Tournament Formula

[Lloyd]

Hi all,

I stumbled upon this thread in the Books forum. I've only read about a half dozen posts but it seems like it's turning into an interesting strategy discussion, particularly concerning adjusting play based on how fast or slow a structure is. Besides the author, Mason has contributed several posts that are turning this into a good debate. I'd suggest people read that thread.

I'll leave this open I guess but I think it's best to post comments there.

[Lloyd]

For the daytime crowd, check out the thread referenced above.

[Lloyd]

Here are links to some posts by the author and Mason in this thread that I find very interesting. And if you care to discuss in this thread, that's fine. It might help filter through some of the superfluous posts.

Post by author on why considering the structure of a tournament is vital
Response from Mason on Above
Another post by the author

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
It might help filter through some of the superfluous posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since I wrote some of those superfluous posts I'll throw another one in here. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Hopefully it will generate some discussion.

As you'll see from a quick perusal of the thread or reading the key posts that Lloyd linked the crux of the discussion is whether faster tournaments require playing faster to stay ahead of the blinds than playing strictly "according to Harrington" would indicate.

Mason feels that tournament speed has no bearing on proper strategy although he feels that the book will usually lead someone to a proper decision, but for the "wrong reason" since in a fast tournament the Ms will be low relatively quickly. The author obviously feels differently.

My feeling is that making some adjustments for rapidly increasing blinds is within the spirt of what Harrington's "effective M" for short tables does. Since M is defined as a measure of how many orbits you could wait before being blinded out it isn't an accurate measure if blinds are going up almost every orbit.

Al

[Lloyd]

For the record, I didn't think your posts were "superfluous". But as soon as "Radar" started posting things went downhill fast in that thread.

And I was actually going to make the point that even Harrington understood that faster blinds (due to fewer people at the table) had an impact on "M" and that it's not a tough leap to go from that to "M" being impacted by the structure. But you beat me to it.

I'm not convinced either way but I will probably buy this book as I think it's at least something to think about.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not convinced either way but I will probably buy this book as I think it's at least something to think about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that even those who don't think tournament structure should impact strategy might still get some value from the book, especially relative novices like myself.

Anyone could potentially benefit from his formula for quantifying the "speed" of a tournament. He provides a method for comparing 2 tournaments with different structures so that you can answer a question like "which of these two tournament choices is the best." He also has a method for estimating how long a tournament will last and what the size of the average chip stack will be at the final table.

His discussion of what he calls the 3 sources of power - chips, position, and cards - will drive home for a novice that there are more ways to win than showing down the best hand. This might also get more advanced players thinking about things from a different angle.

The only item I found that jumped out at me as less than accurate (not that I'm the best judge of that) is a chapter he has on chopping at the final table. Since the book is aimed at playing tournaments with fast structures his advice assumes that by the final table everyone will be shortstacked and playing it out will be a "crapshoot." I felt that his examples of a reasonable chop of the prize fund when you had a significant chip lead were giving up too much equity. He agreed that his advice might have been too conservative in that area.

[A_PLUS]

I agree with a lot of this. I have been talking about this main idea a lot recetnly.

With a skill advantage, you would like to have as many chips as the rest of the table. I think that statement is pretty much agreed upon. In a cash game, when you have a skill advantage, being short hurts your win rate. So, in cash games there is some advantage to being as deep as the table.
Lets say you buy into a 2/5 NL game, where everyone has 2000$ behind, but the max buy in is 500$. Wouldn't you take a 49.9% gamble to double your stack on the first hand

In tournaments the statement from above still holds. (in terms of CEV). But often in tournaments, you reach a point, where you start pushing 1+ times an orbit trying to maintain a playable stack. So, although a correct preflop push fold strategy is CEV (and not too bad in terms of CEV BB/100), other factors come into play. There is a significant opportunity cost of folding.

The CEV of a preflop push, can be broken down into:
-hand value
-position
-stack size
-FE (related to position and stack size)

Lets say there is no antes, to make things easy.
-I am on the button with 11xBB, and an average image. Pushing 72o is pretty much CEV neutral. (.08BBs to be exact with a calling range of A8s+,ATo+,66+,KQs).
-Same table, I folded the previous hand, and pick up 72o in the CO. An open push now, is worth -.29BBs)
-Pushing AJo UG, is worse than pushing 72o from the button, when you have 11xBB.

This is nothing new, but just an illustrative way to show opportunity cost in action. Every hand we fold makes our position worse, which hurts. Every blind we take hurts our stack and our F.E. When we are far from the money, and very short, this effect is very dramatic.

The whole point of that ramble, was to say that due to the opportunity cost of folding, we are forced to gamble more when we get short, which hurts our CEV win rate more than we would see in cash games.

So, given that short stacks dont play as well in tournaments. We are correct to take slightly (I dont know how much) the worst of it, to avoid reaching that point (also assuming that the table has some larger stacks where we have an edge).

For example. Early in an MTT, I have 20xBB and think about calling a push for my stack, that I know to be -.25BBs in CEV. (everyone else has 50xBB, blinds double at the next level)

-If the current level is going to last another 100 hands, I will fold.
-If the current level is going to last another 5 hands, I will call.

I think that having 20xBB at a 25xBB deep table, is worth .25BBs in value more than having 10xBB at the same table. Since it is unlikely that I will double in the next 5 hands (more likely in 100 hands) I think that the structure does change your play.

I realize that this doesnt necessarily address the speed of the events, since we will reach the point in the 100 hand level where you have 5 hands left and the plays are identical. But, in fast structured events, you may never have more than 10 hands until an increase, so you are talking about the opportunity cost on basically every hand, whereas it may effect 1% of your hands in a slower event.

I see Mason's point, and agree with it. But he is just catching the author on a technicality more than anything. The author is explaining in a simple way how to account for an quickly upcoming change in blinds. Mason is saying that you just use the same strategy you do in a slow event the 1% of the time you are faced with the same situation.

I see the arguement like this.
Arnold: Batting in hardball is much different than batting in arch pitch softball.
Mason: No its not, they are identical. You are dumb
Arnold: No way, you do all of the following differently.....
Mason: You would do all of those things the same if the hardball was pitched 12 feet high, and 35 miles per hour, so you are wrong...and dumb

** Thinking a little more, I am starting to side with the author. The cost of folding is higher when levels are short, since you will be faced with the need to double in the next 10 hands after the first increase, whereas in slower events, having 100 hands to double allows more selective play.

[BigAlK]

A-Plus,

I like your description of folding in terms of opportunity cost lost and your analogy of the discussion between Arnold and Mason is spot on. However most of your post discusses short stack play. In a fast tournament odds are that you and everyone else will get short stacked at some point and short stack play is discussed in the book. But one of the key points Snyder makes is that in a fast tournament where the majority of the players are playing according to the common wisdom that the first few rounds are just about survival that you need to anticipate the impact of the rapidly increasing blinds. While everyone else is in survival mode you should be picking up small pots to build your stack. Double it, but absent a big hand you can do this playing small ball and just chipping away at the other stacks. That way when everyone else is getting short stacked and desperate you (hopefully) have a bigger stack and don't have to be as desperate as your opponents.

He describes several techniques to accomplish this gradual stack building. A lot of these ideas are probably not anything new. I think the value I've gotten from the book is that by putting all of his ideas (whether new or not) together and explaining why you need to feel the urgency to build your stack early has helped me look at a lot of things from a different perspective.

One example of what he calls a "position shot" is (assuming you've got a "competitive stack" which he defines) to limp or call a single standard raise with virtually any 2 cards from the button. You're gambling that since most flops miss most people that you'll be heads up with positon on the raiser and can steal the pot on the flop or turn. Your actual cards don't matter.

Al

[A_PLUS]

I haven't read the book, but I like what I have heard so far.

I was more defending why quickly escalating blinds can in fact change your strategy. Any method to build a stack early is effective no matter what the structure is. Mason was correct there. I deviate from Mason in that I think quick structures should lead us to different lines in certain cases. You can sacrifice some CEV to maximize chances of staying out of push-fold mode. (not to mention the other benefits of having a large stack.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
Any method to build a stack early is effective no matter what the structure is. Mason was correct there. I deviate from Mason in that I think quick structures should lead us to different lines in certain cases.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. In a slow structure you've got many more options (play fast, slow, or a mix of both). In a fast structure unless you start off with a rush of premium cards the choices that give you a reasonable chance of success are more limited.

Al