Who would you prefer taking chips from?

[PrayingMantis]

I was playing with the ICM, and all sorts of scenarios. And this thought had occured to me:

We are usually saying not to mess around with big-stack, since big-stack is the one that can bust out. However, there are more delicate reasons for this.

For instance: take a 4 handed situation. Big stack (4500), You (2500), and two smaller stacks (2000), (1000).

Now, say you have a chance to win 1000T from one of the other stacks, so you'll go from 2500 to 3500. Which stack would you want to take these from?

According to ICM (equal skills, which is always a problematic assumption, but let's not get into it), you better win it from the smallest stack (and by that bust him, but that's only a bonus), then 2nd smallest stack, and only then big-stack.

Another way to look at it (without a specific model), is by assuming (as we do), that the smaller the stack is, the more every individial chip is worth in terms of $EV. So when you take the same amount of chips from a smaller stack, they worth more than the same amount of chips taken from a bigger stack.

An interesting change in these calculations, come when you are big-stack, and you try to keep a bubble situation by not busting the smallest stack. This is an example for when chips from bigger stacks might worth more, as a result of a psychological reason: you can simply exploit bigger stacks' survival tendencies better than the smaller stacks' (and of course, you have more chips to take from bigger stacks, until *they* get into the danger zone).

Just some very general thoughts.

[chill888]

PM - Good post.

Makes sense.

There is no doubt that my calling/betting standards drop on the bubble if I am facing the small stack versus the big stack.

Because:

1. The reward is bigger if you win (you cash)
2. The pain of losing is smaller (you can't bust)

I understand the "theoretical" logic of wanting to keep a small stack alive when you are big stack - but frankly can't see it coming up that much in S&Gs. they are just too frenetic - and you have to assume some attention skills from the medium stacks. Thoughts on this? Am I wrong?

[dethgrind]

I like it. So in general, stay away from the big stack not only because he can bust you if you lose, but also because his chips are worth less money to you if you win.

[dethgrind]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand the "theoretical" logic of wanting to keep a small stack alive when you are big stack - but frankly can't see it coming up that much in S&Gs. they are just too frenetic - and you have to assume some attention skills from the medium stacks. Thoughts on this? Am I wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel about the same. Does anyone have any examples of hands that they played differently because they didnt want to bust the smallest stack?

[PrayingMantis]

I decided to think about it and check it also in the opposite direction, i.e, who would you prefer losing chips to. Well, now it is getting complicated: you are losing less if you lose them to big-stack, then 2nd smallest stack, and if you lose them to the smallest stack, you lose the biggest amount of $EV. However, the overall $EV of putting 1000 in order to win 1000 (in a 1:1 spot), is still better, the smaller your opponent's stack is.

Well, it isn't so simple. So I'll break it into more detailed scenarios, so we can go through it. We start with 0.2709 of prize pool (according to ICM)

1. Winning 1000 from big stack (final $EV, in share of prize pool): 0.3163 (+ .0454). Losing 1000 to big stack: 0.2098 (-.0611). All in all (putting 1000 in a 50:50 spot): -.0157.

2. Winning 1000 from 3rd stack: .3272 (+.0563). Losing 1000 to 3rd stack: .2013 (-.0696). All in all: -.0133.

3. Winning 1000 from 4th stack: .3424 (+.0715). Losing 1000 to 4th stack: .1867 (-.0842). All in all: -.0127.

This is interesting, I think. It shows that if you are 50:50 on these 1000 chips, you are losing $EV, against any of your opponents. But still, you better do it against the smallest stack, then 2nd smallest, then biggest. I hope my numbers are correct.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand the "theoretical" logic of wanting to keep a small stack alive when you are big stack - but frankly can't see it coming up that much in S&Gs. they are just too frenetic - and you have to assume some attention skills from the medium stacks. Thoughts on this? Am I wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Chill (and dethgrind). First, I think that the fact you are playing Stars, is very relevant here. Usually, the situations where the blinds are already VERY big, and simply winning them again and again by pusing around medium stacks and keeping the small stack alive, are more common and profitable (per risk vs. reward) in a structure like party.

However, I find these situations in stars too, and they are not rare. When it's 4 handed, and you are big stack, and you recognize that the 2 medium stacks are playing to survive (and the blinds are already nice and big), keeping the small stack around, to push around the medium stacks, is very +EV.

Just the other day I was in that exact spot: $55+5 on stars, I'm a very big stack, 2 mediums, one rather tiny. tiny stack pushes against me, and I fold, although I could call with anything in that spot, of course. How did I know, instantly, that it's a good move? because the 2 medium stacks got very very very mad at me, cursing and saying stuff about pot odds and how idiot I am. I was very amused, and kept stealing from them, until I built a huge stack and one of them, naturaly, busted. Bubble situations are very profitable for an aggressive big stack, in certain conditions, that's why you sometimes want to keep it .

[rachelwxm]

[ QUOTE ]

1. The reward is bigger if you win (you cash)
2. The pain of losing is smaller (you can't bust)


[/ QUOTE ]

I would add one more, the all in standard from small stack is usually less than big ones.
If I am UTG having 4bb left 5handed, it is uaually worth a push with A4o, but I often fold if I am mid stack. Right or wrong? I don't know.

Another interesting extention that I observed is that usually small stack steal more frequently than big one, thus if the table is tight, on average I tend to lose chips if I have decent stack but gain chips if I am small stack. Is this sort of equilibrium state of poker? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[chill888]

[ QUOTE ]


Just the other day I was in that exact spot: $55+5 on stars, I'm a very big stack, 2 mediums, one rather tiny. tiny stack pushes against me, and I fold, although I could call with anything in that spot, of course. How did I know, instantly, that it's a good move? because the 2 medium stacks got very very very mad at me, cursing and saying stuff about pot odds and how idiot I am. I was very amused, and kept stealing from them, until I built a huge stack and one of them, naturaly, busted. Bubble situations are very profitable for an aggressive big stack, in certain conditions, that's why you sometimes want to keep it .

[/ QUOTE ]


OK - LOL -- good example.

I will keep this in the back of my mind and look for opportunities to use this knowledge. If it adds 0.1% to my ROI I will buy you a beer next (first?) time I see you.

gl

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
I will keep this in the back of my mind and look for opportunities to use this knowledge. If it adds 0.1% to my ROI I will buy you a beer next (first?) time I see you.


[/ QUOTE ]

Now I should keep a very close look at your ROI, with that potential beer coming my way! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[chill888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will keep this in the back of my mind and look for opportunities to use this knowledge. If it adds 0.1% to my ROI I will buy you a beer next (first?) time I see you.


[/ QUOTE ]

Now I should keep a very close look at your ROI, with that potential beer coming my way! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[/ QUOTE ]



LOLOL ok 2 beers? Big ones!