What do you think about gambling like this early in a big tourney?

[shaniac]

$215 Stars Monster Sunday, going on right now.

Let's say all the players are unknown, although the original raiser might be steamed, as he keeps expressing exasperation at calls and catches. Sort of neither here nor there.

EP players makes it 80 to go...blinds are 15/30...MP and button call...I call in BB with Kc9c.

Flop is Tc Js 7c....gutshot and second-nut flush draw....I check...original raiser bets 400, MP calls, button moves in for 1600....I have ~2600 and I move allin on the checkraise (EP original raiser has around 1100 left and only the MP caller can bust me)....EP and MP fold.

The button allin has JhTh for top-two-pair, I don't improve and now have <900 to regroup with.

FWIW: http://tinyurl.com/4mj7e

Thoughts?

Shane

[PITTM]

id probably fold preflop, but if you really want to see the flop. then yeah, i would have checkraised all in there too.

rj

[Ian J]

Folding preflop here is absolutely horrifically weak tight.

Shaniac,

I tend to like gambling a bit more when you have some folding equity. This seems to be a bit much for this draw. Yes, it's a monster, but it's early and you can wait for a better spot than this, especially with no folding equity in this pot.

[shaniac]

I too prefer to make a big semi-bluff like this when I can be the first one in the pot, and I would never play the draw in this fashion in the second or third hour.

I guess my question is, does your tournament equity increase enough by winning the coinflip to make up for your lack of folding equity?

How badly does being left with ~900 damange my tournament equity?

At what point during a tournament like this (where the field is enormous) does it pay off to take small edges? I'm also taking for granted that both of other players in the pot will fold.

FWIW, I dipped down to around 600, then worked it up to ~10K at the start of the third hour, when I made a marginal call with TT and busted.

Shane

[fnurt]

You can pretty much treat it like cash this early.

[shaniac]

Meaning what exactly fnurt? Pretend that it's replenishible?

Shane

[top6]

Just curious what people think - would it change anyone's thinking if it was a tournament with rebuys?

[shaniac]

Rebuy tournament would make it a no-brainer call or allin in my opinion, if it's in the first blind-level and you are properly bankrolled for rebuys.

Shane

[stabn]

The double gutter draw is nice, but there's a lot of ways you can be counterfitted, if you even hit. There's no way you could count your king or nine as live outs either. Add in the fact that none of your draws are to the nuts. You have a bet, a call, and a reraise in front of you. I think this is a fold. It's great to build your stack early but there are better spots.

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
and you are properly bankrolled for rebuys.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you aren't properly bankrolled for playing rebuys, playing rebuys is -EV.

[MLG]

pretty much. im not thrilled here that I don't have folding equity, an im of the opinion that you are up against at least A-J, and probably at least 2 pair. However, your draw is too good to pass up here. Even if you are a slight dog here there is a ton of dead money in the pot to justify playing it. When you hit its a monster pot.

[Charlie]

I like a fold here,because you could be running into two pair at worst, maybe a set, or AcJc. The blinds aren't big enought to risk that many chips that early. I would wait for a better spot to get my chips in.

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
Meaning what exactly fnurt? Pretend that it's replenishible?

Shane

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, if you like to think of it that way. To put it another way, this early in a tournament, the value of a gained chip is the same as the value of a lost chip.

Tournament EV can be different from cash EV because of the fact that the winner doesn't win 100% of the prize fund, because of certain things that take place on the bubble, and so on. But the idea that optimal play is different in a tournament because you can't reload is one of the biggest myths there is.

If you lose your buy-in in a cash game, it is gone, just like if you lose all your chips in a tournament, your entry fee is gone. There is no difference. The fact that you can buy back into a cash game, as opposed to having to get up from the table and buy into a different game across the room, makes no difference.

There is not always another tournament ready to start across the room; but even if you were playing in the last tournament on earth, you cannot improve your EV over the assumption that there are an infinite number of tournaments waiting to be played after this one. All you can do, by reminding yourself that "if you lose, you're out," is talk yourself into playing scared and making weak suboptimal decisions.

[Tosh]

[ QUOTE ]

If you aren't properly bankrolled for playing rebuys, playing rebuys is -EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is certainly incorrect.

[Tosh]

Your draw is even better than gutshot/flush as its a double gutshot. I'd probably commit my chips with it too, you're hardly much of a dog against anything.

[DOTTT]

Hey Fnurt,

[ QUOTE ]
Tournament EV can be different from cash EV because of the fact that the winner doesn't win 100% of the prize fund, because of certain things that take place on the bubble, and so on. But the idea that optimal play is different in a tournament because you can't reload is one of the biggest myths there is.

If you lose your buy-in in a cash game, it is gone, just like if you lose all your chips in a tournament, your entry fee is gone. There is no difference. The fact that you can buy back into a cash game, as opposed to having to get up from the table and buy into a different game across the room, makes no difference.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have to disagree. In a cash game you wouldn’t mind taking a coin flip for your stack, but doing so in a tournament is just wrong. True, you don't gain anything in a tournament if you bust out before you’re in the money, but that's exactly why your play in tournaments should differ from your play in cash games. Put another way, gambling in a cash game is fine, even when you have slightly the worse of it, doing so in tournaments is disasters because the risk (busting out)/reward isn’t there.

Edit: I want to add that no one wins tournaments without winning a couple of coin flips, but I don't want to be taking coin flips early on in a tournament. Also your skill level compared to your opponents should influence your play. If you think you are better then everyone on the table avoiding coin flips becomes a high priority no matter what stage of the tournament you’re in.

[fnurt]

You have to show me why this is so. In my book, if you have a 1% chance of winning a tournament at the beginning, and you double your stack, you will now have a 2% chance. So the risk is 1% of the prize fund, and the reward is 1% of the prize fund, i.e. they are exactly even, just like in a cash game.

As you get closer to the money, or your stack grows to an abnormal size, these numbers change, and I agree that is appropriate to start altering your play. But I don't see why doubling your stack on the first hand of a large tournament shouldn't double your expected win.

[DOTTT]

Ok. You register for a 1000 man tournament. You figure you are an above average player (something I agree with, as are most of the posters on this board), and give yourself 1% of taking this baby home. The first hand of the tournament you double up with Ak vs. QQ and now have double what you started with. Your chances of winning this hasn’t changed or if they have they did not double. There are many factors for this, the most important being that tournaments are extremely long, so your stack is likely to dwindle up and down way before you reach the money. I would agree with you if for example you have reached the final table and give yourself a 15% chance of taking first given your stack size, doubling up here makes a huge difference to your chances of winning, as you are already in the final stages.

[fnurt]

So if doubling your stack on the first hand is no big deal, I assume losing half your stack on the first hand is no big deal, either? After all, there's still so many things that can happen, such a long way to go. What I infer is that you should feel free to take big gambles in the early stages, just don't risk your WHOLE stack.

I just don't buy why twice 1% should be anything but 2%. Sure, there's a lot that can still happen; that's reflected in the fact that even if you have a 2% chance of winning, you will still bust out 98% of the time. 98% is a big number, and so it seems like when you double up early on, you still lose most of the time "so it must not have mattered." But there's no logical reason why doubling your stack shouldn't double your chances; it's just that human intuition isn't very good at evaluating low probabilities, or probabilities with a lot of contingencies involved.

If you buy two lottery tickets, are your chances twice as good as the guy who bought only one ticket? Of course they are. Your chances are still so low that they almost don't matter, but still, there's no doubt that you have twice the chance.

If the double stack were in the hands of two different players, I'm sure you'd agree that two players of equal skill have twice the chance to win as a single player does. There's no reason why a single player holding a double stack should be any worse off. I'm open to counterarguments, but I think you have to dig deeper than "there's still a lot that could go wrong the rest of the way." The 98% chance of losing accounts for all of that.

Incidentally, I doubt anyone is good enough at MTTs to have 10x the equity of the average player, so having a 1% chance to win a 1000 player tournament is probably a tad unrealistic.

[BobboFitos]

[ QUOTE ]
You have to show me why this is so. In my book, if you have a 1% chance of winning a tournament at the beginning, and you double your stack, you will now have a 2% chance. So the risk is 1% of the prize fund, and the reward is 1% of the prize fund, i.e. they are exactly even, just like in a cash game.

As you get closer to the money, or your stack grows to an abnormal size, these numbers change, and I agree that is appropriate to start altering your play. But I don't see why doubling your stack on the first hand of a large tournament shouldn't double your expected win.

[/ QUOTE ]

There was a huge thread within the past month or so on (I believe) the WPT board, where Sklansky proved this was not so. (And made everyone feel dumb in the process)
The fact is doubling up early in a tournament does NOT double your chances to win it.

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have to show me why this is so. In my book, if you have a 1% chance of winning a tournament at the beginning, and you double your stack, you will now have a 2% chance. So the risk is 1% of the prize fund, and the reward is 1% of the prize fund, i.e. they are exactly even, just like in a cash game.

As you get closer to the money, or your stack grows to an abnormal size, these numbers change, and I agree that is appropriate to start altering your play. But I don't see why doubling your stack on the first hand of a large tournament shouldn't double your expected win.

[/ QUOTE ]

There was a huge thread within the past month or so on (I believe) the WPT board, where Sklansky proved this was not so. (And made everyone feel dumb in the process)
The fact is doubling up early in a tournament does NOT double your chances to win it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are misremembering what Sklansky proved.

[BobboFitos]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have to show me why this is so. In my book, if you have a 1% chance of winning a tournament at the beginning, and you double your stack, you will now have a 2% chance. So the risk is 1% of the prize fund, and the reward is 1% of the prize fund, i.e. they are exactly even, just like in a cash game.

As you get closer to the money, or your stack grows to an abnormal size, these numbers change, and I agree that is appropriate to start altering your play. But I don't see why doubling your stack on the first hand of a large tournament shouldn't double your expected win.

[/ QUOTE ]

There was a huge thread within the past month or so on (I believe) the WPT board, where Sklansky proved this was not so. (And made everyone feel dumb in the process)
The fact is doubling up early in a tournament does NOT double your chances to win it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are misremembering what Sklansky proved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good chance you're right, and I'm too lazy to go back and see what he actually said. (Or wrote, where I possibly misunderstood what he meant.)

Anyways, it was an interesting thread, lots of math I should understand, but my brain said no. Anyone want to link it...?