Dan Harrington on Volatility

[Rob-L]

Hey All,

I just starting reading Dan Harrington's new book. Early in the book he describes a hand he played in the 2003 WSOP.

Briefly, he has A /images/graemlins/heart.gif K /images/graemlins/spade.gif. He is looking at a 3x BB raise from Farha who is UTG, and two folders in front of him. Moneymaker is behind him. Vahedi is in the SB and Tomer B is in the BB.

He comments "I thought I was one of the better players remaining at the table, so I wanted to reduce, rather than increase, my volatility on the hand. (Volatility is a mathematician's word for the size of the money swing on the hand.) A weaker player in the same situation should be looking to increase volatility; hence he would definitely want to throw in a bet."

Can anyone expound on this concept? I looked ahead in the book and it does not appear as if he goes into this concept in any further detail, which is unfortunate. (I could just not be seeing it.)

Thanks,
Rob-L

[schwza]

check out the thread "step 5 hand vs gigabet," where gigabet talks about taking on some variance because he considered himself to be better than the field. (he thought getting a big stack would allow him to steal a lot later).

i'll let somebody else try to reconcile those two points of view.

[Sam T.]

I think what he's saying is that weaker players should gamble more than strong ones. Since they will have trouble building their stack through good consistent play agaisnt a powerful field, they need to take a shot when they think they have a slight edge or even a coinflip.

To take an extreme example, say you're heads up against Harrington in a winner-take-all tournament. You have the option of playing cards or flipping a coin. I'll take the coin.

[SossMan]

In practice, it means keeping the pot small so there is more room to maneuver on the flop and beyond.

-sossman

[DonkeyKong]

does he mention the stack sizes?

[Boris]

I think what he is saying is that if you have Moneymaker, Vahedi and Tomer at your table, why would you want to gamble with Farha? Farha I'm pretty sure is by far the strongest player at the table outside of Harrington.

[zaxx19]

He just means he wants to limit how much he could either win or lose on this given hand. Yes sossman is correct it also allows some post flop play without getting yourself pot commited with TPTK which alot of people feel fine doing with this MONSTER(lol) hand.

In responding to partygirlsuk's post I sort of went into an odd explanation of how I would perhapos not even reraise with AK after an EP raise as a tight player. The point is AK, if you are doing ok in a tourney, is not a hand that NEEDS to be played to the "end" like AA or KK. Im not really keen with trapping myself with TPTK in a huge pot IF I think I can gather chips with less risk at a table.

[DonkeyKong]

Harrington had position on Farha and a premium hand...
Farha will play a lot of hands, even from early position. What is he saying? smooth call 3x or raise? Moneymaker etc aren't so bad that they will call a raise and a re-raise by a known-tight player.

I am very curious what Harrington is saying here... muck your premium hands?? I doubt that.

If you aren't going to play AK with position vs a known loose player, wtf???

guess I better get the book

[zaxx19]

Uhh, thats correct to alot of tight players AK is not a premium until super crunchtime. Thats how I feel at times on easy tables. AK can flop TPTK period (ok q j 10 happens but...) If you do flop an A or a K are you gonna get action in a reraised pot if the guy doesnt have an A or a K?? No. If you are raising bc you have postion and can just bet out when Farha checks (a bluff with AK when a ragged flop falls) then it really doesnt matter what you hold it could be 66 and it would be proper to reraise. Im not really saying you shouldnt reraise with AK here. Im just letting you in on some thinking that goes on in tight players heads.

[esbesb]

I haven't read the book yet (expecting it any day) but my guess is that Sossman is right -- it's a matter of keeping the pot small so as not to get too wrapped up in the hand. I doubt he'd consider folding AK preflop (especially in position against Farha), the question is how much he wants to commit himself to the pot preflop.

Through the course of a tournament, there are always ups and downs in one's stack. I think of it like the stock market -- a zig-zag up-and-down line that you hope goes up over time rather than down over time. That line -- from 1,000 chips to 1,000,000 chips is never going to be a straight one. I suspect Harrington's talking about trying to keep those zigs and zags small over the course of a tournament.

[DeezNutz3]

You think Sam is a stronger NL holdem player than Amir? Amir has a better track record with NL holdem tournaments even with Sam's second place finish IMO.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
Uhh, thats correct to alot of tight players AK is not a premium until super crunchtime

[/ QUOTE ]

it is if people are raising UTG w/ AJo.

[zaxx19]

When the table loosens tighten and vice versa....is this stuff B.S. then??

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
does he mention the stack sizes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. He goes into great detail on this hand. Do get the book.

[Boris]

[ QUOTE ]
He just means he wants to limit how much he could either win or lose on this given hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's all he means then why doesn't he say so? Why does he feel the need to mention all the other players at the table?

[zaxx19]

???? Now im tired but Im not understanding the ???

[Boris]

Yes and I don't think it's close. Vahedi strikes me as the type of player who will often put in big money when he is drawing very slim. Farha has been a successful high limit cash player for many years. Ray Zee has a high regard for Farha's game and I have a high regard for Zee's opinion. I'm pretty sure Vahedi would get destroyed in a cash game. Also, every time I've watched Farha on TV I've been impressed, with the exception of the last hand of the 2003 WSOP.

[zaxx19]

Vahedi is an awful cash game player(high limit). Thats why he lost his backing from Hellmuth like a yr ago just lost too much @ Bellagio.

[Boris]

My point was that there was more to Harrington's point than just keeping the pot small. Particularly in no limit, you want to determine against which players you would like to play a big pot. Farha is the type of player where, unless you have the stone nuts, you will not feel good if a bunch of chips go into the pot. Combine this with the other players at the table and clearly you would be better off not playing against Farha.

[zaxx19]

Depending on how far it is in the tourney this could be the case against a bunch of players. There are a ton of aggressive NLH players capable of moving players off hands...especially deep in the main event of the WSOP.

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He just means he wants to limit how much he could either win or lose on this given hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's all he means then why doesn't he say so? Why does he feel the need to mention all the other players at the table?

[/ QUOTE ]

This whole topic will become clear once people read the book. The OP was asking mostly about the volitility term, but that's a small part of a larger point Harrington makes when talking about that hand. I don't have the book in front of me here at work, but will reference it when I get home.

I finished reading it last night, and it's pretty dang good, certainly made me excited for volume two.

[AKarpov]

He is at the final table with seven players left. If he put in a normal raise, he would be betting about 20% of his stack pre-flop on an uncertain hand. He may have to bet a lot more after the flop. If poker gods are with him, he wins the hand. Othewise he loses it.

As he considers himself one of the better players, he would rather reduce the swings (volatility) and depend more on his skill to outplay the others. So he calls. I think he would play this way with any initial raiser (it does not depend on Farha's style).

Other players would view it diffently. Raymer, based on his posts here,seems to always make plays with when he sees a positive EV, regardless of volatility, so he would raise here.

[zaxx19]

For g-ds sake Raymer might just move in here...JK. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[DonkeyKong]

If you are raising bc you have postion and can just bet out when Farha checks (a bluff with AK when a ragged flop falls) then it really doesnt matter what you hold it could be 66 and it would be proper to reraise.

it isn't a bluff if you think AK is the best hand. plus, may have 6 outs with AK vs 2 outs with 66.

no doubt, playing for a pair when stacks are deep is tricky... you get scared if it comes A Q x or A J x or A T x or so many others... I understand there are good reasons to not go to war with a pair. But Sammy faces the same problem with whatever he has. If he outflops you, so be it -- you lose some chips but you don't have to lose em all just because you have AK. Passing on AK with position for a 3x raise seems really tight to me (dare I say weak-tight)...

now I am officially psyched to dive into this book

[Rob-L]

OK - I get that. That is why it more beneficial for a good player to call there. But, why is it better for an out classed player to raise there?

[Rob-L]

Yes - when I get home I include the stack info. I was trying to be as brief as possible. But thinking about it, stack info would have been good to include.

[Rob-L]

In the original post, I should have mentioned that he did in fact call Farha's raise.

I guess my real question is, why is it beneficial for a good player to reduce volatility in this situation and an out classed player to increase volatility by raising here?

[zaxx19]

Donkey reread the post nowone has said passing is correct...just that reraising might not ALWAYS be correct./

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess my real question is, why is it beneficial for a good player to reduce volatility in this situation and an out classed player to increase volatility by raising here?

[/ QUOTE ]

In essense, an outclassed player would be better off taking a chance with their hand when they think they have the best of it. This means not only playing the hand, but being willing risk all of your chips on it, because you might not be a strong enough player to take advantage of the marginal EV chances that you'll have against strong players. But pushing a hand against someone like Farha where you could possibly be ahead, you're eliminating his advantage of being able to outplay you when you push with all of your chips. Essentially the odds take over.

Conversely, for someone like Harrington, it's the opposite. He doesn't want to risk a large portion of his stack before the flop against someone like Farha, because he's an aggressive player who Harrington can win a lot of chips from post-flop if he hits his hand. If he doesn't hit it, he can throw his hand away and wait for a better opportunity.

Another reason just calling limits his volitility, is that his call gives him some flexibility if someone like Moneymaker - who may be willing to risk all of his chips with a small edge - goes all-in behind him. He then has a chance to decide whether a call is worth the risk.

[Rob-L]

Wow - nice explaination. That makes perfect sense.

Still - if anyone else has thoughts or ideas, please post them.

Thanks guys!

[DeezNutz3]

Ok, but we are talking NL holdem tournaments and we all know cash game play is much different. I believe you're talking about the only times you have seen Vahedi (WSOP) and he was very questionable, but as far as NL holdem tournaments I stand by my statement that I do not believe they are not very close in skill or long term success.

[DonkeyKong]

this is semi-related... Analysis by Lederer with input from Gus Hansen... In this example, it is Layne Flack in late position with AQ vs an EP raise when stacks are deep (Flack calls PF raise but then misplays it):

http://www.howardlederer.com/article5.html

[nolanfan34]

When you get the Harrington book you'll see that this hand, while interesting, isn't really related at all. This one has a guy limping from EP, and Layne limping behind. Much different than an UTG raise from an aggressive player.

Good link though, I hadn't read about that hand, and I do think Layne played it pretty poorly.

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
check out the thread "step 5 hand vs gigabet," where gigabet talks about taking on some variance because he considered himself to be better than the field. (he thought getting a big stack would allow him to steal a lot later).

i'll let somebody else try to reconcile those two points of view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gigabet says he took on some negative variance because the downside of that negative variance was small (dropping back to an average chipstack size), whereas the upside was large (having a huge stack late in a tourney), particularly since he felt his ability to acquire chips was signficantly enhanced with the big stack.

The comment on whether he was better or worse than the field was an aside and not why he made the play.

--Greg

[MLG]

You assume that just calling here sacrifices some positive EV. I don't think that that assumption is neccessarily valid. I think that Harrington is claiming here that calling here is not sacrificing EV, but rather EV neutral and varience reducing, or perhaps even higher EV.

[zaxx19]

Gergery other than the fact that that hand would not leave him with a "HUGE" stack and it was mid tourney that makes sense lol /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[davidross]

Because making the pot big reduces the number of hands you will play to get to your goal. I got heads up in a tournament with a big chip lead, against someone who clearly seemed to be playing better than me. The pots were pretty small, but he won all the big ones until he had a big chip lead. I came ot the realisation that he just played better than I did, and began going all-in on any hand I was going to play from that point on. I won 2 contested pots in a row and won the tournament. It was far better for me to take a chance on 2 hands, rather than to play 100 hands because it seemed he was winning 60% of the hands we played.

[zaxx19]

Absolutely true. If I somehow miraculously got to a final table on the wpt or something(insert laughing here) Id probably move in a ton to negate the post flop skill of the other player. Of course when I mentioned a certain 2+2 fav employed the same sort of means to play and win the 2004 I never got any reasonable feedback.

[bigfishead]

[ QUOTE ]
I think what he is saying is that if you have Moneymaker, Vahedi and Tomer at your table, why would you want to gamble with Farha? Farha I'm pretty sure is by far the strongest player at the table outside of Harrington.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not even close. Farha is in fact the "gambler" that needs to take more "shots". More often than not he is the live one in the biggest cash games. He and Moneymaker were in fact the ones that needed to gamble.

Knowing that, more often, what will happen is the pro like Harrington will try to see the flop without "TOO MUCH" gamble hoping to jointly hit the flop with the weaker players and be way ahead and knockem down having way more the best of it. Whereas players like Moneymaker and Farha will gamble hard in those spots needing to catch at this point. The post flop edge makes a huge difference over the preflop edge for the player like Harrington. Makes way more when much further ahead and loses less when not.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
Absolutely true. If I somehow miraculously got to a final table on the wpt or something(insert laughing here) Id probably move in a ton to negate the post flop skill of the other player. Of course when I mentioned a certain 2+2 fav employed the same sort of means to play and win the 2004 I never got any reasonable feedback.

[/ QUOTE ]

you really have no clue what you're talking about, zaxx. Bullying with a big stack and pushing preflop to "negate post flop skill" are not one in the same...they just look that way to the untrained eye.

-SossMan

[zaxx19]

You have your opinion I have mine. I dont think I'm alone in this analysis as Ive read this same subject broached by pros in print/online several times. Its not my agenda to say they ARE or ARE NOT superior too a certain player just that this style will neutralize post flop play too a large degree...and it will.

[burningyen]

How does bullying with a big stack negate post-flop play?

[SossMan]

do you still really think that greg's style is to often push preflop to negate post flop play. if you do, do you think that because you saw about 20 hands that they showed on the WSOP this year?
you really need to understand how edited those shows are. you really should go back and read greg's old posts, and you'll see that he can play post flop with the best of them.

-sossman

[Jim T]

[ QUOTE ]
do you still really think that greg's style is to often push preflop to negate post flop play. if you do, do you think that because you saw about 20 hands that they showed on the WSOP this year?
you really need to understand how edited those shows are. you really should go back and read greg's old posts, and you'll see that he can play post flop with the best of them.

-sossman

[/ QUOTE ]

What name did he post under? I searched for the obvious ones and nothing came up.

[MLG]

greg (fossilman)