Why does the Gap exist?

[partygirluk]

Sklansky mentions that you need a better hand to call with than to raise with but does not go into much detail as to why.

A couple of reasons I can think of are

i) Say UTG raises. This means (massively simplyfying here) he thinks he has a better hand than 9 random hands. UTG+1 to reraise must now think that he has a better hand than 8 random hands and 1 hand that is a better hand than 9 random hands. Thus UTG+1 needs a stronger hand than UTG.

ii) Imagine the payoff structure is 60/40. Three players are left, and all have 1/3 of the chips. There are no blinds and antes (to simplifying things). Each player has an equity of 33.33. Player 1 folds, player 2 goes all in, and accidentally exposes his cards 2c2d. Player 3 looks down and sees AsKs which is a very marginal favourite. In a cash game he should call. In a tournament, we need to look at EV.

EV of folding is 100/3
if he calls, then 50% of the time he has EV of 0, and 50% he has a EV of (2/3*60 + 1/3*40) so .5*0 + .5*160/3, so 80/3. So his EV drops by 20% even though he is in a coinflip!

Do I understand the Gap concept here. Is any of my reasoning flawed, and is there anything else to consider?

[David04]

I think, in laymans terms, it's like this. By raising you give yourself 2 ways to win the pot:
1)your opponent folds, and you win
2)your opponent calls, and you have the best hand.

While if you call you only leave yourself one way to win the pot, having the best hand at showdown.


Man, the chapter on Bluffing and Semi-Bluffing from TOP is popping up in my head /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[ZeeJustin]

Think of the game jacks or better. In late position, jacks are a strong hand. But if someone has already opened, you know for a fact that your jacks are beat.

[partygirluk]

Right, which is reason i) above.

but Sklansky mentions that the Gap is particularly big in tournaments. And so much so, that expert tournament players' advantage over expert ring game players comes 50% from knowing that the Gap is so large in tourneys. Why is this?

Does reason ii) explain this? How about Opportunity cost. If you take a 51% advantage in a cash game, there is no O.C (assuming you are fully bankrolled). However, if you do this in a tournament, 49% of the time you will be giving up future profitable opportunities. Thus, avoid close gambles. But this argument would not work if all players were equally skilled, or you were no better than average. So does the size of the gap in tournaments merely boil down to the effect of the payoff structure?

[Potowame]

The GAP is not a mathmatical problem of sorts its a problem solved by careful observation.

Your GAP to a player that you have no read would be this.

Player UTG raises 3xBB UTG. The GAP States that in order for you to call this you must have a hand better than you would open raise UTG for a 3xbb Raise. And the GAP is even smaller with players left to act behind you.

The GAP would Be much wider for a very loose player and much smaller for a rock.

1.A Loose player you may call with AQs AJs 88-AA

2.A rock AKs JJ-AA

This GAP of course changes with the Position of the open Raiser or limper, and in return Loosens up your calling Hands the Closer to the Button the Raise comes from.

[tek]

[ QUOTE ]
Right, which is reason i) above.

but Sklansky mentions that the Gap is particularly big in tournaments. And so much so, that expert tournament players' advantage over expert ring game players comes 50% from knowing that the Gap is so large in tourneys. Why is this?

Does reason ii) explain this? How about Opportunity cost. If you take a 51% advantage in a cash game, there is no O.C (assuming you are fully bankrolled). However, if you do this in a tournament, 49% of the time you will be giving up future profitable opportunities. Thus, avoid close gambles. But this argument would not work if all players were equally skilled, or you were no better than average. So does the size of the gap in tournaments merely boil down to the effect of the payoff structure?

[/ QUOTE ]

DS says in TPFAP (pages 27-31) that in a tournament the Gap widens as the tournament goes from middle to late stages.

He also says in general that there are exceptions to the Gap concept. If the players behind you have either a very small or large stack, loosening up on your opening requirements may be unwise. On the other hand, you should loosen up against someone who you know is aware of the Gap concept.

[Gravy (Gravy Smoothie)]

It's a matter of averages.

Figure UTG's raising hand spectrum spans AA-TT, AKs-AJs, AKo-AQo. This puts the average strength of his holding at somewhere in the JJ/AQs range. To reraise, you need a hand that will, more than half the time, be stronger than UTG's AVERAGE raising hand. This puts acceptable reraising holdings for you at around JJ+/AQs+.

[partygirluk]

Why is the Gap so large in tournaments.

e.g. in TPFAP, Sklansky says that you should consider chucking AK to an UTG raise early on in a limit tourney. This would be crazy advice in a sidegame, and seems extreme to me.

[DVC Calif]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is the Gap so large in tournaments.

e.g. in TPFAP, Sklansky says that you should consider chucking AK to an UTG raise early on in a limit tourney. This would be crazy advice in a sidegame, and seems extreme to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

The key words here are LIMIT tourney and early on. The power of AK comes from making a strong re-raise, to put opponent on decision (and to see all 5 cards on the board with an all-in). UTG will most likely call one bet or even cap the betting with PP. AK is a drawing hand and if the flop doesn't hit, you will be bleeding chips to chase/bluff. Why lose chips over small pots?

To answer why the gap is so large in tournament play, you have to realize that chips equal power. Less chips, less power (fold equity). Big stacks constantly put smaller stacks to decisions, especially at bubble time. To the extreme, busting out on a marginal call, even a coin flip, will cost you the rest of the tourney. You cannot rebuy a rack like a sidegame. (Exception being the first hour of R/A tournaments).

Steve