That Mysterious Inflection Point

[MLG]

I won the PLO8 KOTZ tournament a few weeks back and it got me to thinking some general tournament thoughts. Now, I'll start off by saying that I really don't know the first thing about PLO8. I was lucky enough to make a couple of big hands early, doubled-up with a big draw against top set and have a pretty big stack as the starting 50 shrank down to 18. With two tables, as the blinds got higher, I looked around my virtual surroundings and realized how nearing the bubble in the tournament cards are truly of very minor importance.

At some point in a tournament the actions you should take become determined by a lot of factors, stack depth, relative stack size, position, who the blinds are, pay-out considerations, and a host of other things. People like to talk about how tournaments are different from cash games, and they are. Everybody gets it wrong in assuming that they are different at the beginning, they aren't. Tournaments and cash games are very similar if not exactly the same at the beginning. The two diverge at the end.

At the beginning of a tournament gambling is a must, there's just no way around it. You need to get lucky and build a stack. Sometimes that luck will come in the form of making the nuts when somebody else makes a slightly lesser monster, sometimes the luck is getting the fish at the tables chips before somebody else does, sometimes that luck comes in the form of winning a coinflip. Make no mistake though, building that stack involves luck and gambling.

However, at some point, and nobody knows quite where, the emphasis changes. It becomes of vital importance not to win big pots, but rather to win a high percentage of the pots you play. Limping becoms rare and stealing and restealing are prominent. People talk about survival in tournaments, but they missapply it. Survival is not important at the beginning, its important later on. This is the time to structure your betting for maximum folding equity, to use the stop n go, to maybe, maybe, maybe pass on a close edge. This is when aggression aggression aggression must be applied. If your stack is getting short you'll need to take a gamble, because quite frankly its easier to win the 40 side of a 40/60 when you have 10BBs then it is to build a 5BB stack up to 20. If your stack is healthy you must both grow your stack while protecting your chips. That means using your leverage to use fewer chips to make other players make decisions for their whole stack. When you have chips, even though you must protect them, you cannot be afraid to wield them. Sitting on your chips is the fastest way to destroy any chance you have at a high finish. Notice how few of these tactics actually involve the cards in front of you.

So, when does it change. When do cash game considerations fall by the wayside. I have no idea, and I'm not sure anybody else does either. To some degree it depends on stack depth. When stacks are shallow obviously these factors are more important. However, a 20BB stack plays a lot differently when the average stack at your table is 60 than when the average stack at your table is 10. To some degree it has to do with the money. When you are on the bubble obviously factors other than the cards become paramount. However, in many tournaments (especially online) the inflection point occurs well before the money. I suppose it might be possible for somebody better at math than I am to figure out an equation having to do with average stack depth (both in the tournament and at a given table) that would begin to answer some of these questions, but I'm not convinced these questions can be answered mathematically. Ultimately to me it means that tournament poker is its own brand of poker separate from any poker type, but played using those other types. Consequently tournament concepts continually get misunderstood through the lense of these other game types.

[IgorSmiles]

It seems to me that that point comes when the average stacks are such that the majority of players are pot committed to virtually any hand they decide to play.

Too simple?

[MLG]

[ QUOTE ]
Too simple?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. The point is well before that. If you don't change the aims and goals of how you play until you are down around 10BBs then you are not playing correctly and will be blinded out too often for your own good. Its this mentality that leads to bubble finishes and a higher percentage of cashes, and lower percentage of high finishes.

[FishInAPhoneBooth]

I am in class so I do not have time to type a longer reply, but I was about to post a long rant about how I cound not understand how anyone can keep pushing every edge once they had a stack.

Thank you.

[nolanfan34]

Interesting post. I think Harrington mentions in his book that volumn 2 will include thoughts on the inflection point. Should be interested to read.

[MLG]

do not misunderstand me. you need to push small edges as a big stack. You need to reraise smaller stacks all-in when you have a flush draw. You need to repop open raisers with air if you think they will lay down (and you won't be potstuck if they push). However, you need to recognize that party of the power of the big stack comes from being able to put smaller stacks to difficult decisions for their stacks using relatively few chips of your own.

[drewjustdrew]

I say the point comes when most of the fish have been eliminated and a large majority (90%) of the players remaining are applying commonly accepted tournament concepts.

[multifast1]

Doesn't the inflection point occur at individual times for each player during a tournament.. and not at a certian single moment for the whole group? It's all relative to the average stack and the blind levels compared to your stack.

For example, if after only 10 minutes I'm down to only 2BB (gawd forbid!) and there's another person in the tourney at 10X the next stack... Your better believe we've both reached inflection points of different types while the rest of the people are still aren't even close.

People often speak of changing gears.. I think of a tournament as needing at least 3 basic gears.. Actually I think of them as street light colors: Yellow light is beginning stages where I'm at about average stack and playing "cash game" style... Red light is when I'm under 10BB and the blinds/antes are escallating OR when it's final table and I'm not a big stack.. Last is Green light = big stack and use it to push smaller stacks around.

I think you hit on something very important though. Most people play as if they needto change gears at a certain time in the tournament (say when blinds get to X amount or when you're within X places of the cash). I think you need to think of it more individually and change gears based on your stack relative to everything else.

[2005]

Excellent post MLG, I don't really have anything to add, except for the fact that it's scary that you and I think so much alike. I may not be quite as good at putting it into words as you are, but it's uncanny how our ideas are almost always identical in nature.

Gavin

[MLG]

good post. I think we're talking about slightly different things though. You are right that different stack sizes involve different types of play. But there is a difference between having a big stack and having a deep stack. One is defined by your relation to other stacks the other by your relation to the blinds. For example, if you have an average stack of 100 BBs you are going to limp in a lot and see some flops and try to win some monster pots. However, if you have 100 BBs and the average is 20, limping in instead of open raising is clearly a mistake. What I'm talking about, I guess, is the way that stack depth and stack size interact as the tournament progresses. Its a lot easier to steal blinds with a 20x stack if the average is 15x than if the average is 50x.

[MLG]

I do think our tournament games are somewhat similar. I'll trade you the writing ability for the bracelet though /images/graemlins/smirk.gif.

[MLG]

I don't think it has to do with the average skill level of the remaining players per se. You are right, the good players late in a tournament are applying well accepted tournament concepts, what I'm getting at is that there is a point in these tournaments when these concepts become applicable, and applying them beforehand, or waiting too long to apply them can result in disaster.

[Che]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not convinced these questions can be answered mathematically.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this (as well as just about everything else in this post, of course /images/graemlins/grin.gif).

Pure math can never capture the risk-tolerance of the players at a given table so no formula would be foolproof.

For example...

Table A stacks: 50K, 14K, 13K, 10K, 10K, 9K, 9K, 8K, 8K.
Table B stacks: Same as above.

Blinds 500/1000/a50.

Any mathematical formula would give you the same result for both tables which implies the same strategy should be used at either.

However, I didn't tell you that Table A is full of stacks that could care less about making the minimum payout and that every time the big stack steals someone comes over the top. OTOH Table B is full of guys who won in through a qualifier and they're folding everything but AA until the bubble bursts and they'll think a while before calling with that.

The big stack's cards matter at Table A, but they really don't matter at Table B.

To be successful in tourneys, you have to:

a. Recognize what stage other players think they are in.
b. Respond appropriately.

Nice post, Mike.

Later,
Che

[SoBeDude]

Yes. The point is well before that. If you don't change the aims and goals of how you play until you are down around 10BBs then you are not playing correctly and will be blinded out too often for your own good. Its this mentality that leads to bubble finishes and a higher percentage of cashes, and lower percentage of high finishes.

Hi MLG,

This is the situation I was discussing in my thread (Patience and Panic), which by the way, I'd love to hear your thoughs on.

But the point I'm making in it, is that I'm not sure what you say here is right. IT MIGHT BE right, but I'd like to discuss it. Specifially, I'm not sure how well your above concept applies to online tournies, where as you mentioned, everyone is essentially short before the money even hits.

Now before I go further: in a reasonable tourney, with sufficiently decent (long and slow) blind structure, what you say is 100% correct. If you're less than 10x BB and haven't changed gears into gamble and accumulate, you have little chance of a final table and a win, and you're flat out playing incorrectly.

But in an online event, I'm not so sure this is a correct concept. Many of my wins (and some of my friends) were made after what seemed like forever just hanging on by my fingernails. Then a couple of good pots and I'm on my way. But PATIENCE seemed to be the key, not aggression.

Survival online SEEMS to be most important, as just two well timed pots can get you in healthy shape. And I don't know if you've noticed this, but there is essentially no correlation between the initial final table chip leader, and the winner of the tourney. Of course we know the opposite to be true in (reasonable) live events.

But given this fact, heading in to the final table with a big stack, isn't NEARLY as important as getting any chair in any shape at the final table. And IMO, its not even close. This is my recent epiphany about online MTTs.

Your thoughts?

-Scott

[SoBeDude]

[ QUOTE ]
do not misunderstand me. you need to push small edges as a big stack. You need to reraise smaller stacks all-in when you have a flush draw. You need to repop open raisers with air if you think they will lay down (and you won't be potstuck if they push). However, you need to recognize that party of the power of the big stack comes from being able to put smaller stacks to difficult decisions for their stacks using relatively few chips of your own.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is simply the most significant and concise post about playing a big stack that I have ever read on this forum.

Nice job.

-Scott

[TakenItEasy]

Nice post. I think you meantioned it a couple of times though. People begin to play differently at 10BB. That is because the blinds are now driving the action instead of the LAGs.

I first noticed this when I was deciding on a blind schedule for a home game. I started looking at average stacks verses the blinds and noticed that while everyone starts out with a deep stack when the BB gets to about 1/10th the average stack it stays there. I realized that that is when the blinds begin to push the action.

I don't disagree with others that each individual stack determines each players decisions but the 10 BB avg is when half of the players are now thinkeing any hand can be for their tournament life.

As a side note, when I was watching the Turning Stone event when they played 6 handed the final 2 had very deep stacks. That is because the short handed tables were driving the action and the blinds never caught up.

[Che]

[ QUOTE ]
the 10 BB avg is when half of the players are now thinkeing any hand can be for their tournament life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Generally speaking, around 2/3 of the players in a given tourney will have average or below average stacks. If you include players who have stacks only slightly above average, you will frequently find that 80% of the field is effectively at the average or below.

So, if the average stack is 10BB, most tables have only 1-3 players who are not in all-in/fold mode so the blinds are definitely driving the action at that point.

I'm guessing that the blinds drive the tourney well before the average falls to 10BB - probably more like 15BB - but I'm just guessing, obviously.

Later,
Che

[Potowame]

this would lead one to belive that the Inflection point would be the small gap between when the players drive the action Vs. the blinds driving the action, with the blinds being at the level to be profitable to steal.

[Che]

[ QUOTE ]
this would lead one to belive that the Inflection point would be the small gap between when the players drive the action Vs. the blinds driving the action, with the blinds being at the level to be profitable to steal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good to me after one reading, but I reserve the right to change my mind after I think about it more. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Unfortunately, identifying when the inflection point occurs at your table is not always so simple.

Actually, I think each player has his own inflection point so you really have to identify where each individual opponent is at any given time. Ugh. I wish I had never thought about this now. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

Later,
Che

[valenzuela]

Ok sorry people BUT ehh...what is the inflection point?Is it when a coinflip its +EV on $? Does it mean that if I go to a WPT Event I am on inflection the whole time?

[TakenItEasy]

You make a good point.

I guess my point was that the blinds tend to drive the action when the ratio of average stack BB tends to flatten out when plotted over time. Another words make a plot for any given tournament for AS/BB vs time and I would contend that there will be a knee in the plot where the blinds start to push the action. You may be right that the knee would be earlier. I haven't looked at enough data to say for sure. I also presume this knee will be at different points for different levels and probably be more defined at the higher levels.

Of course this is all speculation on my part but perhaps when I have a free day I will track several tournaments online and see what we get. Not sure how this would effect any individual play though since this only reflects a collection of individual wills acting at various degrees of effectiveness to bring about what I believe would be somewhat predictable results.

It may influence what your your aggression level should be or may predict how many rounds before reaching bubble play, etc.

[FishInAPhoneBooth]

I will take a 60/40 edge over a small stack "insta" quick. What I was really referring to was my recent string of self destructions with a big stack where I knowingly took a coin toss (55/45ish) against someone who could bust (or cripple) me, so perhaps 60/40 was an exaggeration.

Ridiculous? Perhaps, but until HOH volume II comes out and I get some more experience I just do not have the skill to play in marginal situations where small edges tend to occur. Maybe I imagine edges and get popped a lot; or perhaps I am involved when I shouldn’t be. Regardless the bottom line is: if I have a big stack and I splash around I will lose it. I am much better off waiting for big hands, or obvious situations to take down small pots.

Perhaps I inflect and reach the following conclusion: “I am the big stack at this table, but I am also the sucker at this table. Slow the F*%& down stupid."

[MLG]

Ok, some thoughts. First, I think your took my response as slightly more specific than i intended it. When I said that if you are waiting until you have around 10x to change your play you are not playing correctly was not meant to say that you need to automatically play crazy and accumulate. I don't necessarily believe that. My point was only that you need to adjust your play before you reach 10x. For example, with 17x you are not going to limp 56s in EP as you might with 70x.

I understand what you're saying about hanging on as a shortstack, and sometimes its absolutely valid. However, just because some of your final table big finishes have after being really short isnt exactly evidence for that being the right way to play. I sort of equate it to beating KK with AQ. Sometimes it happens, and many times its even right to get it in against KK with AQ but that doesnt mean you're likely to succeed by doing it.

When you are in shortish situations, you need to focus on making the best play. Sometimes there are correct oppurtunities to gamble. Sometimes there are times when its right to gamble/bluff, like if there is late position raise and call I might move in from the BB with air. Sometimes you just end up folding a lot because you have no choice. I firmly believe that moving in with air form the CO or CO-1 with hands like 67o or K6s when you have 5x is a long term winner, but I can't really prove it.

[TakenItEasy]

MLG describes it as:

"However, at some point, and nobody knows quite where, the emphasis changes. It becomes of vital importance not to win big pots, but rather to win a high percentage of the pots you play. Limping becoms rare and stealing and restealing are prominent."

In my experience I've just noticed it as when the tournament seems to tighten up and players get more aggressive.

Anyways, perhaps I'm getting over my head here, but I think it is caused due to the blinds driving the action instead of the table makeup and can be seen by plotting the average stack/BB verses time.

[Jdanz]

You can prove it.

[MLG]

well, just because its provable doesnt mean I can prove it.

[SoBeDude]

[ QUOTE ]
MLG describes it as:

"However, at some point, and nobody knows quite where, the emphasis changes. It becomes of vital importance not to win big pots, but rather to win a high percentage of the pots you play. Limping becoms rare and stealing and restealing are prominent."

In my experience I've just noticed it as when the tournament seems to tighten up and players get more aggressive.

Anyways, perhaps I'm getting over my head here, but I think it is caused due to the blinds driving the action instead of the table makeup and can be seen by plotting the average stack/BB verses time.

[/ QUOTE ]

there is one clear inflection point. I call it the 'all-in phase' of the tourney. It is when for most players, basically any play at a pot is for all your chips. This is when the idea of a re-steal or a reraise preflop hoping for a fold is an illusion. Any raise makes the raiser pot committed.

-Scott

[familyteeth]

inflection points - an accumulation over time

buy ins X chips total chip count
1000 T1500 T1500000

rate of player elimination
90% elimination
150 mins for 900 eliminations = 6 players/min

rate of redistribution
T9000 chips / min

redistribution of chips at bubble time

T1350000 2/3 chips to 1/3 players = T1000000 /33 players
= T30303 ave of big stack

1/3 chips to 2/3 players = T500000 /67 players
= T7462 ave of small stack

“average stack” at bubble time
T1500000 / 100 = T15000 chips

stealing / pressure time - 15 minute blinds

level 5 = where original chips = 10 x bb
75/150 T1500

bubble time

level 10
400/800 50
ave stack / blind = 18 x bb at minute 1

short stack desperation minutes 10 - 14
= 12 x bb at minute 14

at blind increase = 8 x bb at minute 15

600/1200 75
ave stack / blind drops 1bb/ 2mins (except blind increase 4 x bb)


using the rules of thumb in no limit MTT - against a villain

don't call 1/3 stack and fold
gap concept to call a raise
don't get below 12 x bb position

cost of action
raise = 3bb
reraise = 9bb
call a raise and bet = 8bb

therefore the first 7 minutes of a blind level are an optimal time to pressure a 13 - 20 bb stack with a late position raise
a 20 - 25 bb stack with an allin late position raise ( when they will pass up a small edge )
and push your draw against a short stack

the last 7 minutes of a level the short stacks are desperate to gamble and will pay off “the goods”
just musing here really, would love to hear some thoughts on “3-5 x bb” plays and at which position you would make a play with a chip leader between you and your target

[MLG]

Maybe this math is above my head but I just don't see how your conclusions stem from you math. Also, I think there are a lot of assumptions that I'm not sure I agree with. For example, in my experience it takes longer than 2.5 hours to eliminate 90% of the field. Maybe if you could dumb it down for me a little I'd get it.

[familyteeth]

the numbers show the intended rhythm of an online tournament structure. Tight play will get you about an hour to wait for a hand and double up. By level 10 its 2 1/2 hours in and bubble time arrives.
You've got a 90 hands to accumulate chips in between.

Each level has it's own rhythm, first 7 minutes 20-25 bb stacks are happy. ( they will pass up a small edge in the face of large aggression )
Stacks of 13-20 bb are inclined to employ strict gap concept, not wanting to splash around with a raise in front of them, If they are wrong they put themselves below 12bb
Short stack limpers can be played with a draw.

I'm not trying to give anyone "tired head", but I am eager to discuss thoughts on inflection points, looking for common "Achilles' heal" situations and strategy to attack them
I am especially interested in recognizing situations, when I don't open the play, I'm weak at restealing or taking a pot away on the turn etc.

[MLG]

I see what you were doing. There are a few things I disagree with. First, a 20-25 BB stack is not large enough to pass up small edges. Second it seems to me that you are assuming that having a certain amount of BBs at any blind level is equivalent while I think this is far from the case. On stars having 20 BBs at level 1, where the average is around 75 is very different than having 20 BBs after the bubble when the average stack is closer to 15. Third, you illustrate the very problem with thinking this way with your own math. If you sit back and relax with any stack size, in seven minutes you will be that much more pressured. Realizing that your stack will effectively be smaller in 7 minutes should affect the way you play now, and given that it does I'm not sure that the benchmark numbers you use can be universally accurate.

[TakenItEasy]

I noticed you meantioned 20-25 bb stacks in the first 7 minutes. Most online tournaments I've seen start out at 40-50 bb.

What is the blind schedule you are using? Is it live or online?

[JerBear77]

"Achille's Heal arguement for me"

Very solid 2/4 and 1/2 player but can't make the money in tournaments for the life of me.

Please tear me up if you see problems in my strategy.

I play it real tight for the first 3 or 4 levels of the tourney, basically the first hour or so and get a feel for players on how tight/loose they are...

Problems arise for me when i switch gears after the first break....
Im struggling with determining what gear i should be in i guess at what times....I read all the previous posts on this subject and its been helpful, but still a little lost. Here are some generalizations i came up with from reading it...

10-15xBB your in push/fold mode preflop
-is this from any position or just if its folded to you in late?

30BB and above
play aggressively as described above
(flush draw push, top pair push or "testing" players)

I guess im playing too long in "cash game" mode...

When you do get in that point where you have to make something happen?? what kind of requirements are we dealing with to get those slight edges???

Do we start pushing as low as low pockets or KQ,AT, etc etc?

I can't get into the "Cards don't matter mode" yet....

[suited_ace]

Start a separate post for this, Jer. You'll get better answers since this post is about a different thing.

[SoBeDude]

I am especially interested in recognizing situations, when I don't open the play, I'm weak at restealing or taking a pot away on the turn etc.

In my opinion, either of the above mentioned scenarios simply do not exist in online tournies. (Of course they exist in live tournies with deep enough stacks)

Perhaps at the final table of one of the big PS events, the stacks are deep enough to play 'small bet poker'. But I know of no where else that is true.

The blinds are simply too big in comparison to the stacks for these type of plays. So in online tournies, every play from a given point on is almost allways 'all-in poker'.

-Scott

[MLG]

You think so Scott? I agree about taking a pot away on the turn, but I think restealing is very important in online tourneys. If I know a guy can open light from the CO, I'll push from the the button with any two when I have about 12 BBs. If I'm in the blinds I like to wait for some kind of hand to push back, but if I'm at about 12 BBs, 33 qualifies as some kind of hand.

[Sluss]

[ QUOTE ]
If I know a guy can open light from the CO, I'll push from the the button with any two when I have about 12 BBs.

[/ QUOTE ]

How often does this work for you? I've been trying to work this into my game and having very little success. I'm just wondering if it is variance or a timing problem.

[MLG]

I should qualify this. I won't do it if the CO has a stack of more than say 25 BBs. On the whole it works enough that I keep it in my arsenal. The key is having the right read on your opponents. It tends to work less on Party than on other sites. Also, if you're close to 9 or 10 BBs you're dangerously close to pricing the CO in for a call.

[TakenItEasy]

I like 8 BB before I go into push/fold mode. However at this point I still wait for a good hand and usually only for an open. You don't have enough to get someone off of their hand for a reraise. At 5xBB I start playing A7 or better and any pair again for an open. I stay away from suited connectors unless I need to gamble multihanded for something like a qualifier with limited payout positions. Long shots that payout well are for the deep stacks that can afford it.

At this point keep an eye on where the blind is, how much time there is in the level, where the shorter stacks are, where the mid stacks are and if the blind has a chance to advance faster on you if a short stack gets knocked out before you. One thing I like to do is to play shortly before the level increase as if it already happened (that is if you have the appropriate hand of course). You will still be a desperate short stack but some may not recognize that fact.

In final table play, if you are 5xBB and you see a level increase comming up and another player soon to become < 5xBB, depending on where the blinds are relative to you and him you may want to wait it out until he busts out and move up a position.

If you are on the bubble and you got 3 places to go but there are 4 shorter stacks than just be patient.

At 30xBB Play aggressively but try to target the weak players. I like to identify any 2 mid to short stacks next to each other for blind steals. Be wary of those that like to defend. Don't over do it or you will loose too much respect. I sometimes lay down a moderate hand if I just took the last 3 or 4 hands in a row. You really want to show only strong hands to someone who has lost patience and makes a stand. After that you have a license to steal. On the other hand if you get caught than you need to cool it a little.

Near the bubble take it up a notch and take the blinds from the short to mid stacks who are being patient.

To push the flop or not depends on the opponents stack. If a pot size bet will pot commit him than go ahead and push. Sometimes if I'm on an overly passive table I will be betting 1/2 pot size bets that will still do the job. Either way, try to keep pre-flop and flop bets consistant so that it will be difficult to put you on a hand.

[SoBeDude]

[ QUOTE ]
You think so Scott? I agree about taking a pot away on the turn, but I think restealing is very important in online tourneys. If I know a guy can open light from the CO, I'll push from the the button with any two when I have about 12 BBs. If I'm in the blinds I like to wait for some kind of hand to push back, but if I'm at about 12 BBs, 33 qualifies as some kind of hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I really think so.

Restealing rarely occurs in online tournies. If EP player makes a big raise, and an MP player comes back over the top of him for all his chips (and both players have significant chips) then MP has a BIG BIG BIG hand. AK minimum. Probably a BIG pair.

And its hard to know that the CO is raising light. You won't see many of his hands. If he gets reraised he usually calls (usually getting decent pot odds because everyone is short stacked, very few 20x stacks around) and is out or doubles up. Or if all fold then you have no idea what he had. You see so few of what the opponents cards are, its very difficult to make the 'he raises light' assessment.

It's been my experience, that when a NON-BLIND hand comes over the top it is ALWAYS a real hand. ALWAYS.

When a blind comes over the top, he's either desperate, thinks the raiser is raising light, or has a big hand. but once again, these 'over the tops' are essentially always an all-in play. none of that "raise 400K when he has 2.4 mil in chips" u see on the WPT.

Oh, and I think that pushing from the button with 12BBs when u have any two is a mistake.

-Scott

[MLG]

There have been a whole bunch of good interesting posts on this discussion. I feel, however, that most posts are focusing on either on big stack / little stack, or deep stack / shallow stack. The two are distintly different things, and what I'm really interested in is how the two different concepts impact each other as a tournament advances. At what point do those two factors change the way players approach the game. I'm not sure there are any answers, but its interesting to think about.

[MLG]

Really? I agree its a mistake against an unknown, but ive found it works very well against a CO raiser who I know is highly likely to be stealing, specifically for the reasons you stated about people believing reraises are always real hands.

Sure, the resteal has to be all-in, but in an orbit all of your steals have to be all-in too, so that doesn't bother me.

[SoBeDude]

There have been a whole bunch of good interesting posts on this discussion. I feel, however, that most posts are focusing on either on big stack / little stack, or deep stack / shallow stack. The two are distintly different things, and what I'm really interested in is how the two different concepts impact each other as a tournament advances. At what point do those two factors change the way players approach the game. I'm not sure there are any answers, but its interesting to think about.


how do they differ?

Semantics.

A deep stack is the same as a big stack. a short stack is the same as a shallow stack. Any perceived difference is contrived.

If the 'big stack' at the table is still relatively short against the blinds, then he has no 'big stack' status, and can't push people around. Everyone's play against him is based on their stack size vs the blinds, ignoring his few extra chips in their decision process (for the most part).

And conversely, if you're short against the blinds, you're short period. doesn't matter how u stack up to the other kiddies. Any play u make is for all your chips, and any call is purely based on their actual hand and pot odds.

-Scott

[SoBeDude]

I rarely see a resteal. I see a reraise with a monster, which is usually called anyway because the initial raiser is pot committed.

Late in to online tournies, it is extremely rare for me to see a situation where it is correct for the initial raiser to lay down to an all-in reraise because the stacks are too small and the pot odds to call are almost always there.

-Scott

[MLG]

Scott, I respect you opinion a lot, and I know you've got some serious game, but I think you're very wrong here. If you have 25x late in an online tourney you have a big stack, and you ceratinly have the ability to use that big stack power. However, take a bigger live tournament, and lets say you are the big stack there too. However, at this point, close to the money, the average stack is closer to 30x, and you have about 65x. In both cases you are the big stack, however, they play very differently due to the differeing stack depths of the tournaments on the whole.


Take the flip side. You are shortstacked online with about 8x, when average is about 25x. Is that the same as being shortstacked in a live event with about 25x when the average is about 55x?


The first issue is your stack in relation to others stacks, and the second is the issue of your stack in relation to the blinds. I think there is a lot more difference between the two than merely symantics.

[MLG]

raiser has 25x, and makes it 2.5x to go from the CO. I push with my 12x stack. The pot is now 16x (12+2.5+1.5) and he has to call 9.5x. He's getting less than 2-1 on his money and should be able to fold a good deal of hands here. Its a relatively specific spot (opponent, position, stack sizes), but its one that I actively look for.

[pjrnemtp]

Poker aint about playin cards, it's about playin people.

[Sluss]

The point where mid stacks start to worry about keeping their stack healthy to make the money. This is usually just short of bubble time. A player who was active before, starts to tighten up when he reaches a stack size that makes him feel comfortable to make the money. Don't want to make a mistake and bubble.

While Short stacks are pushing and big stacks are bullying the mid stacks change from accumulators to survivors. Is this the point we are looking for? A point that is much more player dependent, rather than mathamatically dependent.

[TakenItEasy]

I would agree. When I think of big and small stack, they are relative terms to each other, usually early in a tournament where the blinds are not significant. When I think of deep and shallow stacks, the are relative to a common baseline which is when the blinds start to push the action.

[MLG]

[ QUOTE ]
A player who was active before, starts to tighten up when he reaches a stack size that makes him feel comfortable to make the money. Don't want to make a mistake and bubble

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots of people do this, but its almost certainly a mistake. You end up sacrificing some of your opportunity to go deep into the tournament just to make the money. Bad plan. All the money is at the final table.

[Sluss]

[ QUOTE ]
A player who was active before, starts to tighten up when he reaches a stack size that makes him feel comfortable to make the money. Don't want to make a mistake and bubble
[ QUOTE ]
Lots of people do this, but its almost certainly a mistake. You end up sacrificing some of your opportunity to go deep into the tournament just to make the money. Bad plan. All the money is at the final table.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

But is that the Inflection Point?

[Che]

[ QUOTE ]
how do they differ?

[/ QUOTE ]

If someone's stack is 4x yours, they can bust you in one hand. As a result, they can bluff you all-in without fear of busting out (or even losing their big stack status, in many cases). They have a big stack whether it is 8BB or 800BB.

If someone has 8BB, they make only one decision each hand: play or fold. They have a shallow stack whether they are the table chip leader or the table short stack (i.e. big or small).

If they have 50BB, they can make decisions on several streets (most of the time) even if everyone else at the table has 150+ BB. They have a deep stack even if they are short.

To me, deep/shallow impacts how many decisions per hand you can make while big/little impacts folding equity due to (perceived) value of survival and the way the marginal value of chips changes as stack size changes.

Later,
Che

[MLG]

Well, your defining the point as the time where all the middle stacks start play wrong because they don't want to bubble. I don't like defining it like that, becuase I believe that there is a time in a tourney when it is right to play differently (not necessarily tighter, just differently) and that that is the inflection point. Thus, defining it as a point where everybody starts playing wrong doesn't make sense to me.

[woodguy]

Hey Scott,

[ QUOTE ]
Restealing rarely occurs in online tournies.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree.

Its not very common, but if I'm a big stack I'll sometimes raise a MP or LP raiser, who will then flat call then check/fold the flop to my continuation bet.

Its rare that they outright fold to my PF raise (if they paid once, online players will usually pay twice to see the flop)

I don't try to pull it off very often, but it works well against mid stacks near the bubble. Especially if my last couple of show downs were good hands.

I'd also like to comment on your wins with small stacks.
We have all won after good comebacks from a small stack, but I find winning much, much easier when I have a large stack.

I'm 3 for 3 in the last couple of weeks going into the final table with either the big stack (twice) or second big stack.

Not to grind on you Scott, but I thought I might as well pipe up.

Regards,
Woodguy

[RDWallace]

effective resteals are never seen, because they take down the pot right there. I will generally pick targets at the table who I know are bringing it in loosely from MP or the CO and pop them back every three or four orbits. Occasionally I will put a squeeze play on a raiser and caller out of the blinds or from the button. YOu have to know your opponent when you make this play, and you have to be sure they are solid enough to fold a decent hand to a reraise, but if used properly it can build your stack more efficiently than simple blind steals. Also, try putting in steals out of position, like from UTG. You'll see lots of people laying down hands, or calling with small pairs for set value, which you like, because 7/8 times you will be taking down the pot on the flop.
There's also the re-re-steal.

[SoBeDude]

[ QUOTE ]
Scott, I respect you opinion a lot, and I know you've got some serious game, but I think you're very wrong here. If you have 25x late in an online tourney you have a big stack, and you ceratinly have the ability to use that big stack power. However, take a bigger live tournament, and lets say you are the big stack there too. However, at this point, close to the money, the average stack is closer to 30x, and you have about 65x. In both cases you are the big stack, however, they play very differently due to the differeing stack depths of the tournaments on the whole.


Take the flip side. You are shortstacked online with about 8x, when average is about 25x. Is that the same as being shortstacked in a live event with about 25x when the average is about 55x?


The first issue is your stack in relation to others stacks, and the second is the issue of your stack in relation to the blinds. I think there is a lot more difference between the two than merely symantics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I see your point, but look at it this way:

If you're the short stack at a table of monster stacks, but you still have 50x the BB (they all have, say 200BBs), they're still going to push you around.
But in this case, the big stacks are also deep stacks. Which is the only time he can act like a 'big stack'.

Lets look at a different but similar example. you have 89BBs, your opponent has 100BBs. He is the 'big stack', but he doesn't have 'big stack' status, because you both are too deep against the size of the blinds, and his stack isn't significantly bigger. So he can't push you around.

Now the opposite side. You have 8BBs, your opponent has 10BBs. He is the big stack, but doesn't have big stack status, because he's too short against the blinds. He can't push you around, because he knows any play u have is all-in and you're going to gamble. He is technically the 'big stack', but he is also a shallow stack in relation to the blinds and hence has little power.

So I say when we refer to a 'big stack' or a 'deep stack' we can use the terms interchangeably, because only when he is actually both , does he have 'big stack' status, and the ability to bully the table.

And short and shallow are essentially the same. Except in the almost purely theoretical situation I mentioned above. If you have 50BBs and your opponents have 100BBs, you might lose a lot of blinds, but you're in no hurry because you're so deep still. So being short he is irrelevant. Just wait for big hands and play back.

So only when short and shallow are you what we usually call 'being short'. So using either term implies both in actual usage.

Lets face it, when someone starts by saying they're a short stack, do you think he has 50BBs and is sitting at a table of monster stacks? no. you think he's sitting there with 2-10 BBs, which in fact, is a shallow stack.

-Scott

[MLG]

Stacks are almost never deep enough online for the reresteal. In fact I can only thing of one time when I've done it. I agree though that timely reraises / squeeze plays are a good way to build a stack when you have subpar cards.

[RDWallace]

Yeah I know, but is there anything more satisfying than getting a guy to lay his JJ or QQ to your 37 when you come back over the top?

[SoBeDude]

[ QUOTE ]
raiser has 25x, and makes it 2.5x to go from the CO. I push with my 12x stack. The pot is now 16x (12+2.5+1.5) and he has to call 9.5x. He's getting less than 2-1 on his money and should be able to fold a good deal of hands here. Its a relatively specific spot (opponent, position, stack sizes), but its one that I actively look for.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. rarely is a raise 2.5. its usually 3.5 to 4x. giving him the correct odds to call.

2. did you include the blind and ante money in your pot calculations?

-Scott

[SoBeDude]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah I know, but is there anything more satisfying than getting a guy to lay his JJ or QQ to your 37 when you come back over the top?

[/ QUOTE ]

no offense, but this just doesn't happen.

-Scott

[SoBeDude]

Hi Wood,

I'm confused. you said they'd rarely lay down PF once they put money in the pot. I totally agree, and isn't a resteal trying to get this very laydown preflop?

Perhaps my definition of a resteal is too narrow? To me, taking a pot on the flop or turn with a bluff is just that. a bluff. it is not a resteal. A resteal is getting the opponent to lay down preflop.

-Scott

[MLG]

Obviously many times when a player is short stacked he is also shallow and when he is big stacked he is deep. However, I disagree with your examples here. The reason that the bigger stack cannot act as a big stack in the two examples does not have anything to do with stack depth. It simply has to do with the fact that shallow or deep the two stacks are similar in size.

I do know for a fact that when you have 100BBs you can absolutely bully people who have 30-50BBs despite the fact that they do not have shallow stacks.

[MLG]

I did add in blind money, although no antes, as on party. Scott where do you usually play? I find that party and stars usually deep in the tourney the standard raise falls to below 3, and I always use 2.5 late in tournies. UB the preflop raise is generally closer to 3.5.

[SoBeDude]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously many times when a player is short stacked he is also shallow and when he is big stacked he is deep. However, I disagree with your examples here. The reason that the bigger stack cannot act as a big stack in the two examples does not have anything to do with stack depth. It simply has to do with the fact that shallow or deep the two stacks are similar in size.

I do know for a fact that when you have 100BBs you can absolutely bully people who have 30-50BBs despite the fact that they do not have shallow stacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, and I did use that exact thing in one of my examples. But, this is a purely theoretical situation, which I've never seen occur in an online tourney. don't u agree?

And if your opponent has 100BBs, but you have 5BBs, he can't bully you because you're in 'all-in' mode anyway.
He is BOTH (big and deep) and you are neither.

Call him big or deep, it's irrelevant.

And you are short and shallow, so call you either too. which you choose as a description is irrelevant. Your play is based on your cards and your situation, his stack is irrelevant.

-Scott

[MLG]

I agree with your whole post. My point is only that just because often a big stack is deep, and a short stack is shallow doesnt mean we should ignore the distinction between the ideas because i think theoretically its very important.

[SoBeDude]

I play on Empire, Stars, and Paradise.

I'm calling a 2.5x raise in my BB liberally when there are ante's present, unless I'm a shorty.

Lets say blinds are 500/1000. with 1500 on the pot, you raise to 2500. 4K and its 1500 to me to call, ignoring antes. I'm getting 2.66 to 1 pot odds to call. With antes its even sweeter, usually 3-1. How is this a correct play when u want folds?

-Scott

[SoBeDude]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with your whole post. My point is only that just because often a big stack is deep, and a short stack is shallow doesnt mean we should ignore the distinction between the ideas because i think theoretically its very important.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough /images/graemlins/smile.gif

-Scott

[MLG]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm calling a 2.5x raise in my BB liberally when there are ante's present, unless I'm a shorty.

[/ QUOTE ]

3 things.
1: pretty much everybody's a shorty at this point.

2: I'm fine if people call more than they would usually like to, because when they are out of their comfort zone post flop I'm gonna outplay them.

3: Not everybody is you, and many times 2.5x will be very succesful at stealing the blinds. Its the old Fossilman contention that you should be raising to the smallest amount that will consistently steal the blinds.

[woodguy]

[ QUOTE ]
A resteal is getting the opponent to lay down preflop.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh. Confusion of terms.

I agree that a "pure" re-steal is very rare for the reasons mentioned before. Shallow stacks and interent dynamics.

Regards,
Woodguy

[TakenItEasy]

I would like to go back to my point earlier. It's when the blinds begin to push the action. By definition, the blinds pushing the action means it is effecting the bulk of the tournaments play.

Simply put the scale of play is large enough to where the high variance plays are no longer viable for most of the field. Thus the tightening up.

[MLG]

[ QUOTE ]
It's when the blinds begin to push the action

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but when is that? Its much before you're at 10x.

[TakenItEasy]

I've found that it depends on how many players per table. For example 10 player tables I have noticed the average stack flattens out around 10xBB, 8 player tables flatten out around 12xBB and much later, 6 player tables, the blinds never catch up to the average stack, or you never get convergence.

I haven't specifically taken any data for this so take these numbers for what it's worth but I think the gist of it is sound.

[MLG]

Its much much earlier than that in multi. If you're waiting until you're around 10BBs to start trying to steal blinds, and make plays to build your stack then you are waiting way too long. The blinds begin to drive play much before then. Exactly when, though, is up for debate.

[TakenItEasy]

I admit that my numbers are based on a small sample since I have only recently started looking at this. It's easy to see during a tournament though. Just keep an eye on the avg stack verses the BB and at some point that ratio will become more or less constant.

[bugstud]

I've found you can resteal in the party weekend tourneys in isolated conditions. I had a large stack to the left of two other large stacks (about 30x-50x depending on the blind level) and these guys opened between the two of them about 80-90% of the pots when I got broke to the table.

I ended up building a large stack restealing and hitting a couple hands...so to say never is strong, but rarely sounds correct

[TakenItEasy]

By the way. I should also meantion that I tend to play btw $30 to $120 MTT on pacific and paradise. My account got frozen at party but that's another thread :-)

I'm sure the general tournament makeup and the level of play will also be contributing factors.

[gergery]

Great thread, Mike.

I think it all comes down to risk vs. reward. There are a number of things that influence both of those, and it’s the dynamic between them and the particular situational factors adjusting them that determine when the inflection point hits.

If you were to data-mine millions of tourneys and results and do a giant regression analysis to determine correct play, I’d guess the following variables would be most important, in order:

Size of your stack in relation to blinds – influences the # of chips you can win, since you need essentially a pre-determined avg # of chips to get to the final 3, this is key. Influences the number of decisions you can make per hand, and can limit some implied odds opportunities

Size of your stack in relation to opponents – allows you to manipulate bets and size of pot to risk few chips while an opponent risk many, influences folding equity, and influences the number of opportunities you can take and lose without forgoing future opportunities. Also whether you fold into the final table.

How often opponents will call bets vs. fold, as compared to typical opponent with that hand – measure stealing equity (important later)

How tight opponents will take weak hands too far, as compared to typical opponent with that hand -- measures implied odds (important early/middle of tourneys), and value from trapping (important always)

Distance from money – determines how many opponents will play, and later on it determines how the chips will translate to $$.

There are obviously many other ones, but these seem biggest.

Simplistically, the right way to assess value would be similar to how chess engines value positions: figure top 3 spots are where all the money is, you need an average of X chips to get there, so any point before then can be assessed by determining its intrinsic ability to generate more chips to arrive at that point.

In terms of quantifying exact when it should happen in any given tourney, it would all come down to range of hands, hand value in comparison to another hand, and value on offer (chips in middle). For example, an opponent raises, you put him on a range from 88+, AQ+ and have 66 and have odds of 3:1. You could assign a numeric rating to his play to figure implied odds if hit, plug it thru and get a ‘typical’ EV for calling. Then you’d use the decision 'chess engine' to work backward and figure your exact chip-generating EV for folding. You choice would be influenced by how much you could steal in future, whether you'd opponent could lay down TP if you hit set, etc, etc. If it’s +, call, etc.

Anyway, enough rambling. It’s been done for chess engines with billions of decision lines, so it could do it for poker too. Just go buy a CRAY Supercomputer, and play 10 million tourneys /images/graemlins/cool.gif

--Greg

[MLG]

Kick ass post man. The ability of your position in a tournament to generate more chips is exactly the kind of idea I've been able to think about and couldn't quite vocalize.

[TakenItEasy]

MLG,

I think the deviation between your personal inflection point being well before 10x and the fields being somewhat later is probably due to the fact that you're a better player than the field. If for example, you are in the top 10% of the field, sorry I don't actually know your record, means that your style will deviate from 90% of the field. Indeed if your play was governed by how the bulk of the field played, you could never beat the rake. May as well play craps.

To be more specific, I think the fact that you can turn the corner of your play well before 10-12x shows that you are comfortable with post flop play which, at least in the levels I play, most players are not. I myself like to think of 2 styles of play. The way I think that I should play and the way I expect the field to play. If I don't see a difference, I know I'm not playing the correct level.

[MLG]

I think your missing my point a little. I'm saying there is a point in a tournament where theoretically optimal play changes from ring game style to something else entirely. I'm also making the contention that this point falls well before the average stack size is approaching 10BBs. This doesn't have anything to do with differing abilities of the ability to play comfortably post flop. Now, you might say that other players fail to adjust properly and wait too long to do so, and thats fine. That just doesn't mean that they have their own inflection point, it makes them wrong.

[ZeroMan]

sorry but what is a squeeze play? is that calling on the button or small to represent a calling hand?

[woodguy]

First of all, I am playing for a WSOP seat as I type this, so it is by no means complete or coherent.
Mostly it is rambling that I have tried to type a few times today, but for various reasons, it never came out correct.

[ QUOTE ]
The ability of your position in a tournament to generate more chips


[/ QUOTE ]

Great thought, lots of implications.

Reminds me of when there was the large "Hand vs. Gigabet" thread when a lot of posters disagreed with Gigabet's calling of an all in bet based on the merit of the pot in question during a Step 5 tourney here. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=tourn&Number=1366229&F orum=,,,,,,,,,,,All_Forums,,,,,,,,,,,&Words=&Searc hpage=10&Limit=25&Main=1366229&Search=true&where=& Name=8370&daterange=&newerval=&newertype=&olderval =&oldertype=&bodyprev=#Post1366229)

Giga's answer put the forum into a bit of spin saying that even though he took the worst of it, it was worth the gamble as the chips he would have won would be worth more than their actual value as it would give him a dominate position and stack to steal.

Not as contraversial a statement in the MTT forum now as it was then.

If we take that thought and build on it in terms of inflection point(s), maybe what we come up with is:

My stack size determines how I can gain chips. The main variables are:
1) Size of BB
2) Size of opponent stacks
2i) Change in opponents style due to stack size
3) Distance from/past bubble
3i) Severity of bubble
4) Distance from final table

As my stack size changes, and the 4 variables change the way I can gain chips changes.

The ways I may gain chips may increase or decrease, or just simply change.

The way my opponents change is not a constant and I must be aware of where they are at in terms of "their own tourney", and how that affects their play.

The same inflection point will affect differnet players in very different ways.

There are some shared inflection points (the bubble) and individual inflection points (your stack)

Some players may be oblivious of inflection points (i.e. down to 5BB limps PF then fold to a PF raise on the bubble)

I know this is repeating what Che stated earlier, but I think your tourney management boils down to managing your game through the various inflection points, while being aware of how your opponents are dealing with their inflection points.


There. Didn't really add much, but I had to put something in this thread. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Regards,
Woodguy

[Potowame]

Say you are CO , and MP1 raises 3Xbb and MP3 flat calls You now reraise to 9-12BB.

This puts alot of pressure on MP1 and MP3, it represents great strength, and makes the MP1 fold most holdings. while you are pretty sure that MP3 will fold because he has not reraised himself.

[MLG]

Nice post, I also thought about the gigabet thread when I read gergery's post. I think you did an excellent job of breaking down the issues, and I like your idea of tournament management. I think that is a good way to define the skill unique to tournament poker. Good stuff.

[Che]

[ QUOTE ]
That just doesn't mean that they have their own inflection point, it makes them wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish I had said that. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Che]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice post.... Good stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, any post that restates what I have already written is a good post. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

The only way woodguy could have done better would have been to quote himself (like Diablo does /images/graemlins/blush.gif).

Seriously...great thread, MLG. You've provoked a ton of deeper than normal thought regarding the subtleties of tourney play, and I know a bunch of us will benefit (if we ever get our heads around what we have learned).

Later,
Che

[woodguy]

Thanks for the kind words.

I think you're blowing a little smoke up my arse, but I'm not a proud man, so I'll accept that. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Speaking of tourney management, I think I need to include this post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/remlinker.php?Cat=&Entry=75232&F_Board=singletable &Thread=1825403&Main=1825403) by Gigabet when talking about poker game management, tournament or not.

Every time I read that post I feel like I should get some sweetgrass and sit in a sweatlodge and contemplate it for a while.

Regards,
Woodguy

[MLG]

you and gergery took the vague theoretical ideas floating around in my head and systematically broke them down and categorized them into actual important factors to look for and work with. by the way Ive been keeping track this is the fourth forum that gigabet's post has made it into and justifiably so.

[MLG]

thanks man, now if I could just get back to winning those important coinflips I'd be in great shape and maybe I'd make the money again this year.

[Myrtle]

This is a terrific thread, and thanks much to all who have posted!

I have bookmarked it for a couple of re-reads before I even attempt any serious response, BUT, the following thought has stuck in my mind as I've been reading the various posts......

....It seems to me that many of us are constantly looking for the 'Holy Grail' of math to assist us in decision making when it comes to tournament play. It sure would be nice if we could reduce our play to a more formulaic ‘strategy’ that would prove out to be ‘most correct’. I know that I am certainly guilty of that kind of thinking, but I inevitably end up running into a brick wall.

I’m wondering if perhaps there is not another way to look at this problem?

Could it be that we might be putting the emPHAsis on the wrong sylLABle?

How about focusing FIRST on ..... ‘Making good/correct Decisions’? If that thought is the primary one in our mind, would it then not follow that in order to do that we MUST be properly schooled in all of the other salient points/phases of the game that have been made in this string in order to ..... “Make the RIGHT decision”?

I’m struggling with words here........ I’m trying to get to something like........ “There are simply TOO many individual factors that need to be considered when one attempts to reduce one’s play to pure formula”.

Does any of the above have a familiar ring to the posters in this string? If so, I’d sure as hell appreciate your thinking on the subject, as I just keep getting stuck........

[Jdanz]

i disagree highly, at i'd say a resteal is probably most possible at the last stage of a tourney (and i personally think it's a viable strategy well before then). There are pleanty of situations where a big stack will be stealing with any two and will fold 80% of his hands for an all in raise. Which if you have less then 15BB makes it almost auto + EV.

-JDanz

[MLG]

I agree that the most important thing in poker is making correct decisions. However, generally speaking in poker math is the key to arriving at correct decisions. That is, figuring out the EV of a play is what tells us what the correct decisions is. Now, in some cases that EV may not be specifically calculatable, like many times you cannot pinpoint exactly how much folding equity you have when making a big bet. However, that still leaves us with the ability to say, if we knew precisely what are folding equity was we could calculate our EV. Thus, we play around with hand ranges and such, and make suppositions about our opponents to try and make and estimated guess of what our FE is, so we can calculate our EV. However, deep in tournaments, after an inflection point there are so many factors at play, that I'm not sure we really understand how to correctly calculate the EV in close situations. In many, in fact most, situations this isn't a big deal because normal considerations are weighted enough in one way or another that they easily push our decisions. However, in the closest most marginal of cases all these things that we don't really know how to mathematically examine should impact our decision making process. Thus, how can we know what the "right" decision is.

[sloth469]

I think that this back and forth and your differing oppinions (forgive me if someone's said it, I'm only about halfway through the thread) is based on where you play the majority of your tournaments online. I know SoBe frequently plays paradise tournaments. I find that playing on paradise if you are not the first to open the action you are almost always going to a show down if you choose to re-pop it, the same is not as true on stars, and restealing becomes possible and very profitable. I'm not sure if it is the average player or if it is a function of the blinds to stack size, but on Paradise I find that I get called or reraised a greater percentage of the time, often by a marginal hand.

SoBe you play both, correct? Do you find that you have better success on one than the other?

Personally I find I have more big scores on Paradise, but I bust a lot more early also. Stars seems to be more "playable" and I find lately I'm prefering this. Sorry that doesn't sound right. I guess it comes down to there are more people on paradise willing to go to the felt with any ace more often than there are on stars. Obviously we have to love this but it still means that 1 in 3 times your KK is no good and you are gone, because someone has that ace (I realise they pay you off more too and it works out in your favor). So as much as survival is hardly a concideration of mine normally; on paradise it increases quite a bit.

Sorry to ramble, hope this makes sense.

-sloth

[sloth469]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe this math is above my head but I just don't see how your conclusions stem from you math. Also, I think there are a lot of assumptions that I'm not sure I agree with. For example, in my experience it takes longer than 2.5 hours to eliminate 90% of the field. Maybe if you could dumb it down for me a little I'd get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you MLG,

I seriously thought I was the only one here that is not so inclined towards long tedious calculations others use often to "prove" their position. I have the basic math down, but I prefer to play the psychological game.

Do you all think this causes a big leak in the typical players game? Or is it one of those things where there is no one correct way to play?

For me I believe the inflection point is a personal thing, and just because 80% of the field will reach theirs around the same time does not change that. It is a psychological comfort level and it is hard to see how math can explain this beyond the < X BBs where X is usually equal to somewhere between 5 and 12.

-sloth

*** Edited to add that: I'm sure math can explain it, but that information isn't very useful unless you are computing it during the tourney to adjust accordingly. Does anyone do this? I believe it is easy enough to "feel" it that the math seems tedious and unneccesary. ****

[SoBeDude]

[ QUOTE ]
Its much much earlier than that in multi. If you're waiting until you're around 10BBs to start trying to steal blinds, and make plays to build your stack then you are waiting way too long. The blinds begin to drive play much before then. Exactly when, though, is up for debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

The actual when is really irrelevant. All that matters is you notice it when it occurs, and adjust accordingly.

-Scott

[MLG]

Its a leak. You need to know and apply the math situationally. The more you do that the better your "feel" for the game will be because your instincts will conincide with correct mathematical decisions. Fnurt (who seems to have dissapeared) said it better than I ever could in this post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1203890&page=&view=&s b=5&o=&vc=1)

[SoBeDude]

[ QUOTE ]
I think your missing my point a little. I'm saying there is a point in a tournament where theoretically optimal play changes from ring game style to something else entirely. I'm also making the contention that this point falls well before the average stack size is approaching 10BBs. This doesn't have anything to do with differing abilities of the ability to play comfortably post flop. Now, you might say that other players fail to adjust properly and wait too long to do so, and thats fine. That just doesn't mean that they have their own inflection point, it makes them wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly in the very early stages, people play loose because the blinds are tiny compared to their stacks. Once this is no longer the case, they tighten up and play "cash-style" poker. They play their best hands, play in awareness of the GAP concept, etc.

During this period, when someone plays back at you when you've been showing strength, they have a real hand (98% of the time). So you must have a real hand to continue. All-ins preflop and on the flop during this period tend to be rare and big hands. (or idiots pushing with draws)

But there is a point where the starting requirements plummet, where suddenly A9 is an all-in hand preflop where before it was a turbo-muck. This is of course when the blinds are driving the action.

But this point does not occur equally for all people. For my friend Eran, it occurs quickly and he starts feeling the need to gamble well before I do. His opening and calling requirements plummet. I'm constantly telling him to relax and wait for a better spot. The problem is he has reached his point too soon and when he gets action, he is frequently a significant dog in the hand and he blows off his chips. Because his opponents are still playing only premium hands.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is my friend Todd. He will wait forever until he has a real hand. For him, his point is reached too late. The players around him are clearly loosening up as is dictated by the very large blinds, and he's not playing back at them with enough hands, continually waiting for a better spot. So he gets chipped away. He often is playing in a situation where he no long has any Folding Equity because his stack is too small. Clearly this is a mistake as well.

I am somewhere in between.

So the problem you're having identifying this inflection is that it is not occuring uniformly. Different people are 'there' at different times and different stacks.

And there are several inflection points in a tourney, not just one.

As I mentioned above, there is an early loose stage, which changes into the 'tight/good play' stage. Then the next inflection is the most mysterious because it goes unnoticed by most players. It is the point where people tighten up further, and play fewer hands. This is the stage where stealing works frequently.

But there is then another inflection point. That is the transition from "too tight" to the "all-in" phase. Players have loosened up because they're feeling the pressure of the blinds. Stealing here is not effective as you tend to get called much more often. This phase causes a consolidation of the field into fewer players with bigger stacks.

Then there is YET ANOTHER inflection point. This is when opening requirements tighten up again. The mid stacks are not as willing to gamble now, because they can survive a few trips through the blinds. The big stacks become patient too, waiting for good hands. This is usually near the money. In this phase, stealing once again is an effective tool.

The next inflection point is right after the money. People loosen up a bit (not as much as the all-in phase). Many are in the "Whew! I made the money, I can relax!" mentality. Other are trying to build a stack for the final.

Then there is the "last two table" inflection point, where people are trying to survive to make the final. Stealing is profitable here. This phase continues at the final table, where many are in survival mode trying to make "just one more step up in the money". Stealing here is still profitable, although online it tends to be all-in plays.

That just doesn't mean that they have their own inflection point, it makes them wrong.

yes it does. They DO have their own inflection point, where there play changes. AND they are wrong. When they change their play, it generally does not occur correctly and is frequently in the wrong direction. But that very fact is what drives YOUR inflection point. You're reacting to them incorrectly changing their play.

A perfect example is the "last two table" point I mentioned above. They mostly tightened up which is WRONG. But they still cross an inflection point where their play has changed. So you by necessity have reached YOUR inflection point of loosening up to take advantage of it.

-Scott

[SoBeDude]

Hi Sloth,

I'm in a perpetual rut on PS, and have not survived deep into a tourney there in forever. I don't get any hands, and when I do, I get cracked. So I have little first hand experience in late PS tourney play.

And (obviously) I have more success on Paradise, and on the Empire tournies when I remember to play them. But I also play a lot of live tournies.

And yes, resteals in live tournies do work, at certain points, against certain players.

-Scott

[MLG]

nice post, I think we just differ in how we're using the term inflection point. I think you are using it to define a point where a player's play changes due to the blinds. I am using it to refer to the point where a players play should change due to the blinds, the relative stack size, and the host of other things that woodguy and gergery broke down.

[SoBeDude]

I'm saying I think it is more important to change your play based on the way others change their play. Unless you've reach the point of being forced to adjust because you're getting short against the blinds.

-Scott

[MLG]

define short.

[familyteeth]

[ QUOTE ]
nice post, I think you are using it to define a point where a player's play changes due to the blinds. I am using it to refer to the point where a players play should change due to the blinds, the relative stack size, and the host of other things that woodguy and gergery broke down.

[/ QUOTE ]
inflection point.
I wish to consider specifically level 5 thru level 10 of online MTT’s
At level 5 75/150 plenty of short stack, mid stack play - T3750 is 25bb’s

At level 10 400/800 50 – a stack size of T20000 is a top 30 stack – 25bb’s and probably 2nd or 3rd stack at their table

As one would put an opponent on a range of hands, when in the action, one also analyze’s table villains in their current situation as the hand begins. Specifically the three villains to your left and two on your right.

Inflection point – this effects all players - pretty easy to steal

Level 5 , 6, 7
Blinds become large enough to steal
Ave Stack Size T3260/ big blind = 15bb
45 hands cost of the blinds = T1576

Inflection point – this effects all players - this is where the starting hand value really drops
200/400/25

Level 8, 9 ,10
Blinds increase rapidly
Ave Stack Size T7900/ big blind = 10bb
45 hands - cost of the blinds = T6075

Inflection point – this effects all players - close to the money
Level 11, 12, 13
Bubble time arrives
And so does some play
Ave Stack Size / big blind = 25bb

Now MLG Woodguy and Gergery all state that blinds and situation will signal a player to change their play
ok,
what are you suggesting a player do during the allin fest of levels 8, 9, 10
T6075 to cover the blinds and an ave stack at 10bb?

a range of situations

allin steal
20-25 bb villain
LAG High variance 1st hour, continuing to splash in level 5
Calls in the blinds and bets out
(achilles heal – they call a raise and play often, their comfort zone – they don’t like to face allin steal )

allin resteal
13-20bb villain
Raises first from the c/o consistently
(achilles heal – once or twice and then I’ll make a stand with any connector (Jqsuited) or small pair

Stop and Go represent ( don’t have the best hand)
13-20bb villain and got him covered
Card Chaser loves any ace
Steaming

Raising 3-5 bb typical steal
13-20bb
running well but just lost a hand – just raised a question in his own mind about how he’s playing
(using the gap concept against them)
Tilting
Short and tight
Folding sb often
20-25bb
Chips and solid

What do plays do you like to make during this period?


[ QUOTE ]
woodguy
If we take that thought and build on it in terms of inflection point(s), maybe what we come up with is:

My stack size determines how I can gain chips. The main variables are:
1) Size of BB
2) Size of opponent stacks
2i) Change in opponents style due to stack size
3) Distance from/past bubble
3i) Severity of bubble
4) Distance from final table

As my stack size changes, and the 4 variables change the way I can gain chips changes.

The ways I may gain chips may increase or decrease, or just simply change.

The way my opponents change is not a constant and I must be aware of where they are at in terms of "their own tourney", and how that affects their play.

[/ QUOTE ]

[sloth469]

Excuse the fact that I was not very clear in my post. I understand and apply math during my play as it applys to the range of hands I put a player on, and the post you linked for me does a great job of explaining why it is important. I was referring to the math used above to determine the inflection point, and other such theoretical math it seems others use to justify themselves or their play (not for an individual hand, over a tourney in general). Are these the same? If so, how? I'm sure both sides of the pushing small edges debate would offer up formulas that "prove" they are correct on the issue. And since there is no one right way to play both have their merits, no?

-sloth

[SoBeDude]

the inflection point(s) is not driven by match.

-Scott

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that the most important thing in poker is making correct decisions. However, generally speaking in poker math is the key to arriving at correct decisions. That is, figuring out the EV of a play is what tells us what the correct decisions is. Now, in some cases that EV may not be specifically calculatable, like many times you cannot pinpoint exactly how much folding equity you have when making a big bet. However, that still leaves us with the ability to say, if we knew precisely what are folding equity was we could calculate our EV. Thus, we play around with hand ranges and such, and make suppositions about our opponents to try and make and estimated guess of what our FE is, so we can calculate our EV. However, deep in tournaments, after an inflection point there are so many factors at play, that I'm not sure we really understand how to correctly calculate the EV in close situations. In many, in fact most, situations this isn't a big deal because normal considerations are weighted enough in one way or another that they easily push our decisions. However, in the closest most marginal of cases all these things that we don't really know how to mathematically examine should impact our decision making process. Thus, how can we know what the "right" decision is.

[/ QUOTE ]

MLG,

I am in general agreement with your above statement. My above post was not intended to counter what you have written in this string. It was more of an attempt on my part to enlist you and the other posters here to assist me, as I feel that I’m ‘lost in space’ on some aspects of this issue. This issue perplexes me to the point where I sometimes have a difficult time framing what I would consider proper or salient questions!

Let me try another way, and see if it rings a bell for anyone......... Let’s look at the difference between tactics and strategy. Just to ensure that I don’t mis-use or confuse the two, I’ve listed the definition of both below.

Tactics - The military science that deals with securing objectives set by strategy, especially the technique of deploying and directing troops, ships, and aircraft in effective maneuvers against an enemy: Tactics is a required course at all military academies. (used with a pl. verb) Maneuvers used against an enemy: Guerrilla tactics were employed during most of the war. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) A procedure or set of maneuvers engaged in to achieve an end, an aim, or a goal.

Strategy - The science and art of using all the forces of a nation to execute approved plans as effectively as possible during peace or war. The science and art of military command as applied to the overall planning and conduct of large-scale combat operations. A plan of action resulting from strategy or intended to accomplish a specific goal. The art or skill of using stratagems in endeavors such as politics and business.

After looking at the above definitions, would it then be fair and accurate to say, in short-form, that a ‘strategy’ is an overall plan that one devises to accomplish a goal (or set of goals), and that ‘tactics’, therefore, are the individual actions within that plan that need to be executed to achieve the goal(s) that the strategy was devised for?

Now, there may be some danger in my making an analogy to the discussion in this string to the subject of Tactics/Strategy, and if so, I would hope someone would help me clarify that. Nonetheless, where I’m sitting right now, it seems that the two are somewhat tied to one another.

In general terms, when I look at the dynamics of the Tactics/Strategy issue, it seems to me that a plan begets a ‘strategy’, and once the strategy is defined, ‘tactics’ are employed to execute the strategy, which in turn fulfills the goals of the plan.

A goal is a reasonably finite thing.....i.e., “Our goal is to take Hill # 123”. Once we know the goal, we then conceive a ‘plan’, which in turn morphs into a ‘strategy’. Ideally, the plan should take into account every possible variable that exists which would/could have any effect upon the outcome. The more inclusive our plan is in this regard, the more likely we are to devise a better strategy, correct? Conversely, the LESS inclusive our plan is, is not our devised strategy LESS likely to be successful? Theoretically, our strategy should include ‘tactics’ to counter EVERY potential situation that is possible for us to encounter; i.e. for every action or reaction of our opposition, our strategy should include a tactic to effectively counter that move, so that we are successful in reaching our goal.

Methinks that this is where the ‘math’ part comes in when we are discussing poker. Let’s diverge for a second and look at chess. I am not a chess expert by any means, but it seems to be widely accepted that one can devise a ‘perfect’ strategy for the game of chess, because there are a finite amount of possible moves that are possible on a chess board, and once one is aware of each and every one of them, if one has the intellectual capacity, one then has both the information and the tools to develop the ‘best’ strategy and have at our disposal the proper ‘tactics’ to execute that strategy.

Is it reasonable to contrast this vs. poker?

Poker is a game of incomplete knowledge, i.e. the amount of possible alternatives (‘moves’) of the opponent(s) approaches what I would describe as ‘practical infinity’. If that’s the case, then the best that we can do is effectively make ‘educated’ guesses at what the proper ‘tactic(s)’ is/are to employ at a specific time. Is this not what we’re doing when we calc our opponents range of hands, folding EV, etc.?

During the course of the ‘contest’ is it then possible that we might have to employ a ‘tactic’ to react to an unanticipated move by an opponent? Is it also then possible that this ‘tactic’ that we find ourselves having to employ might actually be diametrically opposed to the arsenal of tactics that our original strategy had dictated? Let’s go back to the definition of strategy listed above. Notice that it says.....‘the science and art.............’. Does one take priority over the other? Do we sometimes not have to take two steps backwards in order to get back on track so that we can then take one step forward?

In regards to our discussion here about poker, are these points akin to the terms that we use called ‘math’ and ‘feel’? Is this why we often hear the response..... ‘It all depends’? Is this the yin & yang of strategy vs. tactics when applied to poker?

In the end, is it likely that the search for the theoretical ‘perfect strategy’ is effectively 'tilting at cosmic windmills', and that what we should really be searching for is......... practical, ‘close-to-optimum tactics’?

[MLG]

Great well thought out post, and I agree with it completely. My point in this whole excercise is that I think there are factors late in a tournament that make it very difficult to say what your strategy should be. Early on its very easy to say that your strategy is to maximize your EV, I'm not so sure that is the case later on. I think your strategy (and consequently the tactics you must use to achieve that strategy) is more obscure and based on the factors we've been debating.

We all know the tactics, I think, it is how an when to implement the tactics that get confusing. For example, its fairly easy to tell that using the reraise bluff tactic is a bad idea when your opponent is pot-committed. However, how can we figure out the trickier situations. For example, when you have AJo with 7 BBs, and the CO open raises does it make more sense to push, stop n go, or fold. Those are all viable tactics, but which is the best one for the situaion. It seems to me that the only way to decide would be based on the strategy you are trying to implement. So, to me the question comes back to how should you decide on strategy?

[SossMan]

The selected post/thread has been added to your list. You will see this entry in 'My Home' until you remove it if you added it as a Favorite. You also will get any replies to your Favorite threads emailed to you if you have this option enabled in your profile. Reminders will not be emailed to you and will go away once you make a reply to the post. In a moment you will be automatically returned to the forum.


that is all...move along.

[JaBlue]

How do you do that?

[SossMan]

click on the middle icon w/ the finger and the string.

[JaBlue]

I have no idea what you're talking about... middle icon where? Maybe its somethign my personal preferences need to be set for?

[SoBeDude]

It is right below the word the, or close to it.

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
Kick ass post man. The ability of your position in a tournament to generate more chips is exactly the kind of idea I've been able to think about and couldn't quite vocalize.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the kind words! Now if I could only get the results you do...

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
The ability of your position in a tournament to generate more chips

Reminds me of when there was the large "Hand vs. Gigabet" thread when a lot of posters disagreed with Gigabet's calling of an all in bet based on the merit of the pot in question during a Step 5 tourney

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking alittle about that post when i was making my long post here. What I remember about that post was that Gigabet's play on that one particular hand was considered EV- by ~200 chips or so. But that if he lost he would have been an average stack, but if he won he would have been a very large stack, when blinds were moderate sized to be worth stealing.

There is a lot of theory I've seen in these forums that basically says, "Until you get very late in a tourney, chip EV is equal to $ EV". I have never believed that to be true, mainly because my own tourney experience is so far the opposite.

When you have a big stack, it changes how people play against you. They call less, fold more, etc. which essentially means they give up smaller/marginal EV oppty's vs. you. And when you have a small stack vs. a very large stack, you often tend to avoid them, thus also giving up EV opptys. Some good players recognize this and don't do it, but many players will.

I think if everyone played "optimally", then the theory might be correct and extra chips are merely linearly related to $ EV. But in practice, people's play changes enough so that it does matter.

So in Gigabet's example, I don't know whether being a very large stack is worth 200 chips, but I certainly think it could very well be.

I also think that these forums are quite naturally influenced by David/Mason's approach of highly mathematical, quantitative approach, which on the whole is a very good thing. But like any approach like that, it tend to discount the "fuzzier", un-quantifiable elements more. Those are often the meta-game aspects, and here, as we've seen, its extremely difficult to quantify how much better having more chips is. I personally think it is obvious that having more chips is worth more than just their linear increase in value, but its impossible to say how much more.

Mike, It's interesting that you said in your trip summary, "alan cunningham used half-pot bets to define his hand, etc.". That is a classic example of where his chips 'worked hard' for him. Each bet he made could earn the entire pot there, but if the opponent came over, then he can fold or call with a monster. So each individual chip bet was maximizing its return on that hand. And it's pretty obvious that whether he can do this is heavily dependent on his stack his, blind size, and opponents stack size, etc. And if he's not able to do this, then each chip bet will work less hard on any given bet.

Just a few more rambling thoughts.

--Greg

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
My point in this whole exercise is that I think there are factors late in a tournament that make it very difficult to say what your strategy should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, if by what your talking thinking about is a strategy that does not take into effect the practical reality of the difference between optimum ‘tactical’ action vs. locking oneself into a somewhat inflexible strategic position that, to a certain degree, predisposes one to make a tactical move that is consistent with the predetermined strategy, but in hindsight, turns out to really be a tactical error.

It’s kind of like a ‘one-size-fits-all’ strategy. It works.....until it no longer works!

[ QUOTE ]
.....So, to me the question comes back to how should you decide on strategy?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I may, with your permission, change your question a bit to.........

How much impact should ANY strategy have on a SPECIFIC play?

So far, I've got it down to this (I think?!)........

The best strategy should probably be nothing more than a GENERAL GUIDELINE that one has developed over the years. It should NOT be looked upon to be a strict blueprint that one can depend upon to pre-ordaine every action at the table. Don’t misunderstand what I’m getting at here. GENERAL does not mean a strategy with gaping holes in it!

The best way that I can think of to further explain what I mean is to talk about a computer business accounting/inventory program that I developed 15 years ago in conjunction with a very good programmer. This guy was an excellent programmer, but knew virtually nothing about the specifics of business rules. I knew little about how to develop a program. For quite a while we struggled MIGHTILY with the development of this program because our focus was in trying to develop a program operating system that would take into account each and EVERY possibility action that we could consider. What we ended up with was such a complicated and bloated code base, that in trying to take into account all the possibilities, we had diluted the beautiful simplicity of the original code, and ended up with an unreliable, mish-mosh! We finally came to the conclusion that we were chasing a false god. What we decided to do was to design a program that would RELIABLY & EFFICIENTLY perform 80-90% of the functions for which it was designed. I then developed a set of manual-exclusion rules which would address the 10-20% of the functions that the program did not address.

In hindsight, the program code was our ‘strategy’.......the manual exclusions were our ‘tactics’. We still use this program today, and it still works like a champ.....as long as we remember the exclusions.

It was this experience that got me thinking that in regards to poker perhaps developing a reliable strategy in such a manner might be the best approach. This could then be used as a starting point from which one applies refined 'tactical' actions. The key is knowing when to switch...... “The Mysterious Inflection Point”?

Perhaps chasing an all-inclusive ‘one size fits all’ strategy is the error that most of us make?

Are we chasing a ‘Holy Grail’ of poker that none of us are sure really exists?

[SoBeDude]

I think you're missing the point.

No one (to the best of my recollection) is trying to say that once a change in gears has been made, that is dictates SPECIFIC play, per se.

-Scott

[MLG]

I think that the programming comparison is an excellent one and completely captures the jist of what I'm saying. There is a small percentage of the time when we are outside basic strategy. My posts and discussion have simply been questioning how we should recognize those situations. Before we can even address how to play them, we need to figure out when they arise. Then, we can look at what makes them different from the norm, and thus how our actions should change. We're completely on the same page.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
No one (to the best of my recollection) is trying to say that once a change in gears has been made, that is dictates SPECIFIC play, per se.

-Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, Scott.

My posts in this string are just me...... 'thinking out-loud', and doing the best that I can to frame issues that I struggle with.

I do this in the hope that other posters can shed a new or different light on the subject at hand, and that by having that happen, I will be able to learn.

[suited_ace]

Scott, I'm making your epiphany mine. You did a great job of putting down to words the feeling I have for changing gears. I'm printing this.