What Separates The Bigger MTT Winners From The Smaller Ones?

There must be some subtle differences in strategical concepts between the bigger, guaranteed and the smaller (20 to 50) tourneys that I still do not recognize. I have a fairly good track record in the smaller ones, S&Gs and sats for the guaranteed. But everytime I play the big ones, I cannot go deeper and over the hump, barely making it past the 2nd hour. Yet, I see the MLGs, bugstuds, Dons, CSCs, Times, et. al, cashing in and winning week in and week out. Last night, for example I did not even made it past the first in Party's quarter mil. /images/graemlins/mad.gif And then while playing in the 30+3, occasionally sweated Don and watched him make it to the last 4 or 5 tables. With the tougher competition, slightly deeper stack and longer levels, any suggestions the winning trouts may care to share. I'd like to know before the April mil to which I already qualified. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

Thanks a million in advance.

P.S. I hope I did not offend those whose names I omitted. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[SpeakEasy]

The players that finish in the money at the bigger MTT play in A LOT of tournaments?

[MLG]

Appearences can be deceiving. I went 2 months without a meaningful cash before my last big score. MTTs are very very swingy, more so than most people realize. You simply don't hear about it when we don't cash, its no big deal, its expected.

That said, I think you don't gamble enough early.

[Ulysses]

there are plenty of skills
that are discussed
but playing a lot
and having good luck
those are a must

as an example
take young schaefer
he plays his cards right
does all he can do
but still gets it all in
as a dog 1 to 2
he gets lucky
and makes 350k plus
otherwise our hero
comes back with zero

[Simplistic]

part of it is making the right decision so you survive for a long time, even if you're getting all your money in with Aces 5 times in a row, you're likely to go broke at least once.

so part of it is making the right decisions, other part is exploiting the edges, and the rest is luck /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[MLG]

[ QUOTE ]
part of it is making the right decision so you survive for a long time,

[/ QUOTE ]

Its the exact opposite of this.

[frozenhops]

I have had this large multi jump problem as well, and recently (since I started heavily browsing 2+2) have hopefully fixed a lot of leaks in my game. I have had fantastic results in 30ish person tourneys, yet that never translated into larger ones. I finally started becoming more aggressive and after a slew of bubbles, I finished 2/159 in one, and hope to start transitioning to a bit more MTT.

The largest change i've made that has helped me is selective pushing/playing more aggressive to stay ahead of the curve late in the game, even if I do bust at a higher %, i'm in much better position once the bubble comes/goes, and that you can't be afraid to get your money in the middle.

[GtrHtr]

[ QUOTE ]

That said, I think you don't gamble enough early.

[/ QUOTE ]


Very interesting insight MLG. I was playing in a MTT last night on UB and doubled up easy early on (had the nuts so easy call). Just before the 1st break I am sitting on 99 in the BB and call a small all in MP. Flop is 44x this 1st hour maniac who had also called goes all in, and I fold after some thought (I had twice his stack size). Manic turns over J10o and Mr. all in short stack had 55. Low and behold a 9 comes on the turn and I start throwing stuff around the room when Mr. short stack all in says "looks like I'm back in business."

I've gotta do a better job at building my stack in the first 2 hours because there is no doubt that I will get a run of bad cards at some point. I have been focussing on my SnG game and need to mentally switch gears in am MTT better.

[Tim H]

i spent some time going through my hand history of the last 2 major tourneys i placed high in and I noticed 2 things.

This is might be the opposite of what you normally hear but this is what happened in my circumstances.
1. I got "lucky" and doubled about halfway through first hour.

2. Exploited my chip position to build from there so at the end of the first hour I was at 4x and 5x orignal stack

3. 2nd/3rd hour play only premium hands and steal enough (for me about 1 time every 2 rotations) to stay around the average chips or above. Both times I was still at 4x to 5x towards end of next hour and doubled on good hands when everyone starts to get desparate

4. I never slow played anything. If i had top pair/trips I over-bet it. Exception was a couple nut flushs on unpaired boards (edit: never slowplayed against someone who could push me in or damage my stack. Against someone 1/2 my stack size I let them put themselves in)

5. Didn't play anything immediately after bubble unless it was a good hand or I had position and it was cheap

6. Survived to final table by taking on the SS allins

7. Crap shoot at end, wait to push until all lower stacks are cleaned up, or you have the better of it

Anyhow thats how it went for me, don't know if it helps

[slickpoppa]

Here are some thoughts that I posted a couple of weeks ago:

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, you are probably not as bad at MTTs as you think. You're expectations are probably much too high. If there are 1000 people in an online tournament, the average player has about a 1/100 chance of making the final table. If you are a good player, then maybe you have a 1/75 chance of making the final table. If you are a great player, you have maybe a 1/50 chance. What does that mean? It means that even a great player has a 13% chance of playing in 100 tournaments and never making the final table ( (49/50)^100 ). That is just the nature of online tournaments. There is A LOT of luck involved. Skill can only take you so far. To finish at the top you must catch a lot of great cards and win a lot of coin flips.


IMO there are four things that separate the great MTT players from the good ones: (1) Stealing, (2) capitalizing on small edges, (3) maximizing value, and (4) all-in free throws.

(1) Great tournament players know that the best way to build your stack with little risk is to steal pots. These players also know how to find the weaktight players who will fold too much.

(2) Great online players also respect the high variance in online MTTs and are willing to exploit small edges. They are also great at spotting these situations. A great online MTT will be able to spot situations in which he is a 55/45 favorite and get all of his money in the pot.

(3) Great online players know that situations in which you are a huge favorite can be few and far between. Great players know how to extract every last penny out of these situations. Great players will not pussy out of value betting a river when they probably have someone outkicked becuase they know that every chip not gained is a chip lost.

(4) Great online players also know that in most tournaments they play, they will reach a point where they must go all-in or fold. Great players have studied these situations before they play and do not have to play guessing games when it comes time to move in.


[/ QUOTE ]

Note: It would be great if any hardcore MTTer had records of thier finishes and earnings as a function of buy-in and # of entrants. Although the variance in MTTs is really high, some poeople play so many that it should be possible to get a reasonable approximation of expectation.

[Tim H]

(4) Great online players also know that in most tournaments they play, they will reach a point where they must go all-in or fold. Great players have studied these situations before they play and do not have to play guessing games when it comes time to move in.


[/ QUOTE ]
Awesome thoughts:
Thats a great one, if faced with a big bet in a big pot I am more inclined to push than fold unless I really feel folding will get me more money

You should add: go with your gut.

It seems there is always 1 or 2 hands in a tourney that I am debating about playing and earlier in my MTT career I would pass (it was raised or too many people come in) just to kick the cat because a pot developed and I would have had a nice chance of winning it. Now I play these hunches.

The last tourney I was in 5th and got one of those hunches and passed on an allin bet, large stack calls. I had em both and instead of moving to 2nd I went out the next hand. The terrible thing is the hand I went out on was worse than the hand previous hand.

[billyjex]

This year I've made three final tables with big scores (a 4th, 5th and 6th for $2500, $8100, and $2500 respectively.)

In each tournament I was all in within the last three tables:

KQs vs. QQ (flopped trips)
A7o vs. A10o (board of 888Qx for split)
44 vs. 99 (hit a sizzle)

Tournaments are very lucky. But you gotta take chances. I see big stacks play very timidly when you get into the money and they only will steal and play with their big hands. I am constantly stealing and pushing to keep my stack big and obviously, I get called sometimes, sometimes as a dog and sometimes as a big favorite. Honestly, you just have to have a solid game (read Harrington on Hold Em and read this board), take chances and get lucky.

[Poker_God]

I would say that in MTT you do have to gamble a bit more than usual but do so in the right positions.

I see alot of aggressive players that usually make it in the top 15% of the field and hardly ever have to show a hand down.

But like everyone else says is that the more tourneys you play in the better you get at making critical decisions.

[Bernas]

Straight forward solid poker usually serves you well in the smaller MTT buy ins.

The better players can and will exploit this type of play though.

It could also be your attitude towards the tournaments. For instance, you might be comfortable with losing $5-20 in a MTT and therefore might play more relaxed and play a little more aggressively. If you aren't comfortabel with losing $215 then you will play timid and scared. Scared money is easy to find, and even easier to take advantage of.

Hope that helps.

Oh, one more thing. What MLG said is correct. Wins usually happen few and far between. I hadn't won a 4 digit amount for almost a month, and in the last week I have 2-1sts, 1- 2nd, 1-4th and 1- 5th place finish. Ride the rush when it comes.

[Stipe_fan]

I don't profess to be as good as some of the top MTT players. But, I was able to cash 5 of 6 $150 buyin on Party (did not cash the last two I played) and also a 6th in the $200 buyin on Party. I agree with MLG, you can go a month, make the right moves and still not finish in the money. The way I turned the corner is learning to play a short, average and big stack. That is absolutely key in making the money and beyond. If you play enough MTTs you learn to pick on the weak-tights, and they are a plenty. I use to be one of them so I feel I can feel their pain when some keeps bombing their blinds.

The keys are:

Picking on the right players
Learning to play various stack sizes in regards to the changing dynamics of the game (early play, bubble play, in the money play)
Value betting (sometime I not great at yet)

You can accumulate a lot of chips by using this strategy.

Stipe

[Simplistic]

i'll defer to your advice. however I believe I don't believe in putting all your chips in the middle for a coinflip early in the tournament, I prefer to focus on exploiting edges and getting my chips in where i'm a favourite. I don't mean to say that you should play overly tight, but I'm saying that you shouldn't necessarily risk your whole stack on a flip.

i'm sure you don't agree with me but that's my preference.

[MLG]

to put it bluntly, your preference is wrong.

[MonkeeMan]

El D,

You are the Robert Frost/Bob Dylan/Snoop Dog of these boards. You missed the chance to make an easy $5 at the NA/Euro Poetry Challange match yesterday on Stars.

[slickpoppa]

One of the biggest problems with passing up small edges is that the error compounds itself. For example, lets say that you pass up a 55/45 coinflip for $5,000 early on. By doing that you give up $500. Then on the very next hand you are able to get all-in against a bigger stack with AA v. 88. But since you passed up that small edge earlier, you effectively have 500 fewer chips to go all-in with. So you just cost yourself another 400 chips. Then on the next hand you get aces again, and now you lose another .85*900 = 765 chips. And so on, and so forth. So by reducing your risk of ruin in the short run, you are actually increasing your ROR and ability to earn money in the long run.

[MLG]

[ QUOTE ]
One of the biggest problems with passing up small edges is that the error compounds itself. For example, lets say that you pass up a 55/45 coinflip for $5,000 early on. By doing that you give up $500. Then on the very next hand you are able to get all-in against a bigger stack with AA v. 88. But since you passed up that small edge earlier, you effectively have 500 fewer chips to go all-in with. So you just cost yourself another 400 chips. And so on, and so forth.

[/ QUOTE ]

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
One of the biggest problems with passing up small edges is that the error compounds itself. For example, lets say that you pass up a 55/45 coinflip for $5,000 early on. By doing that you give up $500. Then on the very next hand you are able to get all-in against a bigger stack with AA v. 88. But since you passed up that small edge earlier, you effectively have 500 fewer chips to go all-in with. So you just cost yourself another 400 chips. Then on the next hand you get aces again, and now you lose another .85*900 = 765 chips. And so on, and so forth. So by reducing your risk of ruin in the short run, you are actually increasing your ROR and ability to earn money in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with this is, how do you know you have a 55/45 edge, and lets suppose you have a supernatural ability to know where you are. Are you telling me that if in the 1st 3 hands of a tournament you have TT and you know that your opponent goes all in with AK, you're calling every time? I think you need to clarify your idea.

[MLG]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you telling me that if in the 1st 3 hands of a tournament you have TT and you know that your opponent goes all in with AK, you're calling every time?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, unless its a small tourney and i have a mammouth skill edge.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One of the biggest problems with passing up small edges is that the error compounds itself. For example, lets say that you pass up a 55/45 coinflip for $5,000 early on. By doing that you give up $500. Then on the very next hand you are able to get all-in against a bigger stack with AA v. 88. But since you passed up that small edge earlier, you effectively have 500 fewer chips to go all-in with. So you just cost yourself another 400 chips. Then on the next hand you get aces again, and now you lose another .85*900 = 765 chips. And so on, and so forth. So by reducing your risk of ruin in the short run, you are actually increasing your ROR and ability to earn money in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with this is, how do you know you have a 55/45 edge, and lets suppose you have a supernatural ability to know where you are. Are you telling me that if in the 1st 3 hands of a tournament you have TT and you know that your opponent goes all in with AK, you're calling every time? I think you need to clarify your idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

In reality, you put your opponent on a range of hands and you calculate your EV based on that range. Pokerstove is a great tool for this.

In an online tourney where I "know" my opponent has AK, I will call with TT without hesitation. There are some home tourneys that I have played in that I might fold such an edge to because there are people who will call down with jack high, but in general I will not pass up small edges.

[sirio11]

I guess your reply implies you're doing this even in the WSOP 2005

[VBM]

does the pushing small edges principle also apply if there are no rebuys?

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
does the pushing small edges principle also apply if there are no rebuys?

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely

[MLG]

obviously a situation like the on described does not come up in real life, and if on the first hand I have 1010, and somebody moves all-in its very unlikely they have AK. If they flipped it over and showed it to me then yes, I would call.

[sloth469]

I'm interested in seeing the answer to this.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
obviously a situation like the on described does not come up in real life, and if on the first hand I have 1010, and somebody moves all-in its very unlikely they have AK. If they flipped it over and showed it to me then yes, I would call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice statement by somebody with success.
I am quite a newbie (playing bad /images/graemlins/blush.gif), but when i started playing poker i was annoyed by the myth of "avoiding small favourite gambles early". It was like 90% of the players believed they were so much better than the others that they didn't need this edges. To make that a reality the rest 10% has to really suck /images/graemlins/tongue.gif.

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm interested in seeing the answer to this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's pretty clear what the answer is, of course he's doing that.

I'd say this year with the number of players in the tournament, taking those small edges early and winning is going to be essential for survival. I doubt anyone can pass up any edge and expect to build much of a stack in a 5000 person field.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess your reply implies you're doing this even in the WSOP 2005

[/ QUOTE ]

Note that the chances of true all-in 55/45 scenario would almost never happen early on in a deep stack tourney like the WSOP. When the blinds are high compared to stack sizes, even fish realize that pushing preflop with hands like AK and QQ is a bad move because you are only likely to get called by AA or KK, and the value of the blinds that you pick up is small. There is a great explanation of this is Harrington on Holdem.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
obviously a situation like the on described does not come up in real life, and if on the first hand I have 1010, and somebody moves all-in its very unlikely they have AK. If they flipped it over and showed it to me then yes, I would call.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you were playing against someone who was dumb enough to show you his hand before your action, then a case could be made that you would probably have a larger than 55/45 edge at some point later on /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[VBM]

Interesting. sorry for all the questions, i'm enjoying very small SnG's at the moment, hope to graduate eventually. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

does this dynamic change, and how does it change, as a tournament progresses if:
1. your stack is avg-small in relation to the blinds
2. your stack is large in relation to the blinds.

[MLG]

a good post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1089817&page=&view=&s b=5&o=&vc=1) from Paul Phillips on the topic.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
You put your opponent on a range of hands and you calculate your EV based on that range. Pokerstove is a great tool for this.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, basically your example about passing small edges, just apply wneh you have QQ or better, because even with JJ you're at 50%
Lets analize it.
If you have JJ, and your opponent goes all in, and he looks like a normal solid player, so he could have AA,KK,QQ,TT,99,AK,AQ
Here, using PokerStove you're a 50% and if you take any of his possible all in hands, like 99 or AQo then you're a dog.

So, basically you're talking about not passing small edges with QQ,KK and AA. I guess almost anybody let pass his "small" edge with AA and KK.

David

[MLG]

nope. your forgetting to factor in pot odds. For example I was once limp reraised while I held 1010, because there were a couple of other callers, the pot was laying me 3:2 odds. I was pretty sure that the guy who limp reraised me all-in would only do it with AA KK AK, which 1010 is almost exactly a 3:2 dog to. I called.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
obviously a situation like the on described does not come up in real life, and if on the first hand I have 1010, and somebody moves all-in its very unlikely they have AK. If they flipped it over and showed it to me then yes, I would call.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you were playing against someone who was dumb enough to show you his hand before your action, then a case could be made that you would probably have a larger than 55/45 edge at some point later on /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

If it was at the opening table of WSOP and I knew MLG had 10 10 i would go all-in with my ak and show it to provoke him to call. Rather a 45% chance of knocking him out than having that beast ravaging my stack for hours /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[MLG]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif. That is a high complement indeed

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You put your opponent on a range of hands and you calculate your EV based on that range. Pokerstove is a great tool for this.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, basically your example about passing small edges, just apply wneh you have QQ or better, because even with JJ you're at 50%
Lets analize it.
If you have JJ, and your opponent goes all in, and he looks like a normal solid player, so he could have AA,KK,QQ,TT,99,AK,AQ
Here, using PokerStove you're a 50% and if you take any of his possible all in hands, like 99 or AQo then you're a dog.

So, basically you're talking about not passing small edges with QQ,KK and AA. I guess almost anybody let pass his "small" edge with AA and KK.

David

[/ QUOTE ]

The passing up small edges situation is very rare early on in a tournament because most players wont go all-in with anything less than QQ-AA. However, in the middle stages of a tourney when people have ~20bbs, then there are a lot of situations where hands like 88 and AK are often small favorites because people's range of hands gets larger as they get more desperate.

[sirio11]

what I was trying to prove (and I think I did) is that passing small edges, does not apply to calling all ins preflop EARLY in the tourney. Of course there are different scenarios when this concept could appy.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
what I was trying to prove (and I think I did) is that passing small edges, does not apply to calling all ins preflop EARLY in the tourney. Of course there are different scenarios when this concept could appy.

[/ QUOTE ]

In general I would agree with that, but in some rebuy tournaments calling with TT against certain opponents is definitely an edge.

[MLG]

the example I gave was day 1 of a WPT event. My opponent, who limp reraised all-in was shortish, but it was still about 1/3 my stack. If your saying it doesnt apply to calling all-in for your entire stack then yes I agree the situation rarely comes up, although that doesnt change the theoretically correct answer.

[Simplistic]

maybe i'm reading too much cloutier.

[Simplistic]

this is with 85% of the field gone and being chipleader.

this is different than first hand being dealt.

[MLG]

true, its a more controversial statement. if it was the first hour it would be an even easier call.

[Simplistic]

lol, suppose you cannot put him on any hand, is the call still the same with JJ? or only if you have the edge and are sure you're not dominated?

[MLG]

you put him on a range of hands, you figure out what your equity is against the range. if you are a favorite you call. early in a tournament thats it. later, its a bit more complicated than that.

[EverettKings]

The original theme of this thread was the difference between beating larger buy in MTTs from small buy in MTTs. We've sort of hit that point but I (as one of the players dabbing at large buy ins) would love to see a discussion of some situations that you would play differently if it were a large buy in versus a small buy in.

At the smaller buy ins, you can be successful by simply being more tight-aggressive than the rest, and exploiting people who go weak in the knees later on.

At larger buy ins, more people know what they (and you) are doing. So?

-Kings

[MLG]

Its a good question. In my mind the key as you move up (assuming you know your fundamentals) is establishing the level that your opponent is thinking on, and thinking one deeper. So, in the right circumstances some plays become viable. Provided you pick the right spots bluffing is more profitable, because you can profile an opponent who can lay down top pair. you can take more liberties with your preflop standards because there will be less showdowns, so if you correctly detect weakness you can take more pots away. this is all dependent on profiling your opponens as thinking more than an average low buy-in player (which is certainly not always the case).

[slickpoppa]

I thought Dean's call with JJ was bad because at that point the stacks were fairly deep, Murphy was about even with Dean, and Dean was basically the only stack that could break him. IIRC, Dean made an EP raise and Murphy made a very large all-in reraise. Thus, if I were Dean I would have put Murphy on AA-QQ, AKo, AKs. According to Pokerstove, that puts Dean at a 37-63 dog. Arguably Murphy's range of hands that he would go all-in with could be wider than what I stated, but even then JJ is still a dog. If you expand Murphy's range to AKs-AQs, AKo-AQo, AA-TT, which I think is pretty liberal, then Dean is a 47-53 dog and his call would be just barely correct. I don't think Dean's call was as terrible as some people made it out to be, and I don't think Murhpy's play with AK was bad either. But if I were in Dean's position, I would have folded the JJ.

Disclaimer: I was not at the table and do not know the exact stack sizes, so I am aware that what I say is speculation.

[MLG]

would it change your opinion if I told you that Dean has said publicly that he had a good read that Murphy didn't have a monster?

Incidently, I'm not sure what I think about the hand, I go back and forth.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
the example I gave was day 1 of a WPT event. My opponent, who limp reraised all-in was shortish, but it was still about 1/3 my stack. If your saying it doesnt apply to calling all-in for your entire stack then yes I agree the situation rarely comes up, although that doesnt change the theoretically correct answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're talking about WPT or WSOP tournaments, then the word "rarely" is right, but I think about online tournaments is not that rare.

And, I'm still not sure thats the theoretically right answer, if you're playing live games of course, but tournaments are different, you have to give some weight to the fact that you are still in. Lets suppose you play 100 WSOP tourneys, and you have 66 in the first hand and your opponent goes all in with AKs and you know it. You're a 52% favorite, you have an edge. So you say you're calling; I'm not. So you're gonna play 52 tourneys with 20,000 chips. I'm gonna play 100 tourneys with 10,000 chips.

I fail to see why is so clear that your position is a better one.

[MLG]

[ QUOTE ]
One of the biggest problems with passing up small edges is that the error compounds itself. For example, lets say that you pass up a 55/45 coinflip for $5,000 early on. By doing that you give up $500. Then on the very next hand you are able to get all-in against a bigger stack with AA v. 88. But since you passed up that small edge earlier, you effectively have 500 fewer chips to go all-in with. So you just cost yourself another 400 chips. Then on the next hand you get aces again, and now you lose another .85*900 = 765 chips. And so on, and so forth. So by reducing your risk of ruin in the short run, you are actually increasing your ROR and ability to earn money in the long run

[/ QUOTE ]

That's precisely the point of slickpoppa's post from before.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
would it change your opinion if I told you that Dean has said publicly that he had a good read that Murphy didn't have a monster?

Incidently, I'm not sure what I think about the hand, I go back and forth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I've read Dean's post saying that he was pretty sure that he sensed weakness and that Murphy would not reraise all-in with aces or kings. I can't really argue with that because I wasn't at the table. I also realize that Murphy was playing pretty agro at that point. However, from my experience in general, I do not buy into the presumption that people are more likely to trap with AA or KK. I am also somewhat skeptical about how much you can really sense weakness in such a situation. So given my limited information, I would say that a fold was better. But I will stop short of judging Dean or saying that his play was "bad."

In the Paul Phillips thread I kind of went on a rant against someone who tried to say that the push with AK and JJ were both terrible. In the process I may have implied that Dean's call with JJ was terrible, but that was not my intnetion. Mainly I was trying to highlight the difference between betting all-in and calling all-in.

[sirio11]

That post doesn't give any weight to the fact that you're still in, so, I think is not a complete analysis.

[MLG]

[ QUOTE ]
I am also somewhat skeptical about how much you can really sense weakness in such a situation

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you can. Doesnt mean that weakness isn't QQ though.

[MLG]

there is no inherent value to still being in.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
there is no inherent value to still being in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course there is.

Lets suppose we both are tournament players with a winning rate of 1 buy in per tournament.

So, if I'm still in after the first hand in the 100 tourneys example. My expected profit is 100 buy ins.

If you are playing 52 tournaments with twice the original chips, then you need to average 1.92 buy ins per tournament in that situation to have the 100 buy ins profit.
I still don't see, why doubling your chips at the beginning, automaticlly doubles your expected profit.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
That post doesn't give any weight to the fact that you're still in, so, I think is not a complete analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

My post does take into account the cases where you bust because of the way that I accounted the chips that you lose by folding. Only giving you credit for 500 chips for calling takes into account the 45% of the time that you bust.

[MLG]

this is an old argument, covered pretty well here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=tourn&Number=1728786&f part=1&PHPSESSID=)

[bugstud]

I think the tournament structure dictates the play a lot more than is being let on here. In something like a WSOP structure you're allowed postflop play. Even early in the $215 tourneys excepting like the first 40 minutes of stars, there isn't a helluva lot of room for play unless people have accumulated a lot of chips already.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
this is an old argument, covered pretty well here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=tourn&Number=1728786&f part=1&PHPSESSID=)

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you suggesting me that somewhere in the 100 posts of that thread they answer to my specific example?

It's ok if you dont bother anymore with your 1-liners

[MLG]

no, I wasn't suggesting that. I was simply saying that the point that survival has no inherent value has been covered numerous times on these boards, and spoken to by voices much more respected than mine (Phillips and Raymer to name a couple). In this thread Slickpoppa gave a good example of how giving up a small edge is compounded as a tournament continues (which does in fact account for the fact that you are out when you lose). You've simply responded by saying your not convinced (although you aren't really offering up theory of your own). So, rather than rehash old threads I just attempted to post a couple of links that addressed the issues you were still skeptical about. If you don't want to persuse them thats your own business.

[slickpoppa]

He's suggesting that if you read that thread and understand, you will be able to answer the question yourself.

People who have posted in the MTT forum for a long time have debated the merits of passing up small edges dozens of times. So giving a personally tailored argument to every person that disagrees can become very tiring.

[bugstud]

Essentially, survival only becomes important when your stack becomes low enough that making the money is where all your EV comes from. The more chips you get earlier, even at a risk, the more gambles you can take where you set someone in when they have 99 and have to decide if they're risking their tourney on a possible 80/20 dog situation. You also get to steal lots of blinds and generally run over the damn table if you accumulate enough.

Granted, I've never been quite lucky enough to do that in a large tourney yet, most of my runs have involved being average around the money, THEN going apeshit. These past two weeks in particular.

[sirio11]

I give you an specific example

[ QUOTE ]
If you are playing 52 tournaments with twice the original chips, then you need to average 1.92 buy ins per tournament in that situation to have the 100 buy ins profit.
I still don't see, why doubling your chips at the beginning, automaticlly doubles your expected profit.


[/ QUOTE ]

and you decided just to ignore it. And after reading the thread you mention I failed to see any answer to this example also; or any explanation that covers this specific situation.
The appeal to an authority doesn't work with me, if Raymer or Philips have an opinion, I would like to see the opinion and the reasoning behind the opinion; not just a bold statement that they said it, like if it was on the bible. Of course, the same with you MLG.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are playing 52 tournaments with twice the original chips, then you need to average 1.92 buy ins per tournament in that situation to have the 100 buy ins profit.
I still don't see, why doubling your chips at the beginning, automaticlly doubles your expected profit.


[/ QUOTE ]

Let me ask you a question. If you were at the WSOP and before the first hand was dealt, someone with your exact skill level at your table offered to sell you his 10K chips for $9,999, would you accept? Assume that this transaction would be legal and that your bankroll is not a factor. If you answer no, explain why and what your reservation price would be.

[Double Eagle]

OK, let me try...

Quoting Phillips:


[ QUOTE ]
However, my opinion after following more online discussion than I should admit over the last few years is that most have a very distorted and poorly framed view of how large those influences are. You simply shouldn't be deviating from the +EV decision (by which I mean chip EV) much; until a decent percentage of the field is gone (1/3, 1/2, 2/3, more?) almost never.

Rather than attempt to meaningfully answer the question you posed I'll cop out and pose another question that's hopefully slightly different than the million similar ones that we can never escape.

On the first hand of the main event of the wsop you double up. On the second hand another guy doubles up. On the third hand the guy who just doubled up moves all-in and shows you his hand. What do you do?

I've already said many times that I'll take any non-negative edge on the first hand of a tournament, including a true coin flip (you move in blind in the SB, I call blind in the BB.) That's not just an abstraction of this point: I mean it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quoting Raymer:

[ QUOTE ]
Great question Bob.

As I look at this, stack size doesn't affect the average value of a chip
until you are in or near the money, or when your stack becomes VERY large,
something like 10% of the total chips in play.

I also think that if a T100 chip is worth $100 in front of an average
player, it is worth $150 in front of your hypothetical player. That being
the case, every stack of "n" chips worth 1.5x"n" in front of your player, at
least until you are in or near the money, or until your stack approaches
something like 10% of all the chips in play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Happy?

Edited to Add: If you are looking for the underlying reasoning to these conclusions you will have to search the older archives here and on RGP, as these are discussions that were (rightly) put to bed long ago....

[EverettKings]

[ QUOTE ]
In my mind the key as you move up (assuming you know your fundamentals) is establishing the level that your opponent is thinking on, and thinking one deeper.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, and that game theory-esque approach I think is the key at any level of poker (and is why I'm in love with this game). But online, you haven't got nearly enough time (nor any physical tells) to help you properly categorize people. I suppose experience alone allows you to put your best "guess" on a new player based on how most players in these types of games play, or which moves generally work and which don't.

That was kind of vague, but I guess what I'm asking is what kinds of opportunities do you typically find that you can exploit that you might not have value at small buy in games. So few hands are shown down that my few dozen tournaments haven't given me a great feel for how people play their hands (though obviously I have some idea), though interestingly that has allowed me to find some situations where I can get them off of their hands.

Thoughts?

-Kings

[MLG]

ok, so your contention is that doubling your chips doesnt double your chances of winning? it is my contention, as well as others, that your chances of winning directy correlate to the amount of chips you have. if you are twice as good as the field, then doubling your chips should give you 4x the chance of winning. if you don't think this is true, how do you measure what your chances of winning a tournament? im more than willing to debate tournament theory with you, but give me some sort of alternate idea.

I didn't mean to ignore your question at all, I thought that slickpoppa's post detailing how if you give up an edge now it is compounded as you go was an excellent answer to your question.

[DireWolf]

This is how i think about it. It might be incorrect but ill give it a try. Say on the first hand we both get 66. I push/call/whatever, get all in against ak and you fold. 52% ill win, 48% im out.

Now consider the times i stay in. I have twice as many chips as you. Now lets just say, that me and you have exactly the same abilities and get exactly the same cards, Which makes sense because we are talking about decisions one person is making.

So our chip stacks will increase by the same amount of chips, but i will have started with twice as many. Eventually there will come a time when we will lose a hand. Maybe it is a coinflip maybe its a bad beat. But i will have twice as many chips as you. If the loss occured against someone who had a stack between ours, you are out, while im still in.
This does not take into account all the other advantages having a large stack has.
So you just prolonged your death, you didnt cheat it.

[AtticusFinch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One of the biggest problems with passing up small edges is that the error compounds itself. For example, lets say that you pass up a 55/45 coinflip for $5,000 early on.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's precisely the point of slickpoppa's post from before.

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I the only one who doesn't think 55/45 is a "small" edge? I think the sorts of small edges people like Sklanskly said to avoid are things like taking off a card at a gutshot for 12/1. Clearly it's a good move in a sidegame, but in a tourney it's probably best to skip out if it's a significant % of your stack. Am I wrong?

[MLG]

no, you are exactly correct.

[billyjex]

Remember when Murphy flipped his cards? Dean looked disapointed that Murphy had a hand like AKo. I think he was hoping Murphy was making a move with a worse hand.

That said, I would not have called there. Dean would still have alot of chips. Giving Dean's background, the fact he's not a pro and every increase in money is probably signifigant, I would fold.

[AtticusFinch]

[ QUOTE ]
ok, so your contention is that doubling your chips doesnt double your chances of winning? it is my contention, as well as others, that your chances of winning directy correlate to the amount of chips you have.

[/ QUOTE ]

MLG, does your point apply specifically to doubling up early? Or at any time? I say this because even if there is a direct correlation (and I don't dispute this) doesn't mean there is a linear correlation. There are other factors to consider.

For example, let's say you have 100 chips left and the blinds are 2000. If you double your chips, your expectation is only slighlty higher than it was before, because you've survived this one more hand. It certainly hasn't doubled.

Conversely, if the biggest stack in the tourney increases his stack by 20%, it's unlikely that his expectation has gone up 20%.

I think the best model of chip value is something akin to a logarithmic scale based on ther difference between your stack size and the average. That would account for both of the above scenarios. Of course other parameters such as payout structure, current blinds, etc., would all be needed.

All of this is my long-winded way of saying "well, it's just ain't that simple."

[AtticusFinch]

This thread hits home for me, as I've had a lot of success in small MTTs (50-200 players), but I'm not sure my style will transfer well to the huge ones.

[ QUOTE ]

That said, I think you don't gamble enough early.

[/ QUOTE ]

What sort of gambling are you talking about, exactly? Say a person has very tight PF requirements, but is willing to push hard after the flop. (which pretty much describes me early in a tourney). Would that fall under your description, or must one loosen up PF as well? If so, what kinds of additional hands are we talking about?

Thanks in advance.

[MLG]

it is only that simple at the beginning, at stack sizes and stack depths begin to become more diverse things get much more complicated.

[HatesLosing]

[ QUOTE ]
you put him on a range of hands, you figure out what your equity is against the range. if you are a favorite you call. early in a tournament thats it. later, its a bit more complicated than that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Phil Hellmuth would disagree VEHEMENTLY with you and he has done pretty well for himself in big NL Hold Em MTTs. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Maybe you have one way that works well for you and your style. That is not the only way to do well in MTTs though.

[MLG]

no, you don't need to necessarily loosen up preflop when the blinds are low. as long as you are willing to push postflop at the appropriate times. as the blinds rise though you will need to loosen up to take advantage of stealing oppurtunities.

[AtticusFinch]

[ QUOTE ]
there is no inherent value to still being in.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is one I have a hard time believing. As long as you're still in, you have a nonzero chance of having a run of cards and winning, no matter how few chips you have, while if you bust out your expactation is exactly zero.

That being said, the inherent value of still being in may be outweighed by the increased expectation of taking certain kinds of risks early.

[MLG]

does Hellmuth play online tournaments with low starting chips and 15 min levels?

[AtticusFinch]

[ QUOTE ]
no, you don't need to necessarily loosen up preflop when the blinds are low. as long as you are willing to push postflop at the appropriate times. as the blinds rise though you will need to loosen up to take advantage of stealing oppurtunities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, as a long-time SNG player, I understand this well. The late-game strategy is not all that different between SNGs and MTTs. I'm just wondering about adjustments I might need to make early on.

That leads me to a side note: anyone wanting to improve their performance in MTT endgames should read the SNG forum and play a few hundred SNGs. You'll get exposure and practice it would take years to develop in multis. The strategy is not identical, but there are many transferrable skills.

Thanks for the comments.

[HatesLosing]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are playing 52 tournaments with twice the original chips, then you need to average 1.92 buy ins per tournament in that situation to have the 100 buy ins profit.
I still don't see, why doubling your chips at the beginning, automaticlly doubles your expected profit.

[/ QUOTE ]
Poker is as nonlinear as it gets and there is no simple equation stating that doubling your chips early doubles your expected earnings. That's complete nonsense! For some players in some situations, doubling their stacks early might quadruple their expected earnings, while for other players in other situations it might only increase their expected earnings by a small factor much less than 2. Some players who start splashing around way too much with big stacks early will actually see a DECREASE in their expected earnings if they double up early!

No, you find the style that you are best at and that produces the best results for you, and you play that style. Just because someone is successful who likes to push with 55-45 edges doesn't mean you or I should do it. Maybe you and I are MUCH better than that same player at many other aspects of MTTs, but we aren't as good as he is at determining when we are acutally in 55-45 situations.

[HatesLosing]

[ QUOTE ]
does Hellmuth play online tournaments with low starting chips and 15 min levels?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, but online you will see many more hands in 15 minutes than in a live tourney. If you are at a table with people who are extremely deliberate you might only see 15 hands in about 50 minutes in a live tourney.

The early conditions (usually first hour) in an online MTT are very similar to live tourneys that still "havn't quite begun yet" when you look at stack sizes and blinds. Aren't all the "big" MTTs online 1500 chips and 20 minute levels now too? I think PP switched over to that format recently for their 200k, Quart. Mill, Mill., etc, even though some of the smaller buy-ins are still 1000 chips.

[MLG]

having played both, i can tell you with confidence that asserting that the amount of play in a live big buy-in event is equivalent to your run of the mill online 100 or 200 buy-in tourney is asinine.

[Double Eagle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you put him on a range of hands, you figure out what your equity is against the range. if you are a favorite you call. early in a tournament thats it. later, its a bit more complicated than that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Phil Hellmuth would disagree VEHEMENTLY with you and he has done pretty well for himself in big NL Hold Em MTTs. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Maybe you have one way that works well for you and your style. That is not the only way to do well in MTTs though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please tell me that you are just trolling for Paul Phillips here.....

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
does Hellmuth play online tournaments with low starting chips and 15 min levels?

[/ QUOTE ]

but, you said that the theory apply to tournaments like the WSOP. These kind of statements may me think that I don't really know what's your position about the issue

[HatesLosing]

[ QUOTE ]
having played both, i can tell you with confidence that asserting that the amount of play in a live big buy-in event is equivalent to your run of the mill online 100 or 200 buy-in tourney is asinine.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't say they are anywhere near the same. However, when your stack is huge in relation to the blinds and you have many more hands to see before the blinds start getting bigger, it is assinine to risk your your entire stack on a 55-45 play whether it is live or online. It is in this way that the two scenarios are similar.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me ask you a question. If you were at the WSOP and before the first hand was dealt, someone with your exact skill level at your table offered to sell you his 10K chips for $9,999, would you accept? Assume that this transaction would be legal and that your bankroll is not a factor. If you answer no, explain why and what your reservation price would be.



[/ QUOTE ]

I think, I'll accept, I kind of know what your point is. I usually rebuy at the beggining in the rebuy tournaments, I think is the right thing to do, but I'm yet to find a definite argument why this is the right thing to do. That's why I'm looking for a discussion on this issue.

[MLG]

OK, I firmly believe that if you know you have a 55% edge preflop, and it is the first hand of any tournament you should play. However, the natural extension of that is that if Phil Hellmuth refuses that wager he is making a mistake. I am comfortable making that statement. However, I didn't want this thred to turn into a Hellmuth debate, so I tried to sidestep the issue.

[HatesLosing]

[ QUOTE ]
Please tell me that you are just trolling for Paul Phillips here.....

[/ QUOTE ]
What is that supposed to mean? Phillips hates Phil. If I was "trolling for Phillips" then why would I make a statement about how Phil has done pretty well with a style of play that doesn't put all his chips at risk on tiny edges?

[HatesLosing]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, I firmly believe that if you know you have a 55% edge preflop, and it is the first hand of any tournament you should play. However, the natural extension of that is that if Phil Hellmuth refuses that wager he is making a mistake. I am comfortable making that statement. However, I didn't want this thred to turn into a Hellmuth debate, so I tried to sidestep the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, forget about Hellmuth in particular. Let me only say this: There are a lot of successful MTT players out there that disagree with you when you make that statement. Therefore, I think you are clearly wrong in stating that making such moves is part of the key to being a successful large MTT player, because many MTT players that are successful will not make that play.

[bugstud]

looks like now, based on DS play and party experience, that HU play is definately the biggest difference

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let me ask you a question. If you were at the WSOP and before the first hand was dealt, someone with your exact skill level at your table offered to sell you his 10K chips for $9,999, would you accept? Assume that this transaction would be legal and that your bankroll is not a factor. If you answer no, explain why and what your reservation price would be.



[/ QUOTE ]

I think, I'll accept, I kind of know what your point is. I usually rebuy at the beggining in the rebuy tournaments, I think is the right thing to do, but I'm yet to find a definite argument why this is the right thing to do. That's why I'm looking for a discussion on this issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

That fact that you cannot give a satisfactory answer to this question means that you must accept MLG's proposition that doubling your stack nearly doubles your earning potential. I'll explain:

If you answered that would only buy for some amount less than $9,999, say $5,000, you would implicitly be saying that douubling your stack is only worth half of a buyin, or that it only increases your earning potential buy 50%.

The answer that buying an equally skilled opponents stack is only worth $5,000 is incorrect because it violates the fundamental theory of poker. Saying that your opponents stack is only worth $5,000 means that it is somehow worth less in your hands than his. For that to be true, that extra $5,000 in value has to be going somewhere according to the fundamental theory of poker (poker being a zero-sum game). But where is it going? To the lesser skilled opponents? To the greater skilled opponents? You probably want to say that the $5,000 in value may be going to the greater skilled opponents somehow, but this makes no sense. Why would chips suddenly change in value when they are transeferred between equally skilled opponents?

Now do you see why you are incorrect?

[MLG]

successful players who do not take these risks are not as successful as they could be.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
Now do you see why you are incorrect?


[/ QUOTE ]

Please tell me, which one of my statements than can be categorized as right or wrong is the wrong one.

If you're trying to imply that I'm wrong just because I don't accept MLG theory at first sight, well, thats an old habit of mine.

[Che]

HatesLosing-

[ QUOTE ]
Some players who start splashing around way too much with big stacks early will actually see a DECREASE in their expected earnings if they double up early!

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? If so, you just forfeited any credibility you might have had on this topic. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Later,
Che

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
And, I'm still not sure thats the theoretically right answer, if you're playing live games of course, but tournaments are different, you have to give some weight to the fact that you are still in. Lets suppose you play 100 WSOP tourneys, and you have 66 in the first hand and your opponent goes all in with AKs and you know it. You're a 52% favorite, you have an edge. So you say you're calling; I'm not. So you're gonna play 52 tourneys with 20,000 chips. I'm gonna play 100 tourneys with 10,000 chips.

I fail to see why is so clear that your position is a better one.

[/ QUOTE ]

You incorect for saying that you would fold (assuming that your goal is to maximize how much money you make).

52 tournaments with 20,000 chips is worth more than 100 tournaments with 10,000 chips. Since doubling your stack doubles your earning potential, have 52 tournaments with 20,000 chips is worth 104 buy-ins, which is greater than 100 buyins.

[Potowame]

I think a major issue that posters are missing here MLG is where they are acctually in the hand.

Lets say out of three hands that you raise.

1. AKs you raise ... Villian pushes.

2. 1010 you raise ... Villian pushes.

3. QQ you raise ... Villian pushes.


Any one of the hands could be a 50/50, and they are saying that they would pass on them all to survive. If so i think thier problem is more in getting a read on a player and having the furtitude (spelling ) to follow through with it.

These edges are large against the loose players early, players that will push KQ AX and other crap hands. If you dont take advantage of these situations , you will survive , but you will never reach your full potintial as a MTT player.

The real skill is knowing when you are 60/40 or 80/20 when average players would think they are 50/50. Being wrong once will hurt you , but you have to figure it out through play. You will never go forward with a ABC style of play or always making Default plays.

[Che]

AtticusFinch-

[ QUOTE ]
there is no inherent value to still being in.

[/ QUOTE ]

What this statement means to me is that the value of being in (early in an MTT) is related only to the number of chips you have. You don't total up the $EV of your chips and then add some constant value for just "being in."

The nature of the payout structure in MTT's is such that the relationship between # of chips and $EV is not perfectly linear, but it is close enough early on that treating it as linear does not create significant error IMHO.

Later,
Che

[AtticusFinch]

[ QUOTE ]

The nature of the payout structure in MTT's is such that the relationship between # of chips and $EV is not perfectly linear, but it is close enough early on that treating it as linear does not create significant error IMHO.

Later,
Che

[/ QUOTE ]

I was unclear on whether we were just talking about the early stages or any stage. In any case, your estimate is consistent with the logarithmic model, which is basically linear when close to the average. So your first double up probably very nearly doubles your expectation. Your second does not.

I got the notion from my tiny knowledge of economics, which says that money has logarithmic value in a variety of contexts. It seems to match the value of chips in a tourney particularly well. Of course the practical value at the table is questionable, 'cause I sure can't compute logs in my head. But it does back up the old adage of the second "x" chips not being as valuable as the first.

[MLG]

I agree with the concept, but I think the level where it begins to diverge at an important level is well passed the second double-up (at least in big tournaments).

[AtticusFinch]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with the concept, but I think the level where it begins to diverge at an important level is well passed the second double-up (at least in big tournaments).

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again it depends on other variables. If you double up twice within the first orbit, I seriously doubt you've quadrupled your chances of winning. However, if you double up with the exact same amount of chips once the field has caught up with you and you have an average stack, I'll wager you've close to doubled your expectation again. You've still gone from 2 buyins to 4, but in a context where it's more valuable, relatively.

This is all postulating on my part, of course, but it seems to make intuitive sense. At least it jibes with my notion about how much my stack is worth at any given stage.

[MLG]

that's a fair point I think. its an intersting notion of how stack size/stack depth impacts your tournament value.

Then again it seems counter-intuitive for me to think that if I double up twice and then tread water for several levels my equity is going up. Thoughts?

[jacki]

[ QUOTE ]
having that beast ravaging my stack for hours /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

homoeroticism anyone?

[bugstud]

[ QUOTE ]
that's a fair point I think. its an intersting notion of how stack size/stack depth impacts your tournament value.

Then again it seems counter-intuitive for me to think that if I double up twice and then tread water for several levels my equity is going up. Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

well, if you stay at 2xbb for an hour on party, but move from 100 left to 50 left or something, your equity went up there too.

[MLG]

That's different though. That's when you have a very small stack late in a tournament. Its pretty well accepted that cash and chip EV differ pretty widely in certain situations there. In fact the correct way to estimate those situations would be to create and algorythm that would give you the chances of finishing in each spot given a specified stack. nobody has been able to do this yet (at least that I know of).

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with the concept, but I think the level where it begins to diverge at an important level is well passed the second double-up (at least in big tournaments).

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again it depends on other variables. If you double up twice within the first orbit, I seriously doubt you've quadrupled your chances of winning. However, if you double up with the exact same amount of chips once the field has caught up with you and you have an average stack, I'll wager you've close to doubled your expectation again. You've still gone from 2 buyins to 4, but in a context where it's more valuable, relatively.

This is all postulating on my part, of course, but it seems to make intuitive sense. At least it jibes with my notion about how much my stack is worth at any given stage.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that you are incorrect. If I understand what you are saying correctly, you are saying that 4 buyins is worth more later in a tournament than earlier in a tournament? Where does that extra value come from? If you are gaining EV, someone else is losing it. Who is losing it?

[AtticusFinch]

[ QUOTE ]
that's a fair point I think. its an intersting notion of how stack size/stack depth impacts your tournament value.

Then again it seems counter-intuitive for me to think that if I double up twice and then tread water for several levels my equity is going up. Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, your base equity is not necessarily going up. What's going up is the relative value of acquiring X more chips.

You'll see this borne out at the table a lot by the fish that get huge stacks early. They think they then need to bully around all the other short stacks. They then piss away their lead after doubling up a couple of shorties trying to play for chips they really don't need right now. When you have 4k with 50 blinds, busting a 500 chip shortie just doesn't help you that much, while it would help a 1k stack enormously.

Similarly, when you're already sitting on 4k, adding another 100 is just not as valuable as it is for someone with 1k, so there's no point in stealing blinds with marginal hands until the blinds get bigger relative to your stack.

Yet I see it time and time again: big stacks with OK but not great hands put smaller stacks all-in on almost any board. Why? The pot is worth WAY more to your opponent than you, so he's going to be more inclined to call, especially if he suspects you're bullying. If you win, fine, but it doesn't help you nearly as much as losing hurts you. Why risk it? With a big stack you have TONS of time.

EDIT: Note how neatly this fits with appropriate tourney strategy at all levels -- both early and late. It's almost like the grand unification theory of poker tourneys /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
No, your base equity is not necessarily going up. What's going up is the relative value of acquiring X more chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will not dispute that gaining 50 chips is worth more to some with 100 chips as opposed to 1,000. However, that is not the same thing as saying that X Buyins is worth more in the middle stages of a tournmanent than the earlier stages.

The fact that some people act stupid when they have a big stack early on is irrelevant. If we are talking about theory, we assume that someone will not all of a sudden stop playing well becuase they have a big stack.

[MLG]

Your right that the shorter the stack the more valuable each chips is to him. However, that idea is consistent with your stack defining your tourney equity at all points. If I have 4k and my opponent has 1k, and there is 500 in the middle, those chips represent a 50% increase in his chances of wining the tourney while they would only represent a 12.5% increase in my chances. So, the fact that the chips are worth more to him, does not conflict with my third doubleup once again doubling my chances of winning.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
What this statement means to me is that the value of being in (early in an MTT) is related only to the number of chips you have. You don't total up the $EV of your chips and then add some constant value for just "being in."


[/ QUOTE ]

Lets suppose Che, you have 2 players with differents styles, both win about 1 buy in per tournament, but one of then is an excellent short stack player, while the other one is average at best.
Now, same amount of chips and lets suppose they face a 52% decision, such that if they lose, they're going to be left with a short stack. We're early in the tournament, of course.

Do you think that the decision for both of them should be the same, because they have the same amount of chips?

[AtticusFinch]

[ QUOTE ]
If we are talking about theory, we assume that someone will not all of a sudden stop playing well becuase they have a big stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, I'm just trying to show how this model helps to explain why this kind of play is so bad. Note that I didn't mention total maniacs who gamble it up with anything -- there's no need to talk about why their play is bad. I was talking about situations where the big stack might well have a slight overall advantage, although it's hard to estimate.

I'm trying to relate the model to a lot of notions that good players understand intuitively, but for which a more formal mathematical model may be helpful to geeky gearheads like me. I've heard plenty of successful players talk about when it's time to just "maintain" a big stack, and when you need to start focusing on attacking and accumulating again. This model sure seems to fit well with much of the advice I've read. And it jibes with basic economic theory, too. In fact, it jibes so well that I wonder if microeconomics has more insights to offer for Poker tournaments. Too bad I slept through most of that class.

[Hotrod0823]

This may be way off base but isn't this what happened yesterday.

I started watching the WSOP sat when there was roughly 60 left and MLG was the chip leader at the time with about 40K.

By getting to the 40K mark "realatively" early you were able to tread water and stay afloat slowly pulling down in rank but increasing your equity because as every single player dropped you have increased the potential to make it to the final 17.

IIRC you were still hovering at between 20-30K when the tourney ended.

I realize this is a satellite but I think the same thing can be said for a regular 215.00 tourney. IF you get to a large chips stack and take an early lead and maintain as the rest of the field catches up you are still increasing your equity. As players drop and blinds increase the chip EV increases and those same chips you had at hour 1 are worth more to you at hour 5.

way wrong?

[MLG]

way wrong. I backed off a little because in order to win a seat i was never going to need more than 40k. In a tournament I would still need lots more chips (everybody elses) backing off until i need to play again is the surest way to let the blinds catch up and give up lots of edge.

[AtticusFinch]

[ QUOTE ]
Your right that the shorter the stack the more valuable each chips is to him. However, that idea is consistent with your stack defining your tourney equity at all points. If I have 4k and my opponent has 1k, and there is 500 in the middle, those chips represent a 50% increase in his chances of wining the tourney while they would only represent a 12.5% increase in my chances. So, the fact that the chips are worth more to him, does not conflict with my third doubleup once again doubling my chances of winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's just not that simple. Let's say there are only 3 people left. 1 has a 500k, you have the 4k you mention, and the BB is 25k. Your chances of winning most certainly have not gone up by 12.5%.

On the flipside, what if the third person has only 1 chip left and the BB is 100? Once again, there's no way your equity has gone up 12.5%

These are extreme examples, but they still fit the logarithmic model neatly, because the logarithmic graph is symmetrical. If you're far enough above the average, adding X doesn't help as much. Similarly, if you're far enough below average, it doesn't help as much, either.

I read your earlier post that said "well that's the endgame with a short stack-- that's different." I guess I'm trying to say that with this model it really isn't different. It makes sense for all stages of a tourney from beginning to end.

Note also that I agree that your equity is always directly related to your stack size. It's still better to have 1001000 chips than 1000000 chips. It's just not linearly related. At some point the lesser value of adding more chips at a given stage of a tourney can and should affect your decisions.

[Hotrod0823]

So its just a matter of Sat vs. standard MTT. Figured

But lets say you are hovering, through the fall of the cards not aggression or passiveness. But you fall back into the pack from an early big stack position.

Aren't those chips later in the tourney worth much more than in the first hour?

[MLG]

I hear what your saying, and i dont disagree, but i think the chips are worth more to smaller stacks is the wrong path to take. Also, I'm claiming that cash ev and chip ev don't diverge until much later than you say they do.

[MLG]

kind of. technically the chips are worth the same to you, but everybody elses chips are worth less to them than they were before because they have bigger stacks. Also, since we're later the pots will be bigger, and hence each pot will be worth more to you.

[AtticusFinch]

[ QUOTE ]
I hear what your saying, and i dont disagree, but i think the chips are worth more to smaller stacks is the wrong path to take. Also, I'm claiming that cash ev and chip ev don't diverge until much later than you say they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying they diverge significantly at any particular time, I'm just positing a new way of thinking about various situations -- one which takes other variables into account.

The basic theory you always hear is that if the blinds are a very small percentage of your stack, and will remain so for an appreciable period of time, it's more profitable to wait for a really great hand than to push a small edge. As you've said previously, at the outset of an online tourney, unlike the WSOP, your stack just isn't deep enough for this idea to apply. But you can end up making it that deep by a couple of early big scores. If you do, then it's probably a good idea to gear down for a while. Doesn't this make intuitive sense?

Really, I just like the idea of a way of thinking about your position in a tourney that can account for the proper strategy at every stage. I obviously don't have the exact right weights for the various parameters just yet, but the model appears promising.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
The basic theory you always hear is that if the blinds are a very small percentage of your stack, and will remain so for an appreciable period of time, it's more profitable to wait for a really great hand than to push a small edge. As you've said previously, at the outset of an online tourney, unlike the WSOP, your stack just isn't deep enough for this idea to apply

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, MLG believes that you should ALWAYS push any small edge early in the tournament

[MLG]

yes, if the options are between calling with a small edge or folding, i firmly believe calling is right. That doesnt mean that you through caution to the wind. With deep stacks you should be excercising pot control and other measures. For example, there are spots where I would call with deepstacks where shortstacked I would raise, because I know if I get stacked I will have to call with odds only slightly in my favor.

[bugstud]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hear what your saying, and i dont disagree, but i think the chips are worth more to smaller stacks is the wrong path to take. Also, I'm claiming that cash ev and chip ev don't diverge until much later than you say they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying they diverge significantly at any particular time, I'm just positing a new way of thinking about various situations -- one which takes other variables into account.

The basic theory you always hear is that if the blinds are a very small percentage of your stack, and will remain so for an appreciable period of time, it's more profitable to wait for a really great hand than to push a small edge. As you've said previously, at the outset of an online tourney, unlike the WSOP, your stack just isn't deep enough for this idea to apply. But you can end up making it that deep by a couple of early big scores. If you do, then it's probably a good idea to gear down for a while. Doesn't this make intuitive sense?

Really, I just like the idea of a way of thinking about your position in a tourney that can account for the proper strategy at every stage. I obviously don't have the exact right weights for the various parameters just yet, but the model appears promising.

[/ QUOTE ]

But now you can take what before were marginally EV decisions, like calling with a PP with roughly the required implied odds, and do so now because those chips are substantially less meaningful now. E.g., if you have 4k, someone else has 1k and at 10/20 blinds they make it 100 with aces. with 40x you can afford to do this, but when say 10x those missing chips diminsh your earn when you miss substantially.

[Che]

OK, I'll play along... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think that the decision for both of them should be the same, because they have the same amount of chips?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[Stefan Prodan]

Would you guys also consider variance when deciding moves like these? Like, suppose you're getting a little more than 12.5:1 on your money to call a bet on the turn to see one more card with a gutshot, maybe 12.8:1 or 13:1, and it will cost you the rest of your chips, so there are no implied odds. Since you know that most of the time you will be losing chips here, do you still call the bet? Is it important to try and take gambles that have a higher chance of paying off, like coinflips, or do you want to go after every edge, even if small, and even if it means that most of the time you will lose in this situation?

[mcteecho]

Good point. I was going to make it, but you did it first.

[mcteecho]

Isn't your last paragraph telling? Given the number of tournies you play, if there was any merit to the accumulator school of thought, your last paragraph wouldn't be true.

[Simplistic]

wow. great discussion, enjoying the various points being brought up

[Bernas]

[ QUOTE ]

But online, you haven't got nearly enough time (nor any physical tells) to help you properly categorize people.


[/ QUOTE ]

You might not have much time, but you have a lot bigger sample size because you see many more hands in a shorter amount of time.

In smaller buy in MTT's you can get away with tight aggressive poker. In the bigger buy-ins, you have to be able to take money away from people who have better cards than you by knowing when they are on draws etc.

The key is being able to put them on a hand (range of hands). Then figure out if they would lay that hand down, or if they will take it to the river.

For instance. Say you are holding 8c9c, and your opponent is holding KcJc. If you are able to put him on a higher flush draw than you, you can make him lay that hand down and collect a decent pot when he misses his draw, even though you have missed it too.

Other times, you might have put him on the flush draw and you made a top pair. You can check the river to him when he misses the flush draw as he will more than likly try a bluff at the pot.

These plays would usually be wasted on players in a $5 MTT tournament. When you play in those type of tournaments, just play straight forward solid tight aggressive poker. Don't bluff and don't try sophisticated plays.

[Lurshy]

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me ask you a question. If you were at the WSOP and before the first hand was dealt, someone with your exact skill level at your table offered to sell you his 10K chips for $9,999, would you accept? Assume that this transaction would be legal and that your bankroll is not a factor. If you answer no, explain why and what your reservation price would be.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I think, I'll accept, I kind of know what your point is. I usually rebuy at the beggining in the rebuy tournaments, I think is the right thing to do, but I'm yet to find a definite argument why this is the right thing to do. That's why I'm looking for a discussion on this issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know I'm a bit late to the show with this, but I believe the reason to rebuy immediately, is simply due to potential opportunity cost of not having those chips when needed.

Extreme example - Hand one an opponent that rebought immediately goes all-in on a rainbow paired board. You flopped top quads. Without the extra chips on hand, you will still double up, but you only earned half as much as you could have.

In less drastic examples, because of your deeper stack you may be able to play a wider range of hands early on, and find additional opportunities which you would not have otherwise looked for.

This again relates to slickpoppas post of compounding results of passing on edges.

[Potowame]

I would say that two major adjustments are needed between Low vs. High.

1. Most low buy-in players are gun shy to try moves like the Squezz play, RR steal, Stop-in-go, normal blind steal. This comes from being loose called 80% of the time that these moves are made. Combine this with trying to play a TAG game the first two hours, and you have a real problem accumulating at a higher buy-in.

2. TAG players in Low Buy-in Trnys are accustom to having thier big hands payed off, so they can sit around wait for AA-KK and double or triple up of the guys who have no problem getting all-in with 55. To your dismay you may get a great run of hands , but if you have been playing really tight, get no action. Table image does have some meaning at a higher level.

just a few thoughts on the adjustments that need to be made.

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
ok, so your contention is that doubling your chips doesnt double your chances of winning? it is my contention, as well as others, that your chances of winning directy correlate to the amount of chips you have.


[/ QUOTE ]

I’ll even take it a step further and say that in practice, doubling your chips often can MORE than double your chances of winning.

This is mainly because weaker opponents will play sub-optimally against a big stack, primarily by over-emphasizing survival at the expense of EV. (As well as for a few other reasons I’ve posted about in the “ability to capture chips” threads).

It’s somewhat ironic that it is precisely because many people think like Sirio AND are so adamant in their views, that playing like MLG becomes even more correct/profitable.

--Greg

[MLG]

shhhhh /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

[Stipe_fan]

Very well stated, gregery.

To take it even further. Knowing what gregery, MLG, davidross, etc. know, they can play optimally versus big stacks because they understand when they should push rather than wait for a monster. Understanding big stack and short play is essential. I have trouble with average stack play at times. Another discussion at another time!

Stipe

[valenzuela]

Great thread, Im not much of a MTT player due to my ridicoulous bankroll. Anyway do you play tight and IF and only IF the edge arrives u take it or do you go and look for that edge...I dunno if Im making myself clear, for example Harrington is tight but he wont fold a small edge( I suppose that from a extract that was mentione in the books forum), Negreanu is wild and he wont fold a small edge either. This question goes for all the accumulators.

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
shhhhh /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

[/ QUOTE ]

I’ll keep quiet if you let me stake you……

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
It’s somewhat ironic that it is precisely because many people think like Sirio AND are so adamant in their views, that playing like MLG becomes even more correct/profitable.



[/ QUOTE ]


How do you know how I thinK? We're trying to generate a serious discussion here, so you should stick to the arguments. I don't have a definite answer in this issue. Weaker players are gonna play suboptimally against ANY stack, and good players are going to play optimally against all stacks including the big ones. Of course if you double your chips, you increase your chances of winning; nobody disputes that. I repeat, nobody disputes that. (Is it clear now for you?). The problem is that you say out of the blue, more then double. Why is that? You just give a reason why you believe the chances of winning are improved, and I agree with that as everybody here I think. Im yet to hear a reason to justify "more than double", you didn't give any.
And again, playing like MLG is more profitable? why? Just because he plays like you. You don't know how succesfull are other players over here. You imply that my style is not optimal (without knowing me); I'm pretty sure I've won more money than 98% of the players in this forum with my "sub-optimal" style.
Of course I consider that if I made some changes I could be a better player, that's why I like to post and read posts in this forum.
The problem with the initial MLS statement is that it was very broad. I'm trying to find a balance between the risk and the reward. If doubling up in the 1st hand with a 52% increases your chances of winning in a factor greater than 1.92; then you should take the risk. Even though, I still not sure about risking my chips with a 52% in the first hand of the WSOP. You're not going to play enough WSOP Championships to enter the long run (which is pretty long).

[sirio11]

I started a different trhead with Doyle's take on this matter from Super System

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you know how I thinK?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you've posted 12 times in this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
We're trying to generate a serious discussion here, so you should stick to the arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did. i argued double # chips is worth more than double. I gave a reason - due to weaker players.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have a definite answer in this issue. Weaker players are gonna play suboptimally against ANY stack, and good players are going to play optimally against all stacks including the big ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

i contend they'll play worse against a big stack -- by forgoing too many EV opportunities in favor of survival.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course if you double your chips, you increase your chances of winning; nobody disputes that. I repeat, nobody disputes that. (Is it clear now for you?).

[/ QUOTE ]

We are not talking about it increasing your chances of winning. We are talking about it more than doubling your chances of winning.

[ QUOTE ]
Im yet to hear a reason to justify "more than double", you didn't give any.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read my posts in the "Picking up the pot" and "That mysterious inflection point" threads.

[ QUOTE ]
And again, playing like MLG is more profitable? why? Just because he plays like you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish I played like him. He is more profitable because he pushes EV edges (among other things).

[ QUOTE ]
You don't know how succesfull are other players over here. You imply that my style is not optimal (without knowing me); I'm pretty sure I've won more money than 98% of the players in this forum with my "sub-optimal" style.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know Paul Phillips, Greg Raymer and MLG have won lots more than you, and all have written extensively on this forum on why you should push even small EV edges.

[ QUOTE ]
You're not going to play enough WSOP Championships to enter the long run (which is pretty long).

[/ QUOTE ]

All the more reason to maximize your chances of an excellent placing.