Hand from Super Thursday final table

[freemont]

This was one of those hands where I had to go into the deep tank and though I think I was right in how I played it, but I'm curious what other MTT players think is the right line?

Here's the background. Sorry for no easy hand converter stuff and the approximations on the chip counts, but I don't have the info right in front of me on my work computer.

Players: 6
Blinds: 5K-10K
Total Chips in play 705,000
Button~ 117,000
BB~ 48,000 after posting
SB~ Me 180,000 after posting (I was the big stack at the table.)

The button had previously been pretty active in her steal attempts from the CO and button. Three times I had come over the top and she had mucked, the last time being on the previous hand where she tried to steal from the SB and I pushed with AT from the BB she mucked. I think she was fairly frustrated by me coming over the top all the time and wanted to take that play away this time. So when folded to her she open pushed all-in. I'm in the SB with 99, what's my action???

[schwza]

this would be a call absent the history; i think it's a pretty easy call given your read. lose a flip?

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
this would be a call absent the history; i think it's a pretty easy call given your read. lose a flip?

[/ QUOTE ]

you know, more and more, I go to respond to someone only to see that you have taken the words from my mouth...err..keyboard.

[Lloyd]

Tough one. I'd have to believe that she doesn't have a big hand. Otherwise, she'd make a normal raise and hope that you come over the top. Put her on a range - maybe AJ-A2, KQ-KT, QJ-QT, TT-22. Against that range you're a 2 to 1 favorite which clearly makes it +CEV. The question is whether it's +$EV.

If you call and win, you'll have T312,000 (44% of the chips in play) with 5 players left and $57,632 of prize money at stake. If you call and lose, you have T68,000 (10% of the chips in play) with 6 players left and $61,862 of prize money at stake. I'm ignoring the possibility of a tie to simplify things. If you fold, you have T180,000 (26% of the chips in play) with 6 players left and $61,862 of prize money at stake.

If you fold: $61,862 * 26% = $16,084

If you call and win: $25,358
If you call and lose: $6,186
Value of calling: ($25,358 * 64%) + ($6,186 * 36%) = $18,456

So, it's +$EV. You call and cross your fingers.

Also, if you add back in the big hands you're still a 60/40 favorite against the range. The value of calling would be $17,689 (still more than the value of folding). So it's still +$EV.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this would be a call absent the history; i think it's a pretty easy call given your read. lose a flip?

[/ QUOTE ]

you know, more and more, I go to respond to someone only to see that you have taken the words from my mouth...err..keyboard.

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[SossMan]

If he calls and loses, he still has 73k left (he was the big stack). This makes the call even more +$chipEverythingEV

This is a tough call, but one that great players and poor players will both make (the great players because they realize the top heavyness of the payout structure, and the poor players becuase 99 is pretty). It's the middle-level skill players that will fold here because they have 'little tiny balls'.

[zambonidrivr]

i have monster balls.

anyone seen the guy with the SN HarrySnatch. I love that one.

[Lloyd]

[ QUOTE ]
If he calls and loses, he still has 73k left (he was the big stack). This makes the call even more +$chipEverythingEV

This is a tough call, but one that great players and poor players will both make (the great players because they realize the top heavyness of the payout structure, and the poor players becuase 99 is pretty). It's the middle-level skill players that will fold here because they have 'little tiny balls'.

[/ QUOTE ]
Duh. I can't believe I overlooked that. But you're right. It makes it even more +EVeverything. And when I said it's a tough decision, it's exactly for the reasons you stated. It's emotionally difficult because we're in the drivers seat and could easily fold and maintain our chip lead. But we have to set aside emotions and make the decision that is (mathematically) correct given all of our assumptions.

[SossMan]

what's the smallest pair you are calling with there? I'm probably folding 66. I haven't done any math on it, but that's what my intuition says. It's likely +EV to call with almost any pair.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
what's the smallest pair you are calling with there? I'm probably folding 66. I haven't done any math on it, but that's what my intuition says. It's likely +EV to call with almost any pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

i was thinking about this on the walk back from lunch. i call with 88 for sure.

you have to believe that villain will be doing this more often with 22 than AA (AA would want to give hero a chance to play back), so 77 is probably a call too. the problem with adding too many pairs is that you still have the BB left to act.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what's the smallest pair you are calling with there? I'm probably folding 66. I haven't done any math on it, but that's what my intuition says. It's likely +EV to call with almost any pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

i was thinking about this on the walk back from lunch. i call with 88 for sure.

you have to believe that villain will be doing this more often with 22 than AA (AA would want to give hero a chance to play back), so 77 is probably a call too. the problem with adding too many pairs is that you still have the BB left to act.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, but there would still be a healthy side pot.

[freemont]

uh oh, to quote the fine governor of Illinois, my testiculary virility has been challenged by sossman /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Thanks for your input, as I suspected at the time, calling was the right move in theory, as I was confident 99 was a favorite against the range of hands he pushes with there (though in truth I thought it was closer to 60-40 off the top of my head at the time.) However I mucked, I didn't want to load up my initial post with all kinds of extra info, and I wanted to look at this problem in a vacuum so to speak, but here's why. At the final table no one had really stood up to me, only once had someone come over the top of one of my steal raises and that was a shortstack who had AK. I was getting like 6 to 1 or something ridiculous and of course called with 45s. Even after the table saw this no one on a reasonable stack ever tried to come over the top of me, despite the fact that I was raising at least once or twice per orbit and the constant goading from the idiot railbirds (gotta love those guys!) I had built my stack up with relative ease, and felt I could continue to add to it without taking significant risks. Does that make sense? I was not worried about losing the hand and winding up fifth, I was worried about losing the power of my chipstack.

Anyhow, maybe it was "mid-level playerish" of me to fold, but at the time, it felt like a more sophisticated play based upon how the rest of the table had been playing. At a tougher table I think I would have called there MUCH quicker, but this table just seemed ripe for the picking...

[schwza]

that's true, didn't realize how short the BB was. 66 still seems like a pretty tough call though.

[MLG]

The thing about that dynamic is that it will lead you to be able to build your stack up again if you lose. If nobody wants to call big bets you will be able to push with abandon and grow your stack back up even without picking up cards.

[Roswell]

Yes, I think you can fold for the sake of "chip control." i.e. If your stack allows you to steals lots of blinds with nothing, why take this risk?

[Lloyd]

First, how does our hand have to measure up so that it's just slightly positive:

W=Call and win
1-W=Call and lose

(57,632 * .44 * W) + (61,862 * .1 * (1-W)) + 1 = $15,084
(25,358 * W) + (6,186 * (1-W) + 1 = $15,084
25,358W + 6,186 - 6,186W + 1 = $15,084
19172W = 8897
W = 8897/19172
W = 46%

So we just need to have a 46% chance of winning to make it slightly (very slightly) +$EV. Using the original range of hands (AJ-A2, KQ-KT,QJ-QT,TT-22) we could call with:

Any pair (22 has exactly a 46% chance of winning)
Any suited ace (A2s has exactly a 46% chance of winning)
AK-A6o
KQs-KTs
KQ-KTo
QJs

Granted, some of these are very marginal (essentially neutral) EV.

Here's my question and Soss you've got a lot of B&M experience to draw from. How do you personally do these calculations in a live tourney. Obviously, we don't have all the tools that we have at home and in hindsight.

[gumpzilla]

What mechanism are you using to come up with these $ EV calculations? I'm particularly puzzled by the .44 and .1; I'd ordinarily think these were supposed to be equity in the remaining prize pool but they are multiplying different quantities in the two terms.

[schwza]

a couple nitpicks:

you ignored the BB.
you don't want to take an even money gamble.

[Lloyd]

.44 and .1 do in fact represent the percentage of the chips in play (with rounding). They are multiplied by different numbers because in one instance you have somebody knocked out which decreases the prize pool left (although there is one less person battling for it).

[Lloyd]

[ QUOTE ]
a couple nitpicks:

you ignored the BB.
you don't want to take an even money gamble.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you mean I ignored the BB in terms of him calling and being in this hand, yes. I don't know how to include that possibility.

If you look at my post, I said these were hands we *could* call with. Not *should* call with. Each of those hands is slightly (very slightly) +$EV. If you want a buffer you can easily redo the calculations and put in a $ amount that the value of calling should exceed the value of folding. That, of course, is very subjective so I chose to figure out the minimums and go from there. If 22 is just above a neutral decision, how does 33 or 44 stack up? Each of those becomes more and more +$EV. But from a pure mathematical perspective, each of these would be a correct call.

[gumpzilla]

Now you've confused me. Your equity in a prize pool of 61,000 is going to be far better than 6100 no matter what the chip situation is unless you're playing winner takes all at that point. But that's not the case. This calculation is pretty muddled, unless I'm missing something, and you can't take its results very seriously.

EDIT: Okay, it looks like it's not actually three handed, which makes a big difference to what I was saying. Still, I'm not convinced that this is a valid approach to distinguishing $ EV from chip EV.

EDIT AGAIN: Here's an example of why I think this can't be a good way to handle $EV. Let's say I have 1% of the chips in play, 6 handed. Now somebody else busts. Your calculations suggest that my equity in the tournament has gone down. But this is pretty clearly false, as before I was very likely to finish in 6th, whereas now I'm guaranteed at least 5th.

[Lloyd]

Here's another question:

How do you do these calculations in your mind at a live tourney? Obviously, you need to be able to put your opponent on a range of hands and determine how your hand measures against that. And then figure out the EV of the various decisions. But what's the easiest way of doing that without sacrificing too much accuracy. I'm assuming that one has the ability to do multiple calculations without a calculator or pen and paper.

[Lloyd]

[ QUOTE ]
Now you've confused me. Your equity in a prize pool of 61,000 is going to be far better than 6100 no matter what the chip situation is unless you're playing winner takes all at that point. But that's not the case. This calculation is pretty muddled, unless I'm missing something, and you can't take its results very seriously.

EDIT: Okay, it looks like it's not actually three handed, which makes a big difference to what I was saying. Still, I'm not convinced that this is a valid approach to distinguishing $ EV from chip EV.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the only approach I'm aware of. FYI, my degree was in Finance and I'm a CFA. So while not having a PhD in mathematics I have always had a good grasp of numbers. You can challenge the assumptions, but the calculations are correct and so is the approach. We've done these calculations over and over on this board and other than subtle differences I haven't see anyone do it any other way.

[gumpzilla]

I'm not trying to insult your grasp of mathematics, and I'm sorry if you felt that was my intent. What I'm trying to argue is that I don't think that this is a very solid way of establishing $ EV. I think it's a reasonably common approximation, but it makes at least a couple of obviously wrong predictions:

1) My previous example where another player busting hurts the equity of a short stack.

2) If you have a sufficiently large stack, you can have an equity that exceeds 1st place.

I realize that there are going to be flaws in just about any model of $ EV, but these both seem pretty egregious to me.

[freemont]

[ QUOTE ]
The thing about that dynamic is that it will lead you to be able to build your stack up again if you lose. If nobody wants to call big bets you will be able to push with abandon and grow your stack back up even without picking up cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point MLG, that's something I really hadn't considered at the time.

[MLG]

Honestly, you guess. You look at the guy, you think about the hands he might do this with, you think, hmm well the pot is laying me this, and i probably stack up at about this, I (insert call/fold). Then later you run the numbers and compare your assumption with the numbers. The more often you do this the better your guesses become.

Also, sometimes live you will be able to narrow your opponents range down to a very narrow spectrum.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]

you don't want to take an even money gamble.

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry, i just glanced at your calculations and thought you were doing a straight chipEV calculation.

FWIW, the most widely accepted chip->cash formula is the independent chip model. it doesn't have problems like 99% of chips > first place prize money. you can google it.

[Lloyd]

One thing I didn't do is factor in the 6th place winnings into the calculation. Everyone is obviously guaranteed to win $4,230. So if somebody had 1 chip their expected share of the prize pool is essentially $4,230. If they had 1% of the chips, it would be $4,230 + 1% of the prize pool for 1st through 5th. And if we call and win we are guaranteed 5th place money. We factor that in by including the difference between the two in one of the calculations.

So the revised calculations would be:

If you fold: ($57,632 * 26%) = $14,984 (plus the 6th place money)

If you call and win: $1,057 + (52,345 * 44%) = $24,089 (plus the sixth place money)
If you call and lose: (57,632 * 10%) = $5,763 (plus the 6th place money)
Value of calling = 15,417 + 2,075 = $17,492

The end result is the same but this is more precise and takes into consideration the shortstack scenario you presented.

The calculation for how our hand needs to measure up against the range is changed to:

(($1057 + (52,345 * .44)) * W) + (57,632 * .1 *(1-W))+ 1 = $15,084
24089W + 5763 - 5763W + 1 = 15084
18326W = 9320
W = 9320/18326
W = 51%

This does, in fact, change the calling hands to:

AA-44
AKs-A7s
AKo-A8o

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's another question:

How do you do these calculations in your mind at a live tourney? Obviously, you need to be able to put your opponent on a range of hands and determine how your hand measures against that. And then figure out the EV of the various decisions. But what's the easiest way of doing that without sacrificing too much accuracy. I'm assuming that one has the ability to do multiple calculations without a calculator or pen and paper.

[/ QUOTE ]

honestly, I guesstimate. I see what price i'm being given. I do some quick guestimations of my tourney equity based on my chip position if I call and win vs. if I call and lose. I think about other considerations like table toughness, how easy it is to steal blinds, how many short stacks there are that are apt to go bust soon (thus move me up the pay scale). I don't come close to doing any sophisticated calculations based on the assumptions, but you would be surprised how accurate your instincts can become if you think about situations like this often.
I believe that is one of the best tools that twoplustwo offers: the ability to train your instincts by thinking, talking, discussing situations that we come face every day. This approach can really be applied to most aspects of tournament play, not just endgame chipEV vs. cashEV calculations.

[Lloyd]

As far as I know, ICM only considers the top 3 payouts since it was designed for SNGs. Is there another version for MTTs?

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as I know, ICM only considers the top 3 payouts since it was designed for SNGs. Is there another version for MTTs?

[/ QUOTE ]

the model works for more than 3, but as far as i know, there is not a convenient website for it. so i guess it won't help your calculations.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
If they had 1% of the chips, it would be $4,230 + 1% of the prize pool for 1st through 5th.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't follow the whole equation below, but if this was the assumption, then I believe that it's flawed (at least somewhat, how much it changes the decision may or may not be marginal depending on the situation).

You're % of the chips in play represents your equity in the first place prize. This holds true for any number of players. So, if you have 6th place locked up and you have 1% of the chips, and:
6th is $4500
1st is $25,000
Your tournament equity is $4500 + (1%*$25,000) or $4,750. But that doesn't take into consideration the % of times that you finish 5th, 4th, etc...

Obviously, you are not always going to finish 6th. If you are a tiny stack, you are more likely to finish 5th than 4th, 4th than 3rd, etc...
You need to estimate, based on your chip position, the percentage times you finish 5th, 4th, 3rd, and 2nd and multiply the appropriate prize money to truly have all the assumptions for the cashEV calculation.
DS says that there is no mathmatical way to express these breakdowns when there are more than two players, but a common meathod of estimating equity for multiple players is to determine the difference between the chip positions of the different stacks and calculate the marginal differences after taking out the equity in the first place prize. With 6 players, this would be very tedious and pretty useless when compared with simply guesstimating something like:
1st 1%
2nd 4%
3rd 10%
4th 15%
5th 25%
6th 45%

or whatever.

You will undervalue the value of the shortstack if you only count their equity for 1st and 6th.

[Lloyd]

Yes, this is what I did in the revised calculations.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as I know, ICM only considers the top 3 payouts since it was designed for SNGs. Is there another version for MTTs?

[/ QUOTE ]

meh...my head hurts...
me have 99, 99 is pretty, me call.

[marrek]

I'm folding this one.

I'd much rather keep my big stack and push the other players around. While this might be "mediocre-ish" of me, many pros would sit on their big stack and wait for the others to bust each other ( Dan Harrington - from his book, Hellmuth ( yes hellmuth - from his video), that twitchy guy on the WPT last year - i forget which episode he won, but he as some realy bad facial twitches.

Why take a close chance at being knocked down to less than average stacked? You have lots of time and 1/2 your opponents are feeling alot of pressure and will make mistakes/be blinded into -EV sitautions soon. Wait for a better spot to capitalize on the great situation you're in.

Those who advocate pushing are minimizing the above. You should easily be able to fold yourself into 3rd, but when you consider the extra blinds you steal along the way, you'll probably be able to get 1/3+ of the chips by the time you get down to 3, making 2nd an easy reach.

(Also, blindly saying that pros agree with you and anyone who doesn't is medocre is a pretty weak arguement)

Marrek

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm folding this one.

I'd much rather keep my big stack and push the other players around. While this might be "mediocre-ish" of me, many pros would sit on their big stack and wait for the others to bust each other ( Dan Harrington - from his book, Hellmuth ( yes hellmuth - from his video), that twitchy guy on the WPT last year - i forget which episode he won, but he as some realy bad facial twitches.

Why take a close chance at being knocked down to less than average stacked? You have lots of time and 1/2 your opponents are feeling alot of pressure and will make mistakes/be blinded into -EV sitautions soon. Wait for a better spot to capitalize on the great situation you're in.

Those who advocate pushing are minimizing the above. You should easily be able to fold yourself into 3rd, but when you consider the extra blinds you steal along the way, you'll probably be able to get 1/3+ of the chips by the time you get down to 3, making 2nd an easy reach.

(Also, blindly saying that pros agree with you and anyone who doesn't is medocre is a pretty weak arguement)

Marrek

[/ QUOTE ]

you know...there is a reward portion of the risk/reward calculation. Did you not read any of Lloyd's math?
It may not feel nice calling w/ 99 for a good portion of your stack, but not doing so is a $EV mistake of proportions of which nobody can make up. I can understand if the marginal money that comes from moving up a few spots was a huge factor to you, then folding may be less wrong, but in terms of EV, this one isn't close.
What range of hands do you put the raiser on? Based upon that, what hands are you calling with?
Are you folding KK, too, since you can always "steal your way to 1/3rd of the chips" with zero risk, right?

Stealing has risk too.

[marrek]

[quote
you know...there is a reward portion of the risk/reward calculation. Did you not read any of Lloyd's math?
It may not feel nice calling w/ 99 for a good portion of your stack, but not doing so is a $EV mistake of proportions of which nobody can make up. I can understand if the marginal money that comes from moving up a few spots was a huge factor to you, then folding may be less wrong, but in terms of EV, this one isn't close.
What range of hands do you put the raiser on? Based upon that, what hands are you calling with?
Are you folding KK, too, since you can always "steal your way to 1/3rd of the chips" with zero risk, right?

Stealing has risk too.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, Lloyds math is ignoring alot of factors, which is why i discounted it. His calculations make no room for abilities, changing values of chips, the fact that short stacks are more likely to bust - increasing the hero's equity, the fact that many players handle pressure poorly, etc. He is just equating the % of chips with % of pay out.

Why is giving up a slightly +EV situation a huge mistake? This does not make sense. If you do win, you've only assured yourself of 5th spot ( a marginal gain by your own admission), where as losing makes you very close to desparate. I understand Lloyds math, but it ignores these things. I know you have alot more chips, but at what risk?

I wouldn't fold KK there, but that fits in line with what i'm looking for in that situation. I want to play small pots or play when i'm expecting to be a big favorite - as kk would be. I'm not going to risk alot of chips in a race situation when i don't have to.

If your willing ot take those race situations, it very easy to win with the 99 and still finish 5th.

Where does it stop? Do you call with 22 becuase its a likely to be a slight favorite, or what about QTo when you suspect your 2 opponents of have 77 and 77? Where do you factor in you ability vs there's or the fact that 2 players are short and have to take a big risk soon?

I know that stealing has risk, but much less when your opponents are tight and respecting your stack. You can easily fold when someone comes over the top of you, then go right back to stealing.

Marrek

[SossMan]

Players: 6
Blinds: 5K-10K
Total Chips in play 705,000
Button~ 117,000
BB~ 48,000 after posting
SB~ Me 180,000 after posting (I was the big stack at the table.)

Hero would have t312,000 out of the t705,000 total in play. How can you say:

If you do win, you've only assured yourself of 5th spot ( a marginal gain by your own admission), where as losing makes you very close to desparate.

It's completely the opposite. If you win, you have a strangle hold on first. If you lose, you are back down to average. If you are having such an easy time stealing your way up the payout ladder, you should easily be able to steal you way back to where you were before, right? You still have plenty of FE with that stack.


[ QUOTE ]
If your willing ot take those race situations, it very easy to win with the 99 and still finish 5th.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it that you can steal your way up the ladder, but still finish 5th if you have almost half the chips in play? Your logic doesn't make sense.
This isn't a small edge. It's a large one given the button's large range of hands in that spot. If you disagree with the range of hands postulated, then come up with one that is sufficiently narrow to make it a 'slightly +ev' play. I think that you will be surprised at how narrow it is.

I think that my approach (and that of many other very successful players on this board) is that you need a compelling reason to overlook that math on a play, not the other way around.

[marrek]

[ QUOTE ]

Hero would have t312,000 out of the t705,000 total in play. How can you say:

If you do win, you've only assured yourself of 5th spot ( a marginal gain by your own admission), where as losing makes you very close to desparate.

It's completely the opposite. If you win, you have a strangle hold on first.

[/ QUOTE ]

I say that because if your're willing to risk chips on maginal situations,it very easy to lose your chips back.

[ QUOTE ]

If you lose, you are back down to average.


[/ QUOTE ]

with 6 players left, 70000 is less than average

[ QUOTE ]

If you are having such an easy time stealing your way up the payout ladder, you should easily be able to steal you way back to where you were before, right? You still have plenty of FE with that stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

the resaon stealling is so easy is precisely because of the deep stack. If you 1/2 your stack and the blinds, you're left in bad shape with stealling no longer a great option.


[ QUOTE ]
"If your willing ot take those race situations, it very easy to win with the 99 and still finish 5th. "

How is it that you can steal your way up the ladder, but still finish 5th if you have almost half the chips in play? Your logic doesn't make sense.


[/ QUOTE ]

you are confusing playin styles. the style i advocate is one of playing small pots and looking for spots where i will be dominating. Your style of taking coin-flips and marinal situations can lead to wild swings and get you busted early.

[ QUOTE ]

This isn't a small edge. It's a large one given the button's large range of hands in that spot. If you disagree with the range of hands postulated, then come up with one that is sufficiently narrow to make it a 'slightly +ev' play. I think that you will be surprised at how narrow it is.


[/ QUOTE ]

any two overcards, any suited connector, any ace. You are a favorite over this group, but only a small one.

[ QUOTE ]

I think that my approach (and that of many other very successful players on this board) is that you need a compelling reason to overlook that math on a play, not the other way around.

[/ QUOTE ]

The math presented in this thread is very incomplete, focusing on only 1 factor, and is not a compelling reason to make any play.

marrek