Problems with Tournement Theory and ICM

[Moonsugar]

I believe(ed) that SnGs are the simplest form of poker. They have the most advanced mathematical framework (besides HU). Included in this is the ICM theory, central to which is the concept that chips have decreasing marginal utility in a tournement.

But, sometimes I want to throw it all out the window. When you read about wierd plays by Gigabet, (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1366229&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&fpart=all&vc=1) , it makes you wonder.

I am one of those 'tight' players who can't turn the 800 into 2000, I just have an extra 800 chips. And I suspect 95+% of posters in this forum are the same, or worse in this regard.

I know in my heart that Daniel N. and Gigabet are right in this concept and that Sklansky et al. are wrong, I just can't 'prove' it. And I don't know how to exploit it.

If you were going to experiment with this concept that chips could have INCREASING marginal utility/value what would you study? What situations would you play differently? How would your approach to SnGs change?

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe(ed) that SnGs are the simplest form of poker. They have the most advanced mathematical framework (besides HU). Included in this is the ICM theory, central to which is the concept that chips have decreasing marginal utility in a tournement.

But, sometimes I want to throw it all out the window. When you read about wierd plays by Gigabet, (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1366229&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&fpart=all&vc=1) , it makes you wonder.

I am one of those 'tight' players who can't turn the 800 into 2000, I just have an extra 800 chips. And I suspect 95+% of posters in this forum are the same, or worse in this regard.

I know in my heart that Daniel N. and Gigabet are right in this concept and that Sklansky et al. are wrong, I just can't 'prove' it. And I don't know how to exploit it.

If you were going to experiment with this concept that chips could have INCREASING marginal utility/value what would you study? What situations would you play differently? How would your approach to SnGs change?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the key part you're missing--Gigabet and Daniel N. are MUCH better players than you (and me) and are capable of making VERY advanced reads. They also play this style consistently and are aware that their opponents know how they play, and adjust according.

So Sklansky isn't wrong. And neither is Gigabet or Daniel N. There are different styles and different ways to win. Some (Dan Harrington, Dewey Tomko) are rocks, and some (Gus Hansen) are wild.

[Myst]

The reason 95% of the poker world doesnt play like Gigabet is being most of us are playing at lower limits where such play does not work as well. At the 22s and 33s, where you have such HORRIBLE opposition, it does not pay off to be fancy. The players dont recognize value bet or a well timed check raise, only their particular hands instrinsic worth. As such, to beat such competition, it is only necessary to play solid poker, wait for a hand thats better than theirs, and get all their money. Sure there are a few solid players where tricky plays will work against them. But they sure arehard to recognize when you are 8 tabling against thousands of other different poker players.

Its different at the 215s and up. Most players are solid and can lay down relatively strong hands. Therefore, a player like Gigabet or Daniel N. can control their competition, b/c the other players will respect whatever hands they represent. Poker becomes less of what you hold, and rather of what you can REPRESENT and whether your opponents will fold or not.

In short, the way Gigabet and Daniel N. play is definitely an artform, relying heavily on reads and well-timed plays. I would LOVE to play that type of poker. But at the limits Im at, its too time consuming and not profitible enough for me to even attempt or consider.

[Moonsugar]

You are correct that I can't make those reads however you are incorrect and missing the whole theory behind Giga's call in this hand, and how it differs from accepted tournament theory.

[curtains]

Actually 95% of the poker world does play like Gigabet+Negreanu (okok slight exageration). Unfortunately for them they don't do a very good job.

[Moonsugar]

[ QUOTE ]
But at the limits Im at, its too time consuming and not profitible enough for me to even attempt or consider.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the exact thought that has been holding me back and why I am trying this experiment. My profit right now is in the way of further improvemnt. Curtains touched on this in another thread. But he probably thinks my whole line of thinking in the OP in this thread is retarded. LOL.

[spentrent]

[ QUOTE ]
You are correct that I can't make those reads however you are incorrect and missing the whole theory behind Giga's call in this hand, and how it differs from accepted tournament theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

At higher levels one can make "weird" -- tricky -- plays because the opposition is capable of folding. At most levels but the highest, players just cannot fold.

When a crafty and loose preflop player calls UTG's raise on the button with a hand like 65o, it's not because HIS hand is 65o, it's because his opponent's hand is AA|KK|AK.

This play has nothing to do with "the increasing/decreasing marginal utility of chips." The players you mention might not even disagree with Sklansky in that regard.

It's all about image, control, and reads for these players.

[spentrent]

[ QUOTE ]
You are correct that I can't make those reads however you are incorrect and missing the whole theory behind Giga's call in this hand, and how it differs from accepted tournament theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please elaborate. What is this "accepted tournament theory" and what is Giga's motivation for deviating from it? IE, why is he incorrect?

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]

Actually 95% of the poker world does play like Gigabet+Negreanu (okok slight exageration). Unfortunately for them they don't do a very good job.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm reminded of a passage in Harrington on Hold Em.

He talks about if you were sitting at a table with Gus Hansen, Daniel Negreanu, and Phil Ivey. Then he says, let's say you're playing with guys who think they're Hansen, Negreanu, and Ivey, but in fact are Moe, Larry, and Curly.

We face the latter much more often than the former.

[pineapple888]

Well, in a SnG, the decreasing marginal utility of chips is trivial. If you get all the chips in a SnG, you only get half the prize money. With only 10 players and rapid blind increases, this simple fact completely dominates all other effects.

I think you are confusing this simple mathematical concept with another vital concept: how to play a big stack well. That's a concept about which entire books could be written.

Or, if your point is that ICM doesn't have all the answers, I agree completely. When to go against ICM, or to recognize that your opponents probably will, is part of the artistry of poker.

In a large MTT, OTOH, the mathematical decreasing marginal utility of chips takes a while to become significant, and personal playing styles can take precedence. If you are good with a big stack, it's +EV to take more chances to build one than if you are someone who isn't.

[Moonsugar]

You bring up interesting points.

Basically what math types assume to make the math more simple is that all players have the same skill etc. If you read TPFAP this assumption is given for almost every problem.

What Daniel N., Gigabet (and ZeeJustin in a thread I have no link to) and I am sure many other great players suggest is that is a stupid assumption.

They say that decision X may be -chipEV and -$EV for the average player, but I am great at 1 (or more) of the possible outcomes of decision X and, even though it may be -chipEV it is +$EV FOR ME.

So, my questions for the forum remain:

What types of situations would you study more and play differently than you play today?
How would your approach to a SnG change?

Is it only the play of a big stack against thinking players?

[Moonsugar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are correct that I can't make those reads however you are incorrect and missing the whole theory behind Giga's call in this hand, and how it differs from accepted tournament theory.

[/ QUOTE ]



Please elaborate. What is this "accepted tournament theory" and what is Giga's motivation for deviating from it? IE, why is he incorrect?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can't see this you shouldn't have made your previous reply. I suggest you read the thread linked in my OP.

[Gramps]

[ QUOTE ]
If you were going to experiment with this concept that chips could have INCREASING marginal utility/value what would you study? What situations would you play differently? How would your approach to SnGs change?

[/ QUOTE ]

There was some Step 5 (2-table) post from Gigabet a couple months back in the MTT forum where he raised KJo and called a push and got severely flamed for it by the masses - it was a situation though where one could argue that while it was -chip EV (given his opponent's likely range of hands, and the odds the pot was laying), it was +$EV, because the times he won it would open up a significant chip gap on all the other players at the table, and allow him to pretty much steal at will (aided by the fact that people wouldknow they can't resteal from him without having to win a showdwon - KJo call, and the fact that given the higher $$ stakes other players were more likley to play scared).

So...when it's chips that make the difference between you having a significant stealing edge (i.e. gives you a chip gap on the other players at the table that they will respect), and no stealing edge, the marginal value of the chips you could win is greater that that of those you're putting at risk - enough so to turn a -EV chip play into a +$EV one.

In short - the opportunity to open up a chip gap that will give you a significantly greater stealing advantage is a context where the situation may arise.

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you were going to experiment with this concept that chips could have INCREASING marginal utility/value what would you study? What situations would you play differently? How would your approach to SnGs change?

[/ QUOTE ]

There was some Step 5 (2-table) post from Gigabet a couple months back in the MTT forum where he raised KJo and called a push and got severely flamed for it by the masses - it was a situation though where one could argue that while it was -chip EV (given his opponent's likely range of hands, and the odds the pot was laying), it was +$EV, because the times he won it would open up a significant chip gap on all the other players at the table, and allow him to pretty much steal at will (aided by the fact that people wouldknow they can't resteal from him without having to win a showdwon - KJo call, and the fact that given the higher $$ stakes other players were more likley to play scared).

So...when it's chips that make the difference between you having a significant stealing edge (i.e. gives you a chip gap on the other players at the table that they will respect), and no stealing edge, the marginal value of the chips you could win is greater that that of those you're putting at risk - enough so to turn a -EV chip play into a +$EV one.

In short - the opportunity to open up a chip gap that will give you a significantly greater stealing advantage is a context where the situation may arise.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the perfect example of what Moonsugar was looking for.

However, that still doesn't mean that Sklansky's tournament theory is wrong, of course. To be able to benefit from these types of plays, you have to:

a) Be very good at making reads
b) Know how to win pots postflop regularly when you don't have a made hand and probably don't have the best hand
c) Be aware of your own table image
d) HAVE TIME

(d) is important as to how it relates to shallow stacked STT's. The kind of poker that we play in this forum simply doesn't allow for the above kind of fancy play. Giga's KJ hand, for example, was in a MTT step tourney. Different format altogether. That's not to suggest that he's incapable of making the same play in a STT, but it's value is reduced.

On PokerSuperstars 2, Michael Konig (spelling?) made an astute observation about Bobby Hoff. He pointed out that Hoff is top cash game player, but not well known for his tournament play. Hoff made a couple of clear mistakes that can be great cash game plays when you have 100BB sitting in front of you, but not in a tournament where you start with 50BB and the blinds increase fast.

The same applies to Daniel N. and Gus Hansen. In a deep stack $10K multi, you have room, time, and reading ability that isn't present in STT's. I guarantee that if these players jumped into 4 $200 STT Party tables that they would change their style. Because if they didn't, they wouldn't win at a rate that is acceptable to them. They're perfectly capable of doing that, of course.

BTW, Gramps, this post isn't directed at you.

[Moonsugar]

Thanks for the recap of the thread I linked. One thing you left out was that many people should not call the reraise. People should still read it I think. One can learn a lot.

So, basically, I need to study and learn how to play a big stack against people who think.

Thanks for your recap and input.

[Moonsugar]

Gramps recapped the thread I linked. I already understo0d all of it. He then suggested that it essentially comes down to knowing how to steal.

Regarding a): The player who originally posted the thread I linked in the OP was Giga's opp. in the hand in question, is a good player, and made the correct read, knew Giga made the correct read (and that everyone in these tournies would make the exact same read) and STILL did not understand why the call was correct. THIS IS NOT ABOUT HAND READING.

b) yes this is what I need to learn and what i am getting at

c) goes with b

d) this is a 20 person tourney that pays top 4 with 12 players left. Blinds go up every 10 minutes. The main difference v. SnG is that it would be shorthanded then full table then shorthanded before the end. And maybe this difference is what makes this call correct (combined with Giga's skill+image with a big stack).

[Gramps]

Yes, I'm lazy and assumed your thread was going to refer to his 63o play at the Mirage, or Step 5 Higher bluff hands ("Allow myself, to introduce...myself..."). I'm glad you picked out the KJo thread, b/c it's one of my all-time favorites. There were some intelligent players who thought Giga was clueless and that it was a fishy call. And it's a great example of a situation where a -EV chip call can be +$EV given all the variables present and player invovled.

And no, those plays don't come up very often, it's a function of (a) recognizing when they exist, and (b) having the skill to capitalize on the steal edge the times you win (like you said). So...being aware of your image and ongoing "stealing credibility", how others play, who's tight, who's loose, who makes spite calls/spite playbacks, etc., etc., etc., etc.

I think a second recap is in there somewhere.

[Gramps]

(a) - (d)

As you imply - in tournament poker, it always depends, depends, depends....

[DonButtons]

He was the one who pretty much introduced proper bubble play with the big stack, and if I gain a extra 800 chips over 2nd stack, I usually gain 2000 chips during the bubble too. But I still miss some spots where Im sure giga would capitalize on, but like gramps said, it all about identifying the situation, and its not always easy to point out, specially 8 tabling and up.

[maddog2030]

[ QUOTE ]
In short - the opportunity to open up a chip gap that will give you a significantly greater stealing advantage is a context where the situation may arise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

To the OP: I don't think this contradicts normal tournament theory or ICM. ICM of course it has its limitations because its hard to add anything more to a definitive equation, but those are well defined.

However, something you can do is use eastbay's tool to ICM the situation where there someone like Gigabet has a large chip gap. This is particuarly good if you have a lot of varying stacks with some small ones mixed in. See what your calling ranges should be at different stack sizes against the monster stack who is pushing any 2 from various positions. Especially take note of the calling ranges of the guys who can hurt you the most: the middle stacks. You'll often see as tight as JJ+ or so. Then you can input those calling ranges in for the middle stacks and analyze it from the perspective of the pusher and see what kind of hands you need to push with when the middle stacks are so tight. The small stacks should get fairly loose but realistically they're probably not as loose as they should be. Plus that's on the assumption of the guy really is pushing any 2, which very well may be the case, but are you willing to risk your tournament life with a T8s call? Maybe, maybe not. I'm assuming most people wouldn't, and if they're wrong just a little bit about him pushing any 2 it makes a call disasterous.

So now all of a sudden a pleathra of new +$EV pushes come into view that you wouldn't normally have. And while blinds and stack sizes are still just the right size, you can crush the table. So you see it's well within tournament theory, it's just hard to quantify something like that into an equation. Although if you look at it the right way, it does follow from it.

Edit: sp error.

[pineapple888]

Yeah, but big stack against thinking players just doesn't come up that often in Party SnGs.

I play the $215s, and 80% of the time, I'm either playing very simple tight-aggressive (if table is fishy) or pre-flop 2+2 style (fold first three rounds, push with anything reasonable if you are first in afterwards, call a push only with premium hands).

The other 20% of tables, I can actually make some moves on occasion.

On deeper-stacked SnG sites (sometimes), or in MTTs especially, there's much more room for big-stack play. I'd focus on those if you were interested in improving your play in this area.

[eastbay]

If you're looking for something to do to advance the theory, my suggestion would be to pick up the idea I detailed in "ICM with a skill factor" (or something like that) and try applying it along with the usual ICM to some standard SnG scenarios and see if the results change, and how. Try to figure out if it gives better answers than the original formulation.

The second thing which is more complex is the issue that any stack ratio based valuation model is probably going to be insufficient for true expert play at Giga/DN's level because it misses a lot of the strategic subtleties. Relative stack positions (who's to the left and right of who), blind size, and position (and other things) are all things which clearly affect the value of your chips, and yet ICM ignores all of them outright. So, how to start generalizing? I've proposed ways to consider position with a simple discounting approach. But I think you could quickly get lost in complexity where it wasn't clear if you were making progress or just making things foggier and less clear if they made any useful sense.

There is another approach altogether that I hope to return to sometime soon, but I'm not getting into what it is right now.

eastbay

[maddog2030]

[ QUOTE ]
There is another approach altogether that I hope to return to sometime soon, but I'm not getting into what it is right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, come on now, spill the beans. You can't just leave us hanging... Well you can, but that would suck.

Unless it's been discussed in a previous post of yours?

[Moonsugar]

Basically, what I would be most interested in is investigation in the areas where current theory is deficient. But sounds like you are many steps ahead.

I, as well as many on this board, have a bad habit of thinking "well, my tidy little hand strength calculator and ICM equation (or sit-n-go analyzer) tell me for CERTAIN that X is profitable so that is that". Well, it isn't really as simple as that. Not by a mile.

All these tools and theories are great (thanks for your contribution) but they stand in the way of true advancement if we accept them as dogma and don't search for more. That has been the point of the thread and what I have tried to get people to see, that what the truly great players are doing goes against the models and Sklansky etc. I know its near sacrelige on this board, but I was compelled by the devil...

I really appreciate all the work you have done, not trying to demean it at all, eastbay.

Thanks everyone for contributing to the thread I have gotten a lot of useful thoughts.

[lastchance]

ICM gives you a range. There are certainly other factors to look into, but if it's clear, you go with ICM.

[gumpzilla]

This is a pet peeve of mine.

What the great players are doing doesn't go against mathematical formulations of the game at all. The key to making those kinds of plays is excellent reads - what does your opponent have, what do they think you have, what are they going to need to continue based on what they think about the current situation and the information you're giving them? All of this stuff is input that you feed into a mathematical approach. The ICM approach and mathematical analysis practiced here is a great example of garbage in, garbage out; if you put in completely wrong ranges, you're going to get nonsense.

STT is also definitely the wrong forum to talk about plays that Negreanu or Giga make in the MTT realm, because in general the situations are going to be very, very different. Making really fancy plays generally requires opposition that is sophisticated enough to try interpreting the information that you're giving them, which you don't get at low buyin STTs. It frequently also requires relatively deep stacks, so that people have freedom to get away from hands. This is something else you don't really see in STTs. Live play enhances the ability to make good reads. So we can talk about these plays all we want, but they aren't very relevant to the topic of this forum because they aren't much use in online STTs, as a rule.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]

I, as well as many on this board, have a bad habit of thinking "well, my tidy little hand strength calculator and ICM equation (or sit-n-go analyzer) tell me for CERTAIN that X is profitable so that is that". Well, it isn't really as simple as that. Not by a mile.


[/ QUOTE ]

Usually it is. Sometimes it isn't. Really depends on what you're talking about.

[ QUOTE ]

All these tools and theories are great (thanks for your contribution) but they stand in the way of true advancement if we accept them as dogma and don't search for more.


[/ QUOTE ]

In my estimation, no one who is actually capable of advancement actually thinks like that, so I think your notion of the theory "standing in the way" of anything is absurd.

Will people misuse theory? Will they misunderstand it? Constantly. I see it every single day on here.

[ QUOTE ]

what the truly great players are doing goes against the models and Sklansky etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

99% of the time I think that's just false. Mostly there is simply confusion about what the theory says or doesn't say.

eastbay

[maddog2030]

[ QUOTE ]
That has been the point of the thread and what I have tried to get people to see, that what the truly great players are doing goes against the models and Sklansky etc. I know its near sacrelige on this board, but I was compelled by the devil...

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't necessarily think Sklansky would disagree what was said by Gigabet.

If he has commented, then I'll bite the bullet. But a lot of people seem to throw Sklanksy's name out there to associate him with what a typical player thinks is correct. And this is certainly not the case. Now he did write some of the most famous books on poker, but people often don't understand what he says, or takes a general comment of his as a be all or end all, like DN seems to do on a regular basis.

[Moonsugar]

[ QUOTE ]

What the great players are doing doesn't go against mathematical formulations of the game at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they do on some occasions. Don't take my word for it. Daniel N. (And many others) has said it many times.

The mathematical models we have for the game today are inadequate. It is not simply GIGO. If you don't see that, fine. Most of the scholars in the world used to think it was flat, too.

Now, I agree that many of the situations of a STT are 'solved' by the models that we have today and that some of these solutions are unlikely to change.

One specific problem which may be wrong: 10 players, 1st hand you bet 3xBB with AKo first in from the SB, BB puts you all-in and you see his hand: 22. Current models say you should fold. What I am suggesting is that a player of a certain skill with the bigstack should call the all in.

The reason I posted here is that this forum, I think, has the most members who think most systematically and model-like of all the forums. And it is the one I frequent most these days. Plus, I thought more people would be familiar with the hand and problem I linked in my OP, but I was wrong about that.

[Moonsugar]

You are probably correct. When I said Sklansky I just meant his published comments in TPFAP. Sklansky for sure knows about this. Maybe he has ways to model for it. Would love to see if that were true.

[Moonsugar]

[ QUOTE ]


99% of the time I think that's just false. Mostly there is simply confusion about what the theory says or doesn't say.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure that 99% is the correct number, but if it is I am talking about the other 1%. But you knew that. Damn, are you an attorney?!?

Edit: Oh, and on the advancement thing, I was speaking from a personal poker growth standpoint. Obviously if someone believed something that was infact not true was dogma, then he would not be able to advance. That was my point.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, they do on some occasions. Don't take my word for it. Daniel N. (And many others) has said it many times.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does that mean they are right? No. It just means that they don't have a mathematical formulation for what they are doing. The mathematics of EV, at the very least, underlies all of poker. I really don't see any other way around it. Trying to figure out how to assess your EV is very tricky, but that's all it is. The models we have are tools for guessing what that EV may be. With extremely precise reads, the models become irrelevant because you can make simple, direct calculations about what will happen. Good intuitive players do not need to make these calculations explicitly.

[ QUOTE ]
The mathematical models we have for the game today are inadequate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anybody is arguing that they are a complete solution to the problem, but they are excellent tools that have their places.

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't see that, fine. Most of the scholars in the world used to think it was flat, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for the condescending garbage. I hereby nominate you as the Christopher Columbus of poker. Perhaps some lucky Ferdinand can finance your voyage of discovery.

[ QUOTE ]
One specific problem which may be wrong: 10 players, 1st hand you bet 3xBB with AKo first in from the SB, BB puts you all-in and you see his hand: 22. Current models say you should fold. What I am suggesting is that a player of a certain skill with the bigstack should call the all in.

[/ QUOTE ]

This does not make the models wrong, this makes them inapplicable to particular situations.

[Moonsugar]

You have an appropriate nick.