Gigabet unplugged: percentage payouts and the value of disparate goals

[Irieguy]

When I read Gigabet's post I knew immediately what he was talking about, even though I didn't understand a word he said. I don't think explaining this concept is all that -EV for Gigabet (or me) because a large percentage of the readers will not understand it; a large percentage will disagree with it; and a large percentage will agree and understand but will not be able to implement it with anywhere near the devastation that Gigabet does. Also, if you mess this concept up even a little bit... you will become a loser. Lastly, this concept isn't very important in SNGs, actually. But it's HUGELY important in MTTs. Here we go:

In TPFAP, Sklansky acknowledges the fact that his concepts are not optimal if your goal is to win as many tournaments as possible. They should be maximally +EV... but if you want to win as often as possible, the Sklansky way is not The Way. Look at what happens if the following conditions are true:

1. You are a winning player
2. Some of your opponents are losing players
3. You want to win 1st place
4. Your opponents want to cash

When these conditions are true, a very interesting situation develops when the blinds are big and the money is close. You want everybody's chips and everybody else is pretty happy to merely hang on to what they already have. If you have a large stack as this situation develops, you can exploit your opponents to such a large degree that I don't even think Gigabet understands just how +EV that situation can be. (Actually, I think Gigabet does understand this.) The fact that your opponents will fold too much when the blinds are big and your goal is to acquire every last chip is remarkably good for you. So good, in fact, that you should do everything within reason to land yourself in this situation. That will often mean making a -EV call at a particular stage of the tournament, with particular relative stack sizes.

The "correctness" of a -EV call is influenced primarily by the following conditions:

1. Calling and winning makes you a big stack
2. Calling and winning eliminates a player close to the money
3. Calling and losing will not eliminate you
4. The blinds are big

I already explained why #1 is so important. #2 is important because eliminating a player near the bubble not only gets you closer to first place, it gets your opponents closer to cashing... and that's important. #3 is important for the obvious reason: you can't win if you bust out. Besides, being a short stack is not really a big deal. The nice thing about being the shortest stack is that you can double through everybody. You will be able to get maximum value out of your chips, and that's more than anybody else can say. #4 may be the most important condition of all. As the blinds increase, the amount of time that your opponents have to wake up with a hand decreases. This is critical. You want to get all of their chips before they have a chance to find a hand. Also, escalating blinds feed right into your hands as the big stack. With everybody else folding too much, you want to extract the maximum possible from that situation.

So, that's basically it. If you want to win and your opponents want to cash, you should place a higher priority on acquiring chips. Your acquisition of chips will then have a snowball effect that reaches maximum force at the bubble. This allows you to acquire even more chips until you finally have them all.

The reason why I say this concept is not as important in SNGs as in MTTs is because you can play a bajillion SNGs a second and it doesn't really matter if you win first place. EV is King and volume is Queen. Maximizing your earn rate is really more important than maximizing your first place percentage. Sklanskyesque reasoning is likely the best way to get there.

But MTTs are a different bird. There's a BIG difference between a bracelet and a bare arm. There's a BIG difference between being on TV and being listed as 7th place in Cardplayer. There's a BIG difference between winning a Million-Dollar guaranteed tourney on line and placing 2nd. Still, you don't need to play this way to be successful. Erik Seidel, Howard Lederer, and even Phil Helmuth don't play this way, whereas Daniel Negreanu, David Pham, and Scott Fischman clearly do.

Gigabet plays SNGs the same way he plays MTTs: he plays to win. I tend to agree with his line... especially in the Step 5 Highers.

Irieguy

[Myst]

I think this is more true at the higher limit games than at the low level $33s that I play, where a cash of $60 doesnt mean nearly as much as a cash of $10,000.

Well thought out and explained Irie.

[handsome]

I think this post has some alright content, most of which most good SNG players are familiar with, but the way you expressed yourself is really bad.

"... that I don't even think Gigabet understands just how +EV that situation can be. (Actually, I think Gigabet does understand this.)" Just indicate that it's a very large exploit.

Also, a lot of these concepts are very general and it's gonna take a lot of experimentation to apply them "correctly"

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this post has some alright content, most of which most good SNG players are familiar with, but the way you expressed yourself is really bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean I expressed myself really badly.

Irieguy

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
but the way you expressed yourself is really bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow....if you're handsome...I don't wanna know what the ugly version of you is like.

You want Irie to like come over to your place with a chalkboard, chalk and a f*cking diagram in a Mr. Rogers getup or something?!?

I'm basically speechless after reading your post....all I can think of is:

Way to suck at life....

Yugoslav

[iMsoLucky0]

If it makes you feel any better, I liked your post /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Sabrazack]

So what you are saying people like Negreanu and Giga are accepting bad gambles in $EV because they want the glory of winning? Or do they take these -$EV gambles because they think they can use the chips if they win to gain more money than they lost from the bad gamble?

This made me think of a live rebuy tournament i was playing in, people who seemed to be pretty decent at poker were calling ALL-IN with all kinds of crap during the rebuy period. Do they think they can turn the possible winnings from these bad gambles into more +$EV than they loose from the gamble or are they just filthyrich kids who want to win the tournament?

[pergesu]

[ QUOTE ]
So what you are saying people like Negreanu and Giga are accepting bad gambles in $EV because they want the glory of winning? Or do they take these -$EV gambles because they think they can use the chips if they win to gain more money than they lost from the bad gamble?

This made me think of a live rebuy tournament i was playing in, people who seemed to be pretty decent at poker were calling ALL-IN with all kinds of crap during the rebuy period. Do they think they can turn the possible winnings from these bad gambles into more +$EV than they loose from the gamble or are they just filthyrich kids who want to win the tournament?

[/ QUOTE ]
By definition, any gamble that figures to make money is +$EV.

The plays may be -$EV from an ICM standpoint, but they conclude that there are other things to consider that may make a -$icmEV play into a true +$EV play.

[johnnybeef]

[ QUOTE ]

The "correctness" of a -EV call is influenced primarily by the following conditions:

1. Calling and winning makes you a big stack
2. Calling and winning eliminates a player close to the money
3. Calling and losing will not eliminate you
4. The blinds are big


[/ QUOTE ]

ok, so how does this pertain to a situation that may be a +chip EV decision (but -$EV) such as this one (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2616369&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1#Post2616498)

[Freudian]

I think without Gigabit explaining in detail how his game changes with a huge stack compared to a big stack we have no way of judging if it is a sound strategy in SnGs.

And I don't think he is particularly eager to do so (for obvious reasons). I have a hard time believing he can turn that 800 into 2000 on average, since it would mean his opponents never play back at him. And they are at least supposed to be a competent crowd, right? But it is possible that he is able to run over the table pre-bubble/bubble when he has 3k+ chips.

We have heard the uninteresting part of the story this far.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
And I don't think he is particularly eager to do so (for obvious reasons). I have a hard time believing he can turn that 800 into 2000 on average, since it would mean his opponents never play back at him. And they are at least supposed to be a competent crowd, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Once upon a time, yours truly picked up some S5 freerolls and datamined the hell out of his likely opponents for a couple of months, then reviewed all of their hand histories and made dossiers on the dozen most active players and mental notes on a few dozen below them.

What I discovered was:
-a large percentage of then-S5 regulars not only lost, but lost big
-a larger percentage of them played the bubble like they were Alan Greenspan
-a remarkably large number of them *tried* to play a LAG style but had absolutely no clue what they were doing
-very few of them would call with hands on the bubble that they 'shouldn't call with'

On the bubble, not playing back at Gigabet as a medium stack gets you into third place. But when that third place is $10K or $20K and even the ICM says to fold queens, you're going to fold queens. In the long run, you shouldn't, but as they say over in high stakes limit, that's a lot of fruit plates.

[Sabrazack]

I think you misunderstood my question, the question was if they make these plays with the goal of winning the tournament in mind, even if it is going to cost them money in the long run.

[microbet]

Nice explanation.

We have seen with the ICM calcs over and over that when the payout is steeper you need to be more aggressive in raising and calling.

If you personally value winning more than just the $s, then you are essentially making the payout steeper.

In a game among friends most people take more chances (certainly I do), and this is correct for most people because there is usually more utility in winning than just the money.

[Apathy]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you misunderstood my question, the question was if they make these plays with the goal of winning the tournament in mind, even if it is going to cost them money in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the goal is both to win (or bust out in the middle) more often AND to make more money over the long run.

It is the steep payout structures of most MTTs today that specifically make this strategy ideal.

[Sabrazack]

Ok, so these plays are actually +$EV since they are aimed at winning and the winner of an MTT gets like 25% of the prizepool. That makes sense. It was just the sentence about the bracelet in the OP that confused me

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]

Once upon a time, yours truly picked up some S5 freerolls and datamined the hell out of his likely opponents for a couple of months, then reviewed all of their hand histories and made dossiers on the dozen most active players and mental notes on a few dozen below them.

What I discovered was:
-a large percentage of then-S5 regulars not only lost, but lost big
-a larger percentage of them played the bubble like they were Alan Greenspan
-a remarkably large number of them *tried* to play a LAG style but had absolutely no clue what they were doing
-very few of them would call with hands on the bubble that they 'shouldn't call with'

On the bubble, not playing back at Gigabet as a medium stack gets you into third place. But when that third place is $10K or $20K and even the ICM says to fold queens, you're going to fold queens. In the long run, you shouldn't, but as they say over in high stakes limit, that's a lot of fruit plates.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am sure that is true. The question is what kind of windows opens for a guy with a stack of 2700 vs a 'line' of 1300 that isn't open to a guy with a stack of 2200. Wouldn't there be almost as much room for a guy exploiting these weaknesses? If we also assume that if Giga loses the hands that were to gain the important block and be back in 'line' with the others. What kind of room does he have to exploit these weaknesses with an average stack?

If we are talking about the previous higher step I think Gigabet is correct. Playing for first is the obvious strategy of a player that feels he is at his best with the huge stack given the unusual prize distribution. But with a more normal prize structure I think a player of his calibre should be able to do well with a big (not huge) stack and not feel the need to rush into a bet he has the poor end of.

I think Irie hit upon an important point though. Eliminating a player is valuable in itself. With 6 players left that is huge.

[11t]

If I recall correctly the q3 post by Giga was in a 2 table step 5 Higher, would that be why his play makes more sense i his situation than it would be in a 200+15 STT?

I realize the principle and that it can't (at least by myself) be quantified in mathematical terms but you are saying its validity in STT goes down since your earn rate can be maximized thru a more straight forward way of playing?

Thanks for your post though.

[tjh]

Good post..

Your view adds value to the Giga post.

What I learned from the Giga post is that in addition to standard mathematical theory of odds calculation there is more than one way to look at your stack of chips. In reality we all do this. Actually thinking sharply and clearly about how we use a stack of chips is another matter.

Gig is expanding the concept that we all use when facing a short stack. Also when we risk becoming a short stack. Somewhere in the muliple of 3-5 times the BB we feel a stack below that is useless. It stands to reason that mutliples of various chip stacks are important and in between there they are less important. So chips have relevance beyond basic chip count. Holding 1/2 the chips on the table, holding the small stack, chip leader, tied for chip leader. All of this is significant.

Add in the tendencies of players to behave in certain predictable ways on the bubble, ITM, etc and you have two strategies that you can combine to give yourself a substantial edge.

Add in the fact that you may have excellent skills at playing big stack and/or the bubble then it is worth a risk to get there. Especially if the risk if lost still leaves you relatively where you were. Also being mid stacked forces you to make many tough decisions and therefore many more mistakes. Short stacked or big stacked you are less likely to mess up.

Playing your stack is certainly a topic worthy of more discussion.

--
tjh

[Newt_Buggs]

very nice post irieguy. It would be good if giga would respond to this as well to to clear up some of the discrepancies. It would also be neat if to see someone post some hand histories of where this could best be applied. If I run into any at the tables today then I'll try to post them.

[Roman]

why must everything be spoon fed to you? Just figure it out...

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
The "correctness" of a -EV call is influenced primarily by the following conditions:

1. Calling and winning makes you a big stack
2. Calling and winning eliminates a player close to the money
3. Calling and losing will not eliminate you
4. The blinds are big

[/ QUOTE ]


Great post Irie.

I have a question though, that I didn't see addressed in your post.

There is no mention in your post on what range of hands would be worth making a -EV call, assuming all the above criteria are met. In other words, what is the worst hand you could conceivably call with in a situation like this? I believe in the original discussion by Gigabet, he called with Q3 offsuit. At what point would a hand be TOO bad to call, even if all the other factors were favorable for making a -EV call?

[The Yugoslavian]

32o is the worst hand that qualifies. Oh, and I bet in some fairly rare situations 1 card would be enough...or even no cards when you're basically chip dumping to a certain stack to maintain a favorable stack configuration.

It's not always about your hand...

In the Q3 example...Gigabet didn't call...he pushed. Part of the whole move was to isolate if possible.

Yugoslav

[chumdawg]

I watched a $1000 Step 5 last night that Gigabet played. I'm interested in hearing how this one fits into the discussion.

I believe the first hand Gigabet played was the hand right before this one. Blinds 25/50. Gigabet openraised to 125 from middle position. Someone reraised to 500, and Gigabet folded. A player commented "great read" and the raiser replied "indeed." Then this hand:

***** Hand History for Game 2192953943 *****
50/100 TourneyTexasHTGameTable (NL) (Tournament 13013976) - Sat Jun 11 22:15:50 EDT 2005
Table Step 5 983602 (Real Money) -- Seat 6 is the button
Total number of players : 9
Seat 1: worldsgrtest (820)
Seat 3: Gigabet (840)
Seat 4: rakeitall222 (920)
Seat 5: AllDayTJ (1675)
Seat 6: RPG (1190)
Seat 7: mchern02 (1636)
Seat 8: mikelokey (477)
Seat 9: curiosity (1747)
Seat 10: NUTZREALBIG (695)
mchern02 posts small blind (25)
mikelokey posts big blind (50)
** Dealing down cards **
curiosity folds.
NUTZREALBIG folds.
worldsgrtest folds.
Gigabet raises (125) to 125
rakeitall222 folds.
AllDayTJ folds.
RPG folds.
mchern02 folds.
mikelokey raises (150) to 200
Gigabet calls (75)
** Dealing Flop ** : [ 7c, 9h, 4d ]
mikelokey bets (277)
mikelokey is all-In.
Gigabet calls (277)
** Dealing Turn ** : [ Qs ]
** Dealing River ** : [ Ac ]
Creating Main Pot with $979 with mikelokey
** Summary **
Main Pot: 979 |
Board: [ 7c 9h 4d Qs Ac ]
worldsgrtest balance 820, didn't bet (folded)
Gigabet balance 363, lost 477 [ Kh 7h ] [ a pair of sevens -- Ac,Kh,Qs,7h,7c ]
rakeitall222 balance 920, didn't bet (folded)
AllDayTJ balance 1675, didn't bet (folded)
RPG balance 1190, didn't bet (folded)
mchern02 balance 1611, lost 25 (folded)
mikelokey balance 979, bet 477, collected 979, net +502 [ Kc Ks ] [ a pair of kings -- Ac,Kc,Ks,Qs,9h ]
curiosity balance 1747, didn't bet (folded)
NUTZREALBIG balance 695, didn't bet (folded)



About three hands later, Gigabet busted out.

[microbet]

I might think the 7 is good here.

[Freudian]

I think that hand has very little in common with this discussion. Here Gigabet opens the pot and the losing this hand doesn't put him on the line. He isn't gambling with chips that are meaningless to him.

I think this is one of his standard plays. He opens with 2.5xBB in early position when he feels the situation (more than the cards) is right.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
I might think the 7 is good here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have to call that flop with so little the small stack is pushing into you....you even have 2nd pair!

I'm not sure Giga played this poorly..especially given that he had gotten raised off of a hand not long ago. Also, when a small stack comes back at his t125 raise....he's sort of committed anyway unless he is pretty sure this particular opponent is only playing big pairs.

Yugoslav

[The Yugoslavian]

Oh yeah...I agree...that hand has nothing to do with the discussion..but meh....like 90% of what's posted on here doesn't anyway.

Yugoslav

[imported_cocarondelle]

I don't agree when you say that we got the "uninteresting part"; Playing with a big stack is not a hidden secret of poker, and playing a lot will get you used to how to do it (even if I ' m pretty sure GIG has some nice tricks unknown to many players... /images/graemlins/grin.gif).
The part that Irie was developing (even if the idea of being more Agg in bubble is not new) is well written and comprehensive, and the "gigabet dilemma" seems really interesting, even if you don't know right now how to use a big stack.
You can't say:"I don't know how to use a big stack , so those concepts are BS."try to think:"this stuff is brilliant,how can I reach this level".

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]

You can't say:"I don't know how to use a big stack , so those concepts are BS."try to think:"this stuff is brilliant,how can I reach this level".

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to have missed the point that Giga is the big stack even before making the call.

[chumdawg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I might think the 7 is good here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have to call that flop with so little the small stack is pushing into you....you even have 2nd pair!

I'm not sure Giga played this poorly..especially given that he had gotten raised off of a hand not long ago. Also, when a small stack comes back at his t125 raise....he's sort of committed anyway unless he is pretty sure this particular opponent is only playing big pairs.

Yugoslav

[/ QUOTE ]

I was more interested in the openraise than anything else. Or rather, the call of the minraise. Don't you figure that when you flatcall the raise, the rest of the shortstack's chips are going in on the flop?

Giga's stack was a little less than average himself. Given that the hand sortof played itself out the way it had to, is K7s the kind of hand you want to risk the better part of your stack with here? That's what I'm getting at. What value did his "block" have here? And was getting half of it in against a re-raiser, with K7s, a good idea?

[The Yugoslavian]

Well if this is a play predicated on 'block theory' (which I don't think it is really)...then those chips he's trying to win would be more useful as part of a bigger stack than the chips he loses to become a small...but still playable stack. The other thing is that if he folds to minraises from short stacks there in these games....well...someone will notice I'm sure. Hell, he already just backed down from a t125 raise...so that opens up the fields raising standards on him somewhat. He could stuff preflop but has no FE...so probably wants to see a flop with those pot odds and then if he catches it he'll call of the rest of the short stacks chips.....or have options to get the short stack to possibly lay down.

Yugoslav

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]

I was more interested in the openraise than anything else. Or rather, the call of the minraise. Don't you figure that when you flatcall the raise, the rest of the shortstack's chips are going in on the flop?

Giga's stack was a little less than average himself. Given that the hand sortof played itself out the way it had to, is K7s the kind of hand you want to risk the better part of your stack with here? That's what I'm getting at. What value did his "block" have here? And was getting half of it in against a re-raiser, with K7s, a good idea?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he played it simply because he thought it was a good opportunity to gain chips. When the small stacked called and pushed on the flop, he thought he would win his fair share here. I don't think he played this hand to gain a "block". He played it to pick up 75+ chips often enough for it to be worth it.

The texture of the steps tables is different from your normal SnG, with the money involved and the top heavy prize structure which I am sure has a big impact on how he plays.

[imported_cocarondelle]

I agree with you , but there is a huge difference between being a big stack like 2000 (with another player having the same), and having a big stack of 2800, and basically covering the table;(as the second chip leader with 2000, I would not be very happy about this gap...)

[chumdawg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I was more interested in the openraise than anything else. Or rather, the call of the minraise. Don't you figure that when you flatcall the raise, the rest of the shortstack's chips are going in on the flop?

Giga's stack was a little less than average himself. Given that the hand sortof played itself out the way it had to, is K7s the kind of hand you want to risk the better part of your stack with here? That's what I'm getting at. What value did his "block" have here? And was getting half of it in against a re-raiser, with K7s, a good idea?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he played it simply because he thought it was a good opportunity to gain chips. When the small stacked called and pushed on the flop, he thought he would win his fair share here. I don't think he played this hand to gain a "block". He played it to pick up 75+ chips often enough for it to be worth it.

The texture of the steps tables is different from your normal SnG, with the money involved and the top heavy prize structure which I am sure has a big impact on how he plays.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I follow. If the sole intent of the play is to pick up 75 chips (meaning that you don't necessarily like your hand if you get re-raised), then how can you be comfortable calling off more than half your stack when you get played back at?

Question: Given that he was played back at the hand before, when he made the same raise, and laid it down, is he more, or less, likely to get played back at again? And further, depending on the answer to that question, is raising with K7 in that situation a good, or not good, play?

If it's a case of: well, I got caught when I raised 125 here, so I have no other choice than to call off 350 chips...does the likelihood of this happening, and the likelihood of K7 being a good enough hand when it does, make raising to 125 in the first place a good play?

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I follow. If the sole intent of the play is to pick up 75 chips (meaning that you don't necessarily like your hand if you get re-raised), then how can you be comfortable calling off more than half your stack when you get played back at?

Question: Given that he was played back at the hand before, when he made the same raise, and laid it down, is he more, or less, likely to get played back at again? And further, depending on the answer to that question, is raising with K7 in that situation a good, or not good, play?

If it's a case of: well, I got caught when I raised 125 here, so I have no other choice than to call off 350 chips...does the likelihood of this happening, and the likelihood of K7 being a good enough hand when it does, make raising to 125 in the first place a good play?

[/ QUOTE ]

Winning 75 is what happens often. But that isn't the sole reason to make this play. Sometimes someone calls and he is able to win more. Search for the hand history of the first Higher Step tourney Gigabet won. There he made a similar play and took it down with a 300 bet on the turn or river.

I am sure that who the SB/BB was and the texture of the table made him make this play. If anyone but small stack had called, I am sure the hand would have played out differently.

I don't think this play is a good play for most players. But I also know that Gigabet is very good at gaining chips in the early levels with cards others wouldn't play.

If he mixes in just enough K7s with AA/KK/QQ/AK/whatever when raising in EP in level 3 he will gain extra chips in the long run.

[chumdawg]

If you make the play because you expect both blinds to fold, but one of them raises you instead, does that at all impact the way you proceed? (Whether you are Gigabet or anyone else, is what I mean.)

[Freudian]

I have no idea what he would do if a blind raise here. He would probably fold since he has a pretty clear idea what kind of hands the blinds would play there though and a raise would indicate a hand he is a big dog against.

But I don't know. Perhaps that would be one of those times he would be willing to take a -EV gamble to get a healthy stack to gain another "block".

[chumdawg]

Well, a blind DID raise there. And that's the reason I offer the hand for discussion.

[pineapple888]

Well, no offense intended to the old hands here, but what's new or insightful about any of this? Why is anyone trying to figure out what Gigabet is talking about in his other post?

A LAG who knows he can run over a timid table if he gets the biggest stack can rationally take the worst of a single encounter to try to accumulate said stack and to simulteously build an advantageous table image.

Well, duh. You don't need blather over block sizes to understand that. But how often does this really come up online below these Step 5s? Once every 20 tables or so I get a timid table at the 215s, and then I go LAG. But this is rare. It probably never happens below the 215s.

Meanwhile, the concepts in irieguy's post are well-summarized, but already well-understood by good MTT players, and have no relevance to SnGs or to Gigabet that I can see. The payout is much flatter for SnGs, period. If the table is timid, LAG makes sense. Otherwise, if there are players (like me) ready to come over the top of a LAG with anything reasonable, you just have to tighten up in a SnG, given the payout structure. Or not, I don't care, just give away your $$.