Is it good to stay in the red zone?

[betgo]

Sometimes I think it is advantagous to maintain an M of 5 or less. That way, you can make EV+ pushes with marginal hands and more EV+ pushes and calls with big hands.

I don't think it is necessarily worthwhile to make marginal pushes with like 9xBB with a small ante or no ante. If I get blinded down, I will have better opportunities.

Some will say you can't win a tournament as a small stack. However, a lot of daily live tournament and online tournaments on some sites have fast structures so that everyone at the final table is short stacked.

Of course you don't mind doubling up and becoming a bigger stack. However, as a medium stack, you have to more wait for big hands. As a short stack or a small stack, you can play more aggressively.

[LearnedfromTV]

Yeah, why be at 10xBB when you can be at 5x and double up. Beta-testing something for your guide?

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, why be at 10xBB when you can be at 5x and double up. Beta-testing something for your guide?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it is better to be at 10xBB than 5xBB, but you can't make many plays with 10xBB, so it may not be worth a lot of risk to gain or maintain that stack. Without a big ante, 10-20xBB is not the easiest stack to play. I am serious.

Once someone calls your EV+ push and you double up, your 5bb stack just became a 10bb stack - the medium stack you're claiming you don't want to be.

How useful is it to wait to get blinded down to 5bb before you make your move to become 10bb again? Just to wait to get blinded down again?

You're probably just thinking way over my head here.

i know that any time i get out of the red zone i like to raise then fold the flop when checked to me to be sure to get back there fast

[pfkaok]

yeah. sometimes i think its better to have an M of 2-4 rather than like 5-8.


obviously not better in the sense that your chances are better of placing high with less chips. but i certainly think they're better in terms of BB/hand win rate. the 5-8 or 9 range kind of sucks in terms of playability. when you have a big stack you have more options, and when you have a small stack you have the AI option thats often a +EV play. in between you do'nt have much at all.

[LearnedfromTV]

You're confusing easy to play with having greater EV. It's easier to play a shorter stack because you have fewer options.

[adanthar]

...yeah, I know what I want when I have 8 BB is to fold my way down to 5 so I can play better

Wait, what?

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
What? I have a psychology project due that week and 2 midterms? Oh its no matter, you bitches are finished.

(I just won't sleep for a week)

[/ QUOTE ]

you're simplifying. you have MORE +EV options when you're in red IMO.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
You're confusing easy to play with having greater EV. It's easier to play a shorter stack because you have fewer options

[/ QUOTE ]

You have more opportunities to play wiht 5xBB than 12XBB. With 5xBB, you only push, whereas with 12xBB, you can limp, raise, or push. But limping and raising are not great plays with 12xBB unless you have a big hand. Your best move with 12-15xBB is to push on a resteal.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]


you're simplifying. you have MORE +EV options when you're in red IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if you're right (and you're only right if you're opponents don't know how to play against a small stack) , more +EV moves from the 5BB chip stack than a 12BB chip stack doesn't mean your total tournament EV is greater. It can't be - the extra chips in the 12BB stack have intrinsic value.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]

Quote:
You're confusing easy to play with having greater EV. It's easier to play a shorter stack because you have fewer options



You have more opportunities to play wiht 5xBB than 12XBB. With 5xBB, you only push, whereas with 12xBB, you can limp, raise, or push. But limping and raising are not great plays with 12xBB unless you have a big hand. Your best move with 12-15xBB is to push on a resteal.

[/ QUOTE ]

well. i think i might be the only one agreeing with you betgo... but i think there is a lot of merit to this idea, and i had actually thought of it a while ago but never too deeply.

sometimes i use this theory to make thinish aggressive plays at times. hard to think of one of the top of my head, but say if you're in a spot where a semibluff push might be very close to breakeven EV, but your HU and you have the villian covered. so if you push and get called and lose you'll be in the red zone... if you push and they fold your stack is VERY healthy, and if you push, get called and hit you have a monster stack. IMO, its worth it taking gambles in those types of spots.

[AlcateL]

Sure, its easier to play a short stack.. push or fold.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if you're right (and you're only right if you're opponents don't know how to play against a small stack) , more +EV moves from the 5BB chip stack than a 12BB chip stack doesn't mean your total tournament EV is greater. It can't be - the extra chips in the 12BB stack have intrinsic value.


[/ QUOTE ]

no. you're misunderstanding his post (if i in fact am understanding it correctly). he's not saying your tourney EV goes up. thats obviously stupid b/c then you'd just fold with a mid stack until you hit red.

he's just saying your profitability, in terms of BB/hand is greater with a red zone stack than with an orange zone stack.

[Exitonly]

Oak, thats the second time you've quote from another post.

Get your act together.

edit: you've edited it since then, so i look stupid. But i stand by what i said

[pfkaok]

thanks. i suck at cutting and pasting somtimes. plus its probably a bad idea for me to 6 table the MTTS and try to make posts. my posts aren't good, and its def -EV for my play.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if you're right (and you're only right if you're opponents don't know how to play against a small stack) , more +EV moves from the 5BB chip stack than a 12BB chip stack doesn't mean your total tournament EV is greater. It can't be - the extra chips in the 12BB stack have intrinsic value.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you are better off with 12xBB than 5xBB. However, if you have 10xBB, it may not be worth making a marginal play to get to 12xBB or bust out. Going down to 5xBB between blinds, antes, and oncreased limits may not be a disaster.

As the other poster points out, sometimes you may want to make a risky play with a medium stack that either makes you a short stack or a big stack. It is hard to play aggressively with a medium stack.

Obviously, if I have a big hand with 9xBB, I would fold it to blind down, but it may not be worth gambling in a marginal situation to pick up blinds or double up.

[Blindcurve]

I don't think it's advantageous to maintain a short stack. I think the short stack is still playable, but I wouldn't say it's an advantage to be short. I think your marginal hands are in too much danger of being called, sometimes in more than one place, even if you don't mind getting called because your stack is so low that you'll take 2 to 1 money odds against just about any hand.

Maybe if you explained what you meant by: [ QUOTE ]
That way, you can make EV+ pushes with marginal hands and more EV+ pushes and calls with big hands.


[/ QUOTE ]

Let me say first that when I'm super short (Red zone) then yes, I'm open pushing suited connectors- but for the purposes of pushing in the 6-10 range, I'm looking for a suited ace, big king, broadway, any pair.

I think it's worthwhile to start looking for marginal hands to open push starting at 10 BB's for a couple of reasons:

First, you have the most FE you're going to have, and while your stack looks pretty short, it's not so short that some players won't put you on a bigger hand than you have and fold if you launch 8-10 BB's at them. If they call, and you have a hand or suck out, you get the most value. I guess this is the conventional wisdom that you're proposing an alternative to.

Second, what often happens is you start pushing at 10 BB's, you get blinded down to about 7-8 and you push two or three marginal hands, and then you catch a hand just as someone gets fed up. I think starting to push at 10BBs gives you a weaker looking range and allows you to double up more often when you catch your big hand or when someone calls your AJ with KT.

That being said, I think it's possible to survive in the 5-10BB range with a push/fold strategy for a very long time, by being more selective than pushing any semi-playable two right at 10BB. I use the 10 BB line to start to look for opportunities to steal or double up. Furthermore, I'd really rather have 10BB's than 15. This is because I often get myself in trouble playing 15 BB's for a 3 BB raise, and then giving myself tough decisions about a 4 BB continue or fold? move in for 12? It's an area I have to work on.


Actually, I'm the short stack now in this 180 20+2, so maybe I'll put my money where my mouth is.

-D.

Postscript:
PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t400 (8 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

MP1 (t14083)
MP2 (t5006)
CO (t12965)
Button (t8383)
SB (t5925)
BB (t9295)
UTG (t11225)
Hero (t2578)

Preflop: Hero is UTG+1 with A/images/graemlins/club.gif, A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif.
<font color="#CC3333">UTG raises to t1200</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises to t2553</font>, <font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Button raises to t8358</font>, <font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, UTG folds.

Flop: (t12236) Q/images/graemlins/club.gif, K/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 5/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>

Turn: (t12236) 4/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>

River: (t12236) K/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>

Final Pot: t12236

Results in white below: <font color="#FFFFFF">
Hero has Ac Ad (two pair, aces and kings).
Button has Qh Qs (full house, queens full of kings).
Outcome: Button wins t12236. </font>

Oh, sweet irony. /images/graemlins/grin.gif


-D.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even if you're right (and you're only right if you're opponents don't know how to play against a small stack) , more +EV moves from the 5BB chip stack than a 12BB chip stack doesn't mean your total tournament EV is greater. It can't be - the extra chips in the 12BB stack have intrinsic value.


[/ QUOTE ]

no. you're misunderstanding his post (if i in fact am understanding it correctly). he's not saying your tourney EV goes up. thats obviously stupid b/c then you'd just fold with a mid stack until you hit red.

he's just saying your profitability, in terms of BB/hand is greater with a red zone stack than with an orange zone stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah. Your problem is that you think BB/hand matters. Seriously betgo, this is way more valuable as material for your guide than tourney theory.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah. Your problem is that you think BB/hand matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

well. yeah. it matter that i'm trying to win as many chips as possible. certain stack sizes DO have strategic advantages.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ah. Your problem is that you think BB/hand matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

well. yeah. it matter that i'm trying to win as many chips as possible. certain stack sizes DO have strategic advantages.

[/ QUOTE ]

The strategic advantage in tems of BB/hand of a smaller stack over larger can't possibly be larger than the difference in stack size. This thread is ridiculous. I'm done.

[pfkaok]

of course it doesn't make up for it. thats why you wouldn't take a gamble where you're 90-100% to lose. but a 50/50 gamble might be worth it EV-wise if by taking it you'll either be huge stacked or redzoned.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
This thread is ridiculous

[/ QUOTE ]

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]

Quote:
This thread is ridiculous


[/ QUOTE ]

what's ridiculous is that nobody is even taking the time to think about this concept that betgo presented. seriously. its really Fing frustrating when all you guys say is the same thing over again. some stupid, sarcastic remark about "yeah, i'll just give away half my chips, blah, blah". just b/c this is something you haven't thought of doesn't mean that you can't take the time to acutally THINK about a new different concept.

this is very similar to the gigabet stack size thread from a while ago. i know i'm nowhere near the player he is, but i'm really starting to feel like he must have felt then, when a thread that could be very interesting starts and then just turns into a bunch of people being extremely stubborn.

[adanthar]

I had a bigger flame written out but I decided to delete it in the interests of keeping the peace and not abusing the blue title thing, so I'll make it simple: the 'concept' that 5 BB is better than 10 BB because it makes your future decisions easier is stupid, period, has nothing to do with the Gigabet hand (look at his stack size) and the fact that you called off 20 BB as a relatively big dog because you can play theoretically simpler poker when you lose shows that you have a very long way to go to understand this game.

I don't pretend to be a poker genius myself and I don't mean to be insulting, but you just typed out the card game equivalent of somebody defending teaching intelligent design in a science classroom.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
the 'concept' that 5 BB is better than 10 BB because it makes your future decisions easier is stupid, period,

[/ QUOTE ]

this is NOT the concept.

the concept is that you have more +EV spots with a smaller stack. likewise you have more +EV spots when you have a monster stack. when you have a smallish, 12-15BB stack, you simply don't have as many +EV options available to you.

Make it simple. lets say i can make, on average X BB/hand when my stack is smallish (but not redzone). the theory here, is that i will make on average, GREATER than X BB/hand when my stack is either very large, or very small. Now, i'm not 100% sure if that is true, but i believe that it is, and that is the theory that i thought we were going to discuss in this thread, as its fairly interesting, and probably could be very helpful for many people to think about and try to understand.

[Exitonly]

Are you saying you're willing to take a -EV situation, in order to be in the red zone, or slightly over?

I dont get the point of this...yes there are more situations that are profitable for your stack when in the red zone, but so what? you don't want to be there.

IMHO, these guys (pf, and betgo) are saying that you have more opportunities to have +EV when you have a short stack, because other player's calling ranges are bigger. for example: we all love suited connectors and suited 1 gappers(in position of course). dealt 89s. if i push my 6BB, i get called by a big stack with nearly any two. 89s is pretty solid against a random hand.

if i push the same hand with 14BB, i only called by hands that have me crushed. now, with 14BB it might be worth it to wait for a better hand to play, but decent( 88+, AJ+) hands dont come often. if i raise 3X BB with 89s to steal blinds and get reraised, what do i do? pushing only gets called by hands i dont want to be called by, folding means i lost 3BB, calling and playing a flop does not give me many options with my remaining 6BB.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
IMHO, these guys (pf, and betgo) are saying that you have more opportunities to have +EV when you have a short stack, because other player's calling ranges are bigger. for example: we all love suited connectors and suited 1 gappers(in position of course). dealt 89s. if i push my 6BB, i get called by a big stack with nearly any two. 89s is pretty solid against a random hand.

if i push the same hand with 14BB, i only called by hands that have me crushed. now, with 14BB it might be worth it to wait for a better hand to play, but decent( 88+, AJ+) hands dont come often. if i raise 3X BB with 89s to steal blinds and get reraised, what do i do? pushing only gets called by hands i dont want to be called by, folding means i lost 3BB, calling and playing a flop does not give me many options with my remaining 6BB.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes. this is one of the reasons why you have more +EV with the smaller stack. you double up a lot more often.


but anwyays, exit, please look over it again. i'm not saying that you WANT to be in the redzone, but that its NOT THAT BAD. meaning that you can take gambles that might even be slightly -EV if the result of the gamble will leave you either with a huge stack, or with a playable redzone stack if you lose.

[bmxreed36]

I think I understand somewhat what you two are getting at. However, I think it would just be better to focus on learning how to play an average/medium stack size more efficiently in order not to have to worry about this.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
The strategic advantage in tems of BB/hand of a smaller stack over larger can't possibly be larger than the difference in stack size. This thread is ridiculous. I'm done.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are the one who is making a really silly argument. Of course you are better off with 12xBB than 5xBB. If I have 12xBB, I am not going to purposely lose a pot to get down to 5xBB. However, in real life, I don't have that kind of choice.

I may have 5xBB and I can call a raise to either get to 12xBB or bust out. I may be at 12xBB and can call a push to get to 21xBB or 5xBB, depending if I win. I may have 30xBB and I can call a reraise allin and either wubd up at 5xBB or 60xBB or fold and have 27xBB. I may have 10xBB and I can push and wind up at 22xBB if I win 12xBB if I steal, or bust out: if getting blinded down gives me more opportunities, I am under less pressure to make a marginal move.

I presented it slightly in a ironic way. Of course you would rather be in the orange zone than the red zone, but you don't have that choice straight up. The only arguments against my post have been this moronic "this is ridiculous, you always want more chips".

[ChrisW]

Folks,

This concept is not that difficult to understand!

Let's say that you have a 5 BB stack. Because you are a studious 2+2er, you are going to play it skillfully, moving in frequently to gain 1.5 BB at a risk of only 5 BB. What is your expected # of chips at the end of the tournament? If you're good at pushing, let's imagine that your chip expectancy is 7 BB.

Now, imagine instead that you've got an 8 BB stack. You can't raise and fold to a reraise, so you're stuck with the all-in move. However, you are now risking 8 BB to gain 1.5, so you need strong odds of winning on the occasions when your bet is called to justify the greater risk/reward ratio, constraining the number of hands that you can successfully play. Again, let's assume that you are going to play this stack well. Perhaps your expected stack size at the end of the tournament is 9 BB.

So, if you pay two rounds of blinds to go from 8BB to 5BB, you've really only cost yourself 2 BB in expectation instead of the 3 BB which it appears that you've lost. Obviously, that's still 2 BB lost, and it decreases your $EV, but perhaps not as much as you might have thought. So, if you know that you're really only costing yourself 1 BB per round in chip EV instead of the 1.5 BB which it appears that you are losing, you'd be less likely to push with borderline hands while you're getting blinded down.

Now, I'm not saying that these numbers are accurate or that you have to agree with betgo's analysis. FWIW, I believe that he is right. Either way, it is ridiculous to flame him for such a thought-provoking post.

[Roman]

[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes I think it is advantagous to maintain an M of 5 or less.

[/ QUOTE ]
rofl

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes I think it is advantagous to maintain an M of 5 or less.


[/ QUOTE ]
rofl

[/ QUOTE ]

Another intelligent argument against my theory.

[Roman]

your "theory" is rediculous... What do you think your ROR is with a shorter stack compared to a larger one? Even if there are more "+EV" spots to push, you bust out far more often too.

[kuro]

This conversation isn't really going any where until you talk about what kind of marginal situations you are passing up with 9xbb. There's a good chance that others are passing up the same situation hoping for a better situation but they aren't doing it because they want to be in the red zone where anything you push is ev due to the blinds + antes making up 1/2 your stack.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
This conversation isn't really going any where until you talk about what kind of marginal situations you are passing up with 9xbb. There's a good chance that others are passing up the same situation hoping for a better situation but they aren't doing it because they want to be in the red zone where anything you push is ev due to the blinds + antes making up 1/2 your stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Say the blinds are 200/400/25 and you have T3600 and AJs UTG. Pushing may be about EV even, but you may be better off folding. After going through the blinds, you have T2700 in late position and you will probably have better opportunities to push. If the blinds go up to 300/600/50, you will be able to push with almost anything and even get good pot odds to call a raise.

[Superfluous Man]

Imagine you have an exam in Differential Equations. You get the exam and the questions are too hard. So, instead of doing all those tough integrals and stuff, you write your own questions, like "what is the product of 8 and 7?" It's easy to come up with 56. Much, much easier than actually thinking about differential equations.

...but you're still going to get an F.

It's easy to be right for the sake of being right. It's much less trivial to maximize your EV in a tournament. To win the tournament, you must accumulate all the chips in play. Having more chips in a tournament increases your EV, at the cost of having to make more difficult decisions. Am I missing something here?

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This conversation isn't really going any where until you talk about what kind of marginal situations you are passing up with 9xbb. There's a good chance that others are passing up the same situation hoping for a better situation but they aren't doing it because they want to be in the red zone where anything you push is ev due to the blinds + antes making up 1/2 your stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Say the blinds are 200/400/25 and you have T3600 and AJs UTG. Pushing may be about EV even, but you may be better off folding. After going through the blinds, you have T2700 in late position and you will probably have better opportunities to push. If the blinds go up to 300/600/50, you will be able to push with almost anything and even get good pot odds to call a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference in position there is significant regardless of stack size. A late position push with mediocre cards if you're the first in, will usually be a better option than pushing a decent hand UTG.

I still think your theory is ridiculous. It has truth to it, but that doesn't defeat the simple premise that when you have a shorter stack, the ideal outcome of these slightly more abundant +EV situations is that you then double that stack. You may have more opportunities for +EV, and it's certainly a bit simpler to play, but your ideal result is a double up, which leaves you with your less ideal stack. It's not that your theory doesn't have merit - it's just irrelevant.

[Whitey]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not that your theory doesn't have merit - it's just irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
I still think your theory is ridiculous. It has truth to it, but that doesn't defeat the simple premise that when you have a shorter stack, the ideal outcome of these slightly more abundant +EV situations is that you then double that stack. You may have more opportunities for +EV, and it's certainly a bit simpler to play, but your ideal result is a double up, which leaves you with your less ideal stack. It's not that your theory doesn't have merit - it's just irrelevant.


[/ QUOTE ]

But maybe you shouldn't take unnecessary risks to obtain pr maintain this medium stack when you can get it more easily with a short stack.

Also you can maintain a short stack for a long time and then turn it into a medium or large stack when you get the right opportunities.

[mts]

wow lol. As if poker isnt easy enough with 10 BBs... or even 20 BBs

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
It's easy to be right for the sake of being right. It's much less trivial to maximize your EV in a tournament. To win the tournament, you must accumulate all the chips in play. Having more chips in a tournament increases your EV, at the cost of having to make more difficult decisions. Am I missing something here?

[/ QUOTE ]

I won $5K in an online tournament once. I finished 8th. I was in 3rd place with 4.5xBB when I busted out. In this case, I was in the top 5 most of the time since there were 200 left. However, it would have been possible to stay in the red zone the whole way and win the tournament.

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I still think your theory is ridiculous. It has truth to it, but that doesn't defeat the simple premise that when you have a shorter stack, the ideal outcome of these slightly more abundant +EV situations is that you then double that stack. You may have more opportunities for +EV, and it's certainly a bit simpler to play, but your ideal result is a double up, which leaves you with your less ideal stack. It's not that your theory doesn't have merit - it's just irrelevant.


[/ QUOTE ]

But maybe you shouldn't take unnecessary risks to obtain pr maintain this medium stack when you can get it more easily with a short stack.

Also you can maintain a short stack for a long time and then turn it into a medium or large stack when you get the right opportunities.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my opinion, working on your medium stack game is necessary, not ignoring it and just working with short or big stacks.

And of course you turn a short stack into a medium one when you get the right opportunities - we didn't need this theory to tell us to take +EV situations.

[mts]

congrats for being very lucky

You dont win tournaments when your constantly allin with your tourny life on the line.

[Superfluous Man]

[ QUOTE ]

I won $5K in an online tournament once. I finished 8th. I was in 3rd place with 4.5xBB when I busted out. In this case, I was in the top 5 most of the time since there were 200 left. However, it would have been possible to stay in the red zone the whole way and win the tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]
OK, so if the entire field is extremely short, it is like you're taking an arithmetic exam (as opposed to a diff. eq. exam). So, you get an A here for knowing 7*8 = 56. It's a different story when the average itself is above the "red zone."

My analogies suck.

[zipppy]

[ QUOTE ]
However, I think it would just be better to focus on learning how to play an average/medium stack size more efficiently in order not to have to worry about this.

[/ QUOTE ]

[HandCracker]

i can see the idea of the thing, but being short stacked sucks, and i wouldnt get much thrill out of putting my tournament life on the line every orbit.

[illegit]

[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes I think it is advantagous to maintain an M of 5 or less. That way, you can make EV+ pushes with marginal hands and more EV+ pushes and calls with big hands.

I don't think it is necessarily worthwhile to make marginal pushes with like 9xBB with a small ante or no ante. If I get blinded down, I will have better opportunities.


[/ QUOTE ]
9BBs (and no ante) = M of 6 = for all practical purposes not any different from M of 5.

[burningyen]

Don't you have more +EV pushes with a short stack because your EV is so low to begin with?

[Jason Strasser]

HARD DOES NOT MEAN BAD

[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes I think it is advantagous to maintain an M of 5 or less. That way, you can make EV+ pushes with marginal hands and more EV+ pushes and calls with big hands.

I don't think it is necessarily worthwhile to make marginal pushes with like 9xBB with a small ante or no ante. If I get blinded down, I will have better opportunities.

Some will say you can't win a tournament as a small stack. However, a lot of daily live tournament and online tournaments on some sites have fast structures so that everyone at the final table is short stacked.

Of course you don't mind doubling up and becoming a bigger stack. However, as a medium stack, you have to more wait for big hands. As a short stack or a small stack, you can play more aggressively.

[/ QUOTE ]

You shouldn't be -trying- to maintain a small stack is the key, and justify bad play through it. What I mean , and what I said in another post, is that you should continue making +EV decisions throughout, and if in the process of doing that, or the lack of +EV spots you end up in the red zone, then those red zone "opportunities" open up. This certainly does not justify -EV plays in an effort to keep yourself in the redzone, as you will be trying to recover chips you lost by making those -EV plays, and by improving your mid-stack game you are also able to make more +EV plays in those spots as well.

[A_PLUS]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is ridiculous

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]


100% agreed, I was having a hard time telling if he was serious, or of this was part of his sarcastic MTT Guide

[rockythecat99]

This is retarded. Say you pick up AA and you have decided to keep your stack short. And now there is a raise and a reraise and you want to shove to triple up. So instead of tripling up and becoming chip leader with a huge chance to win, you have tripled up and have an average stack. How is this +EV??

[sdplayerb]

no, you want a 10x so you can wait for a big hand, and if you get back into the redzone you push to try to get back into a position where you can wait for a situation to double up to a 20x stack, then you can start to push people around.

this is absurd.

sounds like you can only play a pushin game.

[A_PLUS]

I typed out a whole thing highlighting the major logical flaws in this arguement, but deleted it, after I started cursing to myself.

think of this...

you have 5xBB and push, are called by X.
you have 9xBB and raise to 5xBB, are reraised all in by X.
The intrinsic value of the 5xBB bet hasnt changed. it still wins you the smae number of chips 100% of the time.

In case 2, you can either fold and have a great 4xBB redzone stack (which are SO valuable), or you make a +EV call.

So, explain to me why having a 5xBB stack is worth more than 1/2 of a 10xBB stack, when we could just raise 1/2 our stack, incorrectly fold if reraised and have exactly 1/2 or stack?

This thread is borderline lunacy

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
My analogies suck.

[/ QUOTE ]


no. your analogies are OK. but you're missing the point ENTIRELY.

are you guys really THAT stubborn? or just to lazy to actually THINK about the point he's making here?

I know how to play a mid stack just fine, and i'm sure Betgo does too. the point is, that a stack of that size simply can't be played all that profitably, no matter who you are. there are a whole lot of spots where you could raise or limp with a big stack, push with a small stack, but if you have a midstack you HAVE to fold. think about that. the reason its "tough" to play with a midstack sometiems is that all of your options are either breakeven, or very, very slightly +EV.

Its NOT a matter of learning to play the stack better. the point is that no matter how well you play, you won't have as many VERY +EV spots as you will with a different sized stack.

[Whitey]

Next MTT I play I'm going to put all my chips in except 1 and fold.

That way with my 1 chip I will be much better off decision wise.

I mean, even if its the first round I'll be getting 15-1 and no 2 cards are 15-1 against a random hand, I might even wait a bit longer so there are antes and then I'll be even better off!

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
Next MTT I play I'm going to put all my chips in except 1 and fold.

That way with my 1 chip I will be much better off decision wise.

I mean, even if its the first round I'll be getting 15-1 and no 2 cards are 15-1 against a random hand, I might even wait a bit longer so there are antes and then I'll be even better off!


[/ QUOTE ]

HAHAHAH. ok who wants to be the next monkey to make a sarcastic joking insult without even bothering to think the least bit about the idea here. c'mon. i know someone wants to.

[adanthar]

yes, that's it, betgo and you have stumbled upon a revolutionary new idea that everyone in this forum is too dumb and/or lazy to see, namely that taking -EV gambles for 3/4 of your stack is a good idea because when you lose you have lots of +EV opportunities (to double up to half of where you were)

Or maybe, this whole thing is retarded. Whichever.

[Kevin West]

[ QUOTE ]
I know how to play a mid stack just fine, and i'm sure Betgo does too. the point is, that a stack of that size simply can't be played all that profitably, no matter who you are. there are a whole lot of spots where you could raise or limp with a big stack, push with a small stack, but if you have a midstack you HAVE to fold. think about that. the reason its "tough" to play with a midstack sometiems is that all of your options are either breakeven, or very, very slightly +EV.

Its NOT a matter of learning to play the stack better. the point is that no matter how well you play, you won't have as many VERY +EV spots as you will with a different sized stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

With a mid stack you are able to fold marginal hands that would risk your tournament life because you aren't desperate. Would you rather have 10BB and AJo UTG, or 5BB and AJo UTG? Your EV is positive for the 5BB case, but your expected stack size after you push will be something like 6 or 7BB compared to the 10BB when you fold in the first case. Just because a play is +EV with one stack size and not with a larger stack doesn't make the larger stack worse. Your expected stack size is still larger in the larger stack size case. Combine this with the fact that your monster hands preflop have significantly more equity when your stack is larger and I don't think your argument works at all.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
yes, that's it, betgo and you have stumbled upon a revolutionary new idea that everyone in this forum is too dumb and/or lazy to see, namely that taking -EV gambles for 3/4 of your stack is a good idea because when you lose you have lots of +EV opportunities (to double up to half of where you were)

Or maybe, this whole thing is retarded. Whichever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention, the number of people who disagree and are speaking up in the thread is much smaller than the number of people who disagree and have enough self-control to try to let the damn thing die.

Here's hoping I'm the last idiot to bump it.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
yes, that's it, betgo and you have stumbled upon a revolutionary new idea that everyone in this forum is too dumb and/or lazy to see, namely that taking -EV gambles for 3/4 of your stack is a good idea because when you lose you have lots of +EV opportunities (to double up to half of where you were)


[/ QUOTE ]

no. its not a new, revolutionary idea. reread the gigabet stack size thread. i feel like now i'm actually starting to understand that, and the idea that betgo presented here is critical to gigabets concept.

[Exitonly]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
yes, that's it, betgo and you have stumbled upon a revolutionary new idea that everyone in this forum is too dumb and/or lazy to see, namely that taking -EV gambles for 3/4 of your stack is a good idea because when you lose you have lots of +EV opportunities (to double up to half of where you were)


[/ QUOTE ]

no. its not a new, revolutionary idea. reread the gigabet stack size thread. i feel like now i'm actually starting to understand that, and the idea that betgo presented here is critical to gigabets concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry oak, this is not like the stack size theory (which, btw i also don't like) Look at the hand betgo tried to explain his 'theory' with.

AJs with 9BB's.. he says to fold because you'll get more EV situations after you pass the blinds. BUT YOU WONT. Sometimes it'll fold to you in LP and maybe you'll have a hand that will have more EV to push there. EVEN IF YOU DO, you'll just get back to where you were when you passed up on the AJs EV.

It makes no sesne, you don't pass up small EV situations, in order to pay off half your stack, just to POSSIBLY get into a SLIGHTLY better EV situation.

[Kevin West]

This idea has nothing to do with the Gigabet thread. In Gigabet's thread, he said the gamble would not hurt you significantly, since it would bring you back down to the average stack size which still was threatening to the bigger stacks, but winning the gamble would bump you up to the point where you can start to bully as a big stack. Never did he suggest taking a risk that would bump you down to a critical state.

You are overthinking things. Being in the red zone may give you more +EV opertunities, but that does not mean it isn't better to have a big stack. A big stack that folds a hand has an expected stack size of however big his stack was, while a red zone stack that has to push the hand will still have an expected stack size of much less than the bigger stack. Even though the small stack took advantage of a +EV opertunity, it doesn't mean he has gained anything over the bigger stack.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
yes, that's it, betgo and you have stumbled upon a revolutionary new idea that everyone in this forum is too dumb and/or lazy to see, namely that taking -EV gambles for 3/4 of your stack is a good idea because when you lose you have lots of +EV opportunities (to double up to half of where you were)

Or maybe, this whole thing is retarded. Whichever

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you are too lazy to see it, and it is not necessary to use insulting language like "retarded".

Say you have 20xBB and there is a gamble you know is EV-. If you for 3/4 of your stack, you know that you have a 40% chance of winning. If you win, you gain 20BBs; if you lose, you lose 15BBs. So you will either have 40xBB or 5xBB if you call. The expectation if you call is -1xBB.

However, if you call, the will either have 40xBB or 5xBB. Say the average stack is 15xBB. So if you gamble, you will either have a large stack you can play aggressively or a small stack you can play aggressively.

If your style is aggressive, and you are good at playing a short stack, this may be a good play for you. If you stay as a medium stack, you will lose many EV+ opportunities you would have as either a large stack or a small stack.

[Exitonly]

You don't lose the +EV situations, they're just harder to play.

As Strassa so eloquently put it "HARDER DOES NOT MEAN BAD"

I am pretty sure I understand the "concept" presented here. The title of the thread is probably misworded.

Anyway, reread Harrington Vol II about orange and red level decision making. He talks about this concept in detail. Even if your decisions available to you in the red are +EV, you're still gonna bust out most of the time when you're in the red and you push (pre-flop).

Gross

[pooh74]

I can't believe I am reading this thread. And to think some experienced posters are arguing for this...I am not going to cast any insults but this is all just so logically absurd I feel like its a geek's version of Who's on First...

Now excuse me bc I have to go cut both of my arms and legs off so I can collect 100/week workers comp...its +EV and easier.

[FakeKramer]

[ QUOTE ]
yes, that's it, betgo and you have stumbled upon a revolutionary new idea that everyone in this forum is too dumb and/or lazy to see, namely that taking -EV gambles for 3/4 of your stack is a good idea because when you lose you have lots of +EV opportunities (to double up to half of where you were)

Or maybe, this whole thing is retarded. Whichever.

[/ QUOTE ] /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[FishInAPhoneBooth]

[ QUOTE ]
It makes no sesne, you don't pass up small EV situations, in order to pay off half your stack, just to POSSIBLY get into a SLIGHTLY better EV situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that what tournament poker is all about? Avoiding a slightly +ev situations that one would fully exploit in a cash game in order to survive looking for a better spot?

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe I am reading this thread. And to think some experienced posters are arguing for this...I am not going to cast any insults but this is all just so logically absurd I feel like its a geek's version of Who's on First...

Now excuse me bc I have to go cut both of my arms and legs off so I can collect 100/week workers comp...its +EV and easier.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I have explained several times, I presented this somewhat
ironically, but I am not arguing that a 6xBB stack is better to have than a 12xBB stack. I arguing that a 6xBB stack can be played more effectively than a 12xBB stack.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
Or maybe, this whole thing is retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really appreciate the polite intelligent argument.

[Exitonly]

way to respond to Adanthar's response TWICE. but ignore the things i bring up.

[FishInAPhoneBooth]

Betgo-
In the 9BB AJ UTG example, is your argument that you are going to pass on a that because you are certain that in the next round (possibly two) you are almost guaranteed to find a spot. The reasoning being that with a 7.5BB/6BB stack far more hands become very +ev to push because you are risking less while at the same time the villain's calling range becomes wider. Thus you move up in the payouts as people bust out while you maximize the possibility of going to the felt in a much more +ev spot.

Is that the essence of your theory?

[Exitonly]

[ QUOTE ]
much more +ev spot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not happening, his extra EV is that it'll be folded to him in LP, and the better EV isnt because calling rangers are wider, that actually hurts you. The better EV is that you're effectivly getting better "pot odds" beccause your stack is smaller.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry oak, this is not like the stack size theory (which, btw i also don't like) Look at the hand betgo tried to explain his 'theory' with.

AJs with 9BB's.. he says to fold because you'll get more EV situations after you pass the blinds. BUT YOU WONT. Sometimes it'll fold to you in LP and maybe you'll have a hand that will have more EV to push there. EVEN IF YOU DO, you'll just get back to where you were when you passed up on the AJs EV.

It makes no sesne, you don't pass up small EV situations, in order to pay off half your stack, just to POSSIBLY get into a SLIGHTLY better EV situation.


[/ QUOTE ]

OK. well i hadn't read Betgos other thing with the AJ, but now that i have, I still feel it definately fits into Gigabets stack size thing. Here, i'll try to explain a bit better.



Gigs post:





"Ok, boys and girls, this here may be the most -ev post I have ever written. The Q3 push thread received quite a few responses from players who were confused about the validity of it, while I thought that it was a fairly standard play for most of us here(read independent.) Even if the players do not know why they do it, I thought that at least they would understand intuitively the value from plays such as these. Before I get into the actual dynamics of that individual hand, let me see if I can explain the "Gigabet Dilemma."

For those that do not know, there was a very long and controversial thread(in the MTT forum) about another hand that I had played. Basically, I had made a -ev call because I had felt that the positive ev I would gain later in the game, if I win the hand, outweighs the negative ev of the specific hand. Because you cannot mathematically prove the positive equity of future happenings with any certainty, this is all theory. The controversy surrounding the argument of whether or not to take the immediate negative expected value or make the "correct" play has been coined the Gigabet Dilemma.

If you are on my side, and agree with my reasoning, then you have to take these negative situations and use them to your advantage. But the real question is, how do you recognize when you can get on the negative side of the situation and know that if you lose that individual hand, your stack will still be able to contend with the fields? Understanding that every situation is one long stream of events, and the results of any single hand mean nothing in the long run isn't enough. Because of Gamblers Ruin(cannot recover from zero) you are forced to recognize that each situation is independent, and have to be results oriented for that hand. It is counter-intuitive to make a move based on one situation, rather than 100s of thousands similar situations, but because you cannot recover from zero, there has to be a plateau in each situation that you can recover from. Since each situation will involve different stacks, you have to depend on your results from the texture of that individual setting to decide whether to make that -ev move. You cannot create hard and fast guidelines to make that decision, rather, you have to go by your feel for the situation at hand.

Here is where it gets interesting. Although you cannot make guidelines, you can create one "model" that you can look at, and decide what the best decision would be in that model. If you decide that your model calls for avoiding the -ev situation, then adjust the sizes of the stacks until you find a model that calls for embracing the negative situation.

If you think you would have troubles actually finding a correct model, here are some things that may help you. Put everyone at near the same stack size, except for one player, who has around 1/3 the rest of the field, and gradually increase the blinds, if you still cannot get it, gradually increase your stack, while leaving everyones the same, including the small stack.

Once you get your model, use it as a relative comparison to some past stts you have played, and see if you cannot see actual game situations that are relatively close to that situation that is represented by your model. Read through enough hand histories, and you will start to intuitively see the situations as they arise.

In my mind, I see each stack as a "block" that fits into a complete mold that encompasses all of the chips in play. I cannot comprehend what "one" chip is, because that is too small of a unit for my mold. Here is a very loose description of what I mean. At the beginning of a tourney, everyone has a block that is the same size, imagine 10 blocks sitting next to each other, with a bold face line running across the top of all of the blocks. I actually envision a pie type mold, with the blocks pieced in the pie evenly, however that is too difficult to put into words, so I will try and analagize it. Ok, so your bold face line is just a guideline that represents the saturation point of the chips in play, basically, the average stack, but the line could go above or below avg, if one of the stack gets excessively larger or smaller than the fields. As the tourney goes on for a time, and the blinds get to a certain point, your line will get very erratic, and there will be times, when the size of the blinds will equal, or nearly equal the size of a "block" that is near the level of your line. When situations like these occur, and your stack hovers above the line, then any part of your stack over the line is essentially meaningless. However, because the line is erratic at that level of play, using those meaningless chips to capture a "block" will make your stack a real force that controls the level of that line. Basically, capturing a block is nearly equivalent to doubling up.

Here is a kicker, if your stack is flush with the line, and the size of the pot is nearly flush with the line, then you have an ideal situation to take alot of negative ev to call an all in from another player. If you can understand that statement, then you will understand alot more than just what I have written so far.

There will be situations where math tells you to push with any two cards to pick up the pot(preflop, of course), however, if you are using my model, you will see that because the "line" is relatively stable, and your stack hovers above the line, than taking down that pot is very nearly always wrong. This is working on the opposite side of the coin, and recognizing when +ev situations should actually be avoided, because it would be more positive to wait until either the line moves, or your stack moves closer to the line.

Now that you have read this, go back and look at the hand history, and see if you can see why I pushed all in with Q3, knowing I was going to take the worst of it in a showdown. If need be, I will go through and explain that hand in detail, and try and put together a more easily identifiable model that represents the stacks at that table.

I have never put this theory into words before, however, I have put them in use enough times to know that there is no doubt in my mind that they are true. I hope that this isn't too disjointed to read, and while I know that understanding it may be difficult, please read through it a few times before asking questions that may have an obvious answer. Obviously newer players will benefit from this more, since they have less "preconceived" notions of how to play. More experienced players may actually intuitively understand it more, but find it hard to believe that this is any kind of poker, and never really incorporate it into their game.

Gigabet"




Now betgo's AJ hand is an example of the concept highlighted. you do'nt have to always take a +EV spot. sometimes, even thought the mathematical average or expected EV is positive, the scenarios that are likely to result (possible stack sizes) after making that play might not be favorable.

[Exitonly]

Your result of folding, is that you lose %20 of your stack the next two hands. So that MAYBE you can get it back if you have a chance to steal in LP. You think that's favorable?

Every time betgo posts I chuckle. Totally disagree with this post. I'd rather have the largest stack and push around the little guys every day of the week. With an M of 5 you still have to double up every 12 to 15 minutes on line as the levels increase. Eventually even with +EV you get beat and you're out. It's like you're hoping a fair coin turns up heads 10 times in a row. theoretically possible, but highly improbable.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
Betgo-
In the 9BB AJ UTG example, is your argument that you are going to pass on a that because you are certain that in the next round (possibly two) you are almost guaranteed to find a spot. The reasoning being that with a 7.5BB/6BB stack far more hands become very +ev to push because you are risking less while at the same time the villain's calling range becomes wider. Thus you move up in the payouts as people bust out while you maximize the possibility of going to the felt in a much more +ev spot.

Is that the essence of your theory?

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty much. Moving up in payments as people bust out is not part of the theory.

However, in some cases you can remain a short stack in relation to the blinds while your stack increases as do the blinds.

I am often comfortable keeping it in the 4-8xBB range. I may not take a lot of risks to gain or maintain an orange zone stack. If I get to the orange zone, I may gamble to get a big stack or let myself get blinded to a small stack.

In some fast structures, late in the tournament almost everyone is in the red zone, so you can play red zone the whole way and make the final table.

Of course if everyone is in the red zone, I like to have a big orange zone stack; since I can get good odds by pushing and at the same time terrorize people with my big stack.

This works well for my style of play. I can play a short stack well. Playing flops with shallow money is not my strength. I get better results if I have a big or small stack that I can play aggressively.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe I am reading this thread. And to think some experienced posters are arguing for this...I am not going to cast any insults but this is all just so logically absurd I feel like its a geek's version of Who's on First...

Now excuse me bc I have to go cut both of my arms and legs off so I can collect 100/week workers comp...its +EV and easier.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I have explained several times, I presented this somewhat
ironically, but I am not arguing that a 6xBB stack is better to have than a 12xBB stack. I arguing that a 6xBB stack can be played more effectively than a 12xBB stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

As in you either double up or you're done? yes...in that case, 2BBs is even better.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
I get better results if I have a big or small stack that I can play aggressively.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is a very important point. so i want to make sure everyone who thinks this thread is "retarded"(for the mental 11 year olds who still use that word as an insult).

This theory says that YOU WANT A BIG STACK. and its worth risking becoming a redzone stack to attain a huge stack at times when you have a breakeven, or maybe even slightly -EV gamble to do so. if you lose the gamble and are down to a shortstack, its not that bad. if you win and become a huge stack its GREAT. but the point is that passing up the gamble to stay an in between stack isn't too favorable.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
As in you either double up or you're done? yes...in that case, 2BBs is even better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I agree. There are good EV+ opportunities with 2xBB. You don't have folding equity, but you should find a chance to get your money in with a reasonably good hand and pot odds.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
This works well for my style of play. I can play a short stack well. Playing flops with shallow money is not my strength. I get better results if I have a big or small stack that I can play aggressively.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is only because you are playing more agressively preflop and getting lucky. Having more is better because you should be playing VERY agressively postflop as well. IOW, if i am hearing you correctly, you are less concerned about getting all-in PF and you don't feel comfortable doing the same POST flop...well, that's a problem obviously if you feel you are better off with ("more effective", whatever) 6BBs than with 12BBs.

p

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
This is only because you are playing more agressively preflop and getting lucky. Having more is better because you should be playing VERY agressively postflop as well. IOW, if i am hearing you correctly, you are less concerned about getting all-in PF and you don't feel comfortable doing the same POST flop...well, that's a problem obviously if you feel you are better off with ("more effective", whatever) 6BBs than with 12BBs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do better preflop and it may be partly I play postflop poorly and partly I play preflop better than most people. A lot of people don't understand proper short stacked strategy.

With 12xBB, you are not going to see many flops anyway. If you raise or limp, you wind up with difficult situations if people come over top of you. If you see a flop, you often have to push with some pair, draw, or bluff. You have to fold some fairly strong hands from early position.

When you are short stacked, you have plenty of good opportunities to push. As a big stack, you can limp, raise, reraise, steal pots on the flop etc.

Having 9-20xBB and being a medium stack is not the easiest place to be. Sure a good player can find ways to play it, but you can gain more chips more easily with a stack that is easier to play aggressively.

[KneeCo]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it good to stay in the red zone?

[/ QUOTE ]
No.

[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes I think it is advantagous to maintain an M of 5 or less.

[/ QUOTE ]

Advantageous compared to what?
Advatageous to have a smaller M? yes.
Advantageous to have a great M? no.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it is necessarily worthwhile to make marginal pushes with like 9xBB with a small ante or no ante. If I get blinded down, I will have better opportunities.

[/ QUOTE ]


No you won't.
This is the main flaw of your post. You say you will have "better opportunities". This is incorrect.
You will have better opportunities to double up. However, you will NOT have better opportunities to get to ~18 BBs (which is where you get when you double up your 9BBs).
Ok, so rather than take a marginal situation at 9 BBs (which may get you to 18BBs or more), you get blinded down and take a slightly better situation (which may get you back to where you started - though slightly deeper in the tourney, which carries both advantageous and disadvantageous).

[ QUOTE ]
Some will say you can't win a tournament as a small stack.

[/ QUOTE ]
Right, if only there was a cliché regarding MTTs, something like 'anyone can win with a chip and a chair'.

[ QUOTE ]
However, a lot of daily live tournament and online tournaments on some sites have fast structures so that everyone at the final table is short stacked.

[/ QUOTE ]
So the theory holds when it's true by definition. Insight!

[ QUOTE ]
Of course you don't mind doubling up and becoming a bigger stack.

[/ QUOTE ]
Really?
Why?
I don't mean to be coy here, but you say it may be 'good' to stay in the red zone, and now you acknowledge that it's undoubtedly good to double up and get out of it.
So they are both good?
So what are we saying here, that one way or another having chips is favorable to not having chips? Fantastic.

[ QUOTE ]
However, as a medium stack, you have to more wait for big hands. As a short stack or a small stack, you can play more aggressively.

[/ QUOTE ]
To the limited extent that this is true, it's irrelevant, unless we consider playing hands favorable to not playing hands regardless of the value of those hands.
Also, you're misusing the term 'aggressively' here. Since aggressive is generally a quality in poker play, it carries certain connotations, none of which apply in this situation.
While it is necessary to play certain holdings with a short stack that you wouldn't play with a big stack, does that mean you are being more aggressive with a short stack than with a big stack? No, not quite.

You are being aggressive when you can intimidate other players, mainly by threatening them with the possibility of busting them. Accordingly, despite tightening starting hand requirements for most players, increased stack size fosters aggressiveness rather than inhibiting it.

You aren't being more aggressive with a short stack, you're just playing more pots.

As others have said, while staying in the red zone might make decisions easier, that in itself does not make it 'good'.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
I typed out a whole thing highlighting the major logical flaws in this arguement, but deleted it, after I started cursing to myself.

think of this...

you have 5xBB and push, are called by X.
you have 9xBB and raise to 5xBB, are reraised all in by X.
The intrinsic value of the 5xBB bet hasnt changed. it still wins you the smae number of chips 100% of the time.

In case 2, you can either fold and have a great 4xBB redzone stack (which are SO valuable), or you make a +EV call.

So, explain to me why having a 5xBB stack is worth more than 1/2 of a 10xBB stack, when we could just raise 1/2 our stack, incorrectly fold if reraised and have exactly 1/2 or stack?

This thread is borderline lunacy

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry for another bump to this, but i was just reading through this thread again, and i must have missed this post the first time. this example you gave is VERY flawed. if you push allin for 5x BB and are called, how do you think that you have the same number of chips as if you raise 5x BB with a 9xBB stack and then fold? you certainly win have more than 0% pot equity in the first example when your push is called.