betgo's red zone idea in practice

[pfkaok]

so i had recently been playing fairly aggressively and BB was aggressive, so i thought i'm probably over 40% vs. his range. losing here i'd be in redzone. winning im in good shape, and folding i'm in midzone.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t150 (8 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Hero (t3225)
SB (t15455)
BB (t2370)
UTG (t1550)
UTG+1 (t10870)
MP1 (t3485)
MP2 (t2460)
CO (t1265)

Preflop: Hero is Button with 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif, T/images/graemlins/spade.gif.
<font color="#666666">5 folds</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises to t400</font>, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, <font color="#CC3333">BB raises to t2370</font>, Hero calls t1970.

[Lloyd]

If you think you're 40% against his range then you need 1.5 to 1 odds just to make this a neutral decision. You're getting almost exactly 1.5 to 1 odds. So this isn't a +EV call. Nor is it a -EV call. It all gets back to whether or not variance is good for variance's stake. You certainly have a big enough stack to play with if you fold. And I think a goal in any money making activity should be to maximize returns while limiting variance. So I wouldn't make this call but am certainly open to other ideas as to why it's a good thing.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
It all gets back to whether or not variance is good for variance's stake.

[/ QUOTE ]


exactly. thats why i felt like at this point variance is my friend since either way i'll be in a more profitable zone stackwise.

[Lloyd]

I don't understand why you think the "red" zone is more profitable than a middle zone.

[Exitonly]

yea, this is definitely not right.

Just because more hands become profitable to push/play aggressivly. Doesnt mean it's amore profitable 'zone' to be in.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why you think the "red" zone is more profitable than a middle zone

[/ QUOTE ]

this thread:

better to be in redzone? (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Number=3766160&amp;page=0&amp;view=colla psed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=14&amp;fpart=1)

[Lloyd]

Well only you and betgo thought that concept had any merit to begin with. I don't believe it does.

[0evg0]

I give the theory 1.5 thumbs up.

I don't know, I'm seeing some parallels to Giga' Q3o in this.

[Lloyd]

It's not even close.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]

I give the theory 1.5 thumbs up.

I don't know, I'm seeing some parallels to Giga' Q3o in this.


[/ QUOTE ]

heh. yep. i was thinking the same thing.

[Exitonly]

AGAIN!

[0evg0]

I need to re-read the thread maybe. I don't know. I haven't slept in too long. I think if I highlight the bottom of betgo's original post it will show "haha. you're a dumbass." in white caps.

good night.

edit: "this is very similar to the gigabet stack size thread from a while ago"

Obviously I'm not the only one seeing the similarities. Is betgo trying to gauge his respect by copying Giga's theory and evaluating the response?

I'm going to have fun reading this tomorrow.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
AGAIN!

[/ QUOTE ]

HAHAHA. yep. 3 of my 5 tables are bubble or later, so i'm even less looking at my preview posts.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously I'm not the only one seeing the similarities.

[/ QUOTE ]

4 BB != 20 BB <font color="white">Gigabet had 4 or 5 BB in that hand, which is like 95% of the difference </font>

but apparently 4 BB is better, so what do I know

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
4 BB != 20 BB Gigabet had 4 or 5 BB in that hand, which is like 95% of the difference

but apparently 4 BB is better, so what do I know

[/ QUOTE ]

i guess you mean the pushers stack in gigs thread to the one in mine, but thats not really the point...this hand is quite similar in terms of mine and Gigabets stack sizes. they're both at a point where its beneficial to GAMBLE, so long as the gamble is at least very close to breakeven or better. sure the situations are different, and the hands played out a lot diferently, but i'm pretty sure its the same, or at least a very similar concept.

[Vee Quiva]

This is a horrible play. There's no way you're 40% here. You are praying he turns over unpaired over cards or Ace-X.

I just don't understand why you would risk your tournament life here. Going from 20-40 BB does not increase your tournament equity all that much at this point in the tournament.

Now if you were down to 10-12 BB this might make a little more sense. Still I will always hate calling with 10 high.

You do realize that by going into the redzone here, even though more EV+ spots may open up than if you had a mid-ranged stack, you are merely trying to recover the chips you just lost on a -EV / MAYBE 0EV spot, without even being able to do so by doubling up? You also realize, that with your current stack, and the blinds continually going up, if you do not come across any +EV spots to bring your stack up, eventually you will enter the red-zone anyway and those same red-zone spots will become available, except for more chips?

I suggest doing your best to pick +EV spots throughout, and not finding excuses to get your money in with the worst of it. If you get into the redzone due to a +EV play you made, so be it, let the cards come as they may. Don't pick -EV spots on this kind of basis, though.

[Exitonly]

[ QUOTE ]
I suggest doing your best to pick +EV spots throughout, and not finding excuses to get your money in with the worst of it. If you get into the redzone due to a +EV play you made, so be it, let the cards come as they may. Don't pick -EV spots on this kind of basis, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

well said. it's not the end of the world to have a short stack, but i'm not going to make any marginally losing plays to chance getting there. and i really dont think theres much of an argument to do so.

--

In that AJs hand, that's a +EV push, and that same +EV situation you're talking about after the blinds pass you, will still be there, and this time you'll have more chips, and you'll be building your stack back up. Theres no way i'm passing up +EV w/ a stack of 10BB, just so i could MAYBE (who says it gets folded to me, or that i get any good cards) get a MARGINALLY more +EV situation, just so i can get back to where i just was??! That really doesn't make any sense.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a horrible play. There's no way you're 40% here. You are praying he turns over unpaired over cards or Ace-X.

I just don't understand why you would risk your tournament life here. Going from 20-40 BB does not increase your tournament equity all that much at this point in the tournament.


[/ QUOTE ]

I like the call because you are atleast 40%. This is a resteal situation. You are a 7-2 dog versus an overpair, 3-2 versus AK/AQ, and 2-1 if someone has a T or 9. However, you are about even versus Ax or 22-88, and a 5-3 favorite versus a lower suited connector. There is no reason to believe villain has a big hand.

You are mainly gambling to make a big stack and win the tournament. If you lose and wind up in the red zone, you can play aggressively and you still have a shot.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
You are mainly gambling to make a big stack and win the tournament. If you lose and wind up in the red zone, you can play aggressively and you still have a shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes. why is it that it seems like everyone else on here refuses to even think this way. i mean, is it so hard to believe that taking highrisk GAMBLING plays is correct at times?

and yes. in this spot i'm pretty sure i'm at least very close to 40%. he's an aggressive player, and very likely knows that i'm an aggressive player in steal position. his range here is quite large.

[Vee Quiva]

My real problem here is that I think it is better to gamble in situations where you are the bettor and not the caller. I would rather have at least some fold equity if I am going to risk my tournament life.

After all, you can't win the tournament if you are not in the tournament. That is still rule number 1 last time I checked.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
tournament life.

[/ QUOTE ]

for the love of God stop it

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]

Quote:
tournament life.



for the love of God stop it

[/ QUOTE ]

haha. yes. there's already enough thoughtless repetitiveness in this thread, do we really need to bring back an old classic?

[nath]

If I planned to call a reraise I would raise even more from the button so as to a)increase FE and b)give me better odds to call the reraise. let's say to 600. now you're getting almost 1.7 to 1 odds to call instead of 1.45 to 1. and you only need about 37% equity as opposed to a little over 40%. maybe not much of a difference but i bet if you factor in FE from BB (assuming he's more likely to take the bigger raise as a sign of a "real"hand), it makes it a better move.

[Exitonly]

I think the idea of raising more to enticee you to call a reraise is a bad concept. harrington wrote about it in his books and i didnt like it then either. Just sounds like your'e trapping yourself.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the idea of raising more to enticee you to call a reraise is a bad concept. harrington wrote about it in his books and i didnt like it then either. Just sounds like your'e trapping yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah. thats one of the ideas in HOH2 that i pretty strongly disagree with.

in this spot, i felt like 3x was plenty to get a decent FE. in most spots it is. and by raising less you also have an option of either folding or calling, depending who pushes in. if you price yourself in, then ofeten you're forced to call a push from a passive player whose range is very small. when you raise less you can call the aggressive players more b/c their range will be bigger, and so your equity vs. them will be more.

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the idea of raising more to enticee you to call a reraise is a bad concept. harrington wrote about it in his books and i didnt like it then either. Just sounds like your'e trapping yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

But here we have a situation where hero has decided that he is going to call a reraise all-in from the big blind. Unless that decision was made after the reraise-- which is a mistake because you should always have a plan in mind when you raise-- then why not make the initial raise bigger? The decision to call the all-in already stands; make the raise that is most likely to have the effect you want (i.e. a fold, or at least a reasonable all-in call of a reraise).

I don't really look at it as "trapping" myself, to be honest. I see it as creating a favorable gamble where previously none might have been had.

(Also, the situation Harrington described was something like 88 UTG, which means 9 players left to act, so specific reads aren't nearly as applicable. In this situation if hero wants to call a push he should make the bigger raise.)

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
in this spot, i felt like 3x was plenty to get a decent FE. in most spots it is. and by raising less you also have an option of either folding or calling, depending who pushes in. if you price yourself in, then ofeten you're forced to call a push from a passive player whose range is very small. when you raise less you can call the aggressive players more b/c their range will be bigger, and so your equity vs. them will be more.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK-- but you raised to 400 which is not even 3xBB.
Somewhere on this board I heard mention of the idea that you should raise more in late position and less in early position to compensate for the respect your position commands. (i.e. a 2.5x raise UTG is likely to be more respected than the same raise from the button or CO, so raise more from those positions to achieve the desired effect.) I find this principle to actually work quite well. So part of the reason I suggest the bigger raise is to increase FE-- you don't really want him to play back at you, right? 4x is by no means unreasonable here.

You also mention that you may be priced in to call a tighter player's raise, possibly incorrectly, but here you only have two players to act. The SB has a monster stack-- you aren't calling any reraise from him, obviously. You're only adjusting your raise for the big blind, so make the raise that's more likely to get him to fold / price you in if you want to make that call. (It's actually more analogous to a hand from HOH2 where he has TT in the small blind and advocates a raise size that makes it incorrect for one overcard to call because that's the only real situation in which your raise can force an incorrect decision.)

[pfkaok]

oh. damn. sorry. i'm dumb sometimes. i forgot that this was before there were antees, so i almost always raise to 2.5BB then. i like to raise with potsize in mind as an attempt to be more game-theoretically correct. sometimes i try to have a plan ahead of time, but a lot of times i like to leave my options open. in this hand, if SB pushes i probably fold. he's not as aggressive, not desperate, and if i raised to 4x BB i would probably be in a horrible spot if he pushed. i'd probably either fold and lose a lot of my stack, or make a breakeven, or slightly worse call for all my chips. plus, i make it less likely that BB will make a total resteal with garbage, and i can call with the chance to get all his chips as a favorite. when i raise more he won't have any misbelief that he can resteal, so his pushing range will be much stronger, and my call will then not be too good.

[Exitonly]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the idea of raising more to enticee you to call a reraise is a bad concept. harrington wrote about it in his books and i didnt like it then either. Just sounds like your'e trapping yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

But here we have a situation where hero has decided that he is going to call a reraise all-in from the big blind. Unless that decision was made after the reraise-- which is a mistake because you should always have a plan in mind when you raise-- then why not make the initial raise bigger? The decision to call the all-in already stands; make the raise that is most likely to have the effect you want (i.e. a fold, or at least a reasonable all-in call of a reraise).

I don't really look at it as "trapping" myself, to be honest. I see it as creating a favorable gamble where previously none might have been had.

(Also, the situation Harrington described was something like 88 UTG, which means 9 players left to act, so specific reads aren't nearly as applicable. In this situation if hero wants to call a push he should make the bigger raise.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Listen to yourself, you're planning on calling a reraise.. but you ahve 9Ts! it's not that strtong of a hand, you won't be favorite... so you decide to play the hand so that it looks alright when you eventually do call the all in? No way.

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
Listen to yourself, you're planning on calling a reraise.. but you ahve 9Ts! it's not that strtong of a hand, you won't be favorite... so you decide to play the hand so that it looks alright when you eventually do call the all in? No way.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're worried about being the favorite you would just fold the T9s to the all-in, right?
Since hero has ALREADY DECIDED to call a re-raise, I think he should choose a raise size that is going to be more in line with the goals he is trying to accomplish, namely:
1)Get the blinds to fold
2)Call a push from BB with reasonable odds

[pfkaok]

but the point is that i don't always call a push, esp if SB pushes. so i want to give myself the option of folding with minimal losses, and i also want to get myself into a spot where BBs push hand range will include a lot of hands that i don't mind going allin with. mind you, i still believe he will fold alot, but there's a huge difference between my equity when he pushes his top 25% of hands than when he pushes his top 5-10% of hands.

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
but the point is that i don't always call a push, esp if SB pushes. so i want to give myself the option of folding with minimal losses, and i also want to get myself into a spot where BBs push hand range will include a lot of hands that i don't mind going allin with. mind you, i still believe he will fold alot, but there's a huge difference between my equity when he pushes his top 25% of hands than when he pushes his top 5-10% of hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, fair enough, but I think the additional folding equity from a bigger raise compensates for those concerns. After all, you're essentially hoping to steal the blinds, and a small raise is really inviting a re-steal from a hand where you might have a shot if you call the re-steal but you don't really want it to even come to that.
In other words, I see your point-- especially since I DO make those raises with marginal hands intending to call re-steals-- but in practical application you want to just take the pot down here more often than not.

[pfkaok]

well, i think this is why it's an application of stacksize theory. winnign the blinds here is nice, but its not the ultimate goal. when your stack is the size mine was there, i don't NEED to win the blinds. sure, its still a blind steal, and i still want to win the blinds, but i don't mind sacrificing a small % of my ability to steal the blinds in exchange for other factors. mainly here its the chance to win BB's stack when he resteals. it will be a gamble when i call his push, but i think the EV is there.

witht the smaller raise i fell my steal % is still decent, although not quite as high as if i made a larger raise. and its also givingg BB the chance to make a bigger mistake. when i raise bigger he'll usually play more/less correctly against me FTOP wise, and i'll be the one making a mistake.

[nath]

Hmm. I like the way you think about this. That makes sense. My approach is more applicable later in the tournament, with antes and such, and when your stack is shorter.
I suppose I feel iffy about such a close gamble... but hell, I always admire anyone willing to take a risk to try to pick up a big stack.

I agree w/ PFkaok. His situation isn't that -EV and I think w/ his stacksize (being tough to play) that gambling here is a good risk.