Gigabet's STT Theory for Laymen (cliff notes version)...

[The Don]

Everyone seems to be confused about this so I will give my interpretation. He really gave away a ton of information in this article and it has really changed my game a lot (for the better obviously).

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...part=1&vc=1 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=2610396&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&fpart=1&vc=1)

The main point Gigabet was trying to make was that high blind/stack ratio STTs are all about stack sizes in the late game. People's ranges change based on the stack situation, whether they realize it or not. There is a certain point in STTs where your stack becomes large enough so that the cards you are dealt become irrelevant. Gigabet is willing to take "-EV" gambles in order to get to this point. On that specific hand the play is -cEV, but when taking into account potential future hands the play is both +cEV and +$EV. This is also the reason why he takes more gambles in the early game than most people.

Gig's theory is directly related to ICM and pushbotting. These concepts are all about making decisions based on opponent's ranges, which are directly related to stack sizes. Gig merely downplays the importance of his holdings, hence his "line" metaphor. This is why he articulates his logic verbally (although fairly poorly), rather than mathematically like eastbay does.

Just think about it, haven't there been a ton of situations where you have felt helpless because of the the stack situation and payout structure, even though the dominant stack is a poor player who is giving up a ton of +EV opportunities?

[applejuicekid]

Interesting, I think I get what you are saying but am not sure. Could you post an actual hand history with some commentary as an example?

[ace_in_the_hole]

Very good summary. I find it so funny when there are 4 left with Stack sizes: 1500, 1500, 1500, 5500. The 5500 stack will fold 90% of the hands rather than push 90%.

[LesJ]

Does anyone have a link to the original Gigabet post that Gigabet references in this linked post? The Q3 post from MTT?
Thanks,
Les

[The Don]

I would say that this is an excellent example (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=singletable&Number=289654 7&Searchpage=1&Main=2896547&Words=7740+The+Don&top ic=&Search=true#Post2896547) from a few months ago. Aside from one horrendous fold with A6o, this is exactly how I advocate playing based on stack sizes. I don't necessarily make any -EV plays here though. Those situations are fairly rare, I am trying to find something in my (now limited) database.

[ramses]

I think your analysis of the outcome is correct, but both you and gigabet seem arrive at the conclusion via empirical means when actually there is a sound mathematical basis for it. And no I am not going to share.

[durron597]

I've said it 100 times, and I'll say it again. Gigabet stack size theory is not important for low buyin SnGs and making -EV plays because of it is so rare even in high buyin ones that 95% of the players on here should not even worry about it.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
I've said it 100 times, and I'll say it again. Gigabet stack size theory is not important for low buyin SnGs and making -EV plays because of it is so rare even in high buyin ones that 95% of the players on here should not even worry about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. But his emphasis on how relative stack sizes dictate decisions is important.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
I think your analysis of the outcome is correct, but both you and gigabet seem arrive at the conclusion via empirical means when actually there is a sound mathematical basis for it. And no I am not going to share.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is tough because so much is implied based on future situations, not concrete.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've said it 100 times, and I'll say it again. Gigabet stack size theory is not important for low buyin SnGs and making -EV plays because of it is so rare even in high buyin ones that 95% of the players on here should not even worry about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. But his emphasis on how relative stack sizes dictate decisions is important.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course its important! But thats what we talk about here 90% of the time! Making -EV decisions however, is dumb, not for 95% of us, try 99%. They should be by definition.

His post (the Q3 hand?) was +EV for those of us that play against those that try to implement it. Thats all...nothing against him, because obviously he is a great player.

[DMACM]

[ QUOTE ]
I've said it 100 times, and I'll say it again. Gigabet stack size theory is not important for low buyin SnGs and making -EV plays because of it is so rare even in high buyin ones that 95% of the players on here should not even worry about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I respectfully disagree. If having a big stack creates more future +ev opportunities, we should err on the side of taking gambles to create this situation. Further we should avoid situations where a gamble can result in us having 0 FE and little chance of winning. In both cases probable future situations understate or overstate the equity in the win and loss scenario. Having a big stack in some situations creates more +ev situations even at the 11s and a 0 FE no mans land also exists at the 11s.

[vinyard]

[ QUOTE ]
I would say that this is an excellent example (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=singletable&Number=289654 7&Searchpage=1&Main=2896547&Words=7740+The+Don&top ic=&Search=true#Post2896547) from a few months ago. Aside from one horrendous fold with A6o, this is exactly how I advocate playing based on stack sizes. I don't necessarily make any -EV plays here though. Those situations are fairly rare, I am trying to find something in my (now limited) database.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense, but while your hand illustrates pretty solid big stack poker (I also don't care for the KTs fold) I don't see any play that is comparable to the Q3 play Gigabet made. If you are referring to the hand where you come back over the top of the other stacks min-raise I think almost everyone here does that with any two cards.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would say that this is an excellent example (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=singletable&Number=289654 7&Searchpage=1&Main=2896547&Words=7740+The+Don&top ic=&Search=true#Post2896547) from a few months ago. Aside from one horrendous fold with A6o, this is exactly how I advocate playing based on stack sizes. I don't necessarily make any -EV plays here though. Those situations are fairly rare, I am trying to find something in my (now limited) database.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense, but while your hand illustrates pretty solid big stack poker (I also don't care for the KTs fold) I don't see any play that is comparable to the Q3 play Gigabet made. If you are referring to the hand where you come back over the top of the other stacks min-raise I think almost everyone here does that with any two cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, and I didnt even look at it, but I can probably tell (given a calling range) that it was +EV.

From the few hands I looked at, I think OP is confusing playing BigStack poker with something gigabet said. However you visualize it is fine BTW, but it is nothing ground breaking or earth shattering.

Calling in a -EV spot is probably never a good idea...but Ive been wrong before and I am sure I will be many times again... I love being proven wrong...only way I learn.

[Exitonly]

[ QUOTE ]
Calling in a -EV spot is probably never a good idea...but Ive been wrong before and I am sure I will be many times again... I love being proven wrong...only way I learn.

[/ QUOTE ]


It all depends how you calculate EV.

You're correct that it wouldn't be good to call in a -EV situaton.

But cEV and EV can be completely different, both when -cEV translates to +EV, or +cEV translates to -EV.

If calling and winning is more +EV than calling and losing is -EV, then it's fine to take a marginally -cEV situation. (all these EV's i'm blabbering about is bound to make this look retarded). And conversely if calling and winning is LESS +EV than calling and losing is -EV. blah blah

i duunno if i made any points or not.

But i semi-agree with you.

[ QUOTE ]
Very good summary. I find it so funny when there are 4 left with Stack sizes: 1500, 1500, 1500, 5500. The 5500 stack will fold 90% of the hands rather than push 90%.

[/ QUOTE ]

In most STTs, when down to 4, the stacks are more like 1000, 1500, 2000, 3500. No wiggle room for -EV moves by bigstack. In a MTT perhaps (bigstack has 25,000 and shorstack has 1,500).

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Very good summary. I find it so funny when there are 4 left with Stack sizes: 1500, 1500, 1500, 5500. The 5500 stack will fold 90% of the hands rather than push 90%.

[/ QUOTE ]

In most STTs, when down to 4, the stacks are more like 1000, 1500, 2000, 3500. No wiggle room for -EV moves by bigstack. In a MTT perhaps (bigstack has 25,000 and shorstack has 1,500).

[/ QUOTE ]

The issue is, which has little to do with -$EV moeves, is that even in an STT in the above layout, there wont be many -EV plays for the bigstack if the blinds are high enough...this is because the 1500 stacks' calling ranges will be ridiculously tight because they dont want to bust. I am speaking in the abstract of course. On the other hand, same situation, and you are the bigstack in the BB and blinds are 150/300 and you look down at 23o, it would be wrong to call UTG's push...there is no theory that you can tell me that would refute this. In fact, busting him means much less stealing for you. I am getting off track...lets just say I should stop getting involved in these threads.

[pooh74]

I was referring to $EV...but I get what you're saying.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
Calling in a -EV spot is probably never a good idea...but Ive been wrong before and I am sure I will be many times again... I love being proven wrong...only way I learn.

[/ QUOTE ]

in the linked thread, gigs KJo is a perfect example of when taking a -EV(Tchips) gamble is clearly correct.

[tech]

[ QUOTE ]
Gigabet stack size theory is not important for low buyin SnGs

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe some parts of it are not as applicable, but IMO some of it applies to any type of tournament regardless of player skill. For example, the part about how to use the amount of your stack that is "above the line" is a generic concept that most people do not use properly.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would say that this is an excellent example (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=singletable&Number=289654 7&Searchpage=1&Main=2896547&Words=7740+The+Don&top ic=&Search=true#Post2896547) from a few months ago. Aside from one horrendous fold with A6o, this is exactly how I advocate playing based on stack sizes. I don't necessarily make any -EV plays here though. Those situations are fairly rare, I am trying to find something in my (now limited) database.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense, but while your hand illustrates pretty solid big stack poker (I also don't care for the KTs fold) I don't see any play that is comparable to the Q3 play Gigabet made. If you are referring to the hand where you come back over the top of the other stacks min-raise I think almost everyone here does that with any two cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, and I didnt even look at it, but I can probably tell (given a calling range) that it was +EV.

From the few hands I looked at, I think OP is confusing playing BigStack poker with something gigabet said. However you visualize it is fine BTW, but it is nothing ground breaking or earth shattering.

Calling in a -EV spot is probably never a good idea...but Ive been wrong before and I am sure I will be many times again... I love being proven wrong...only way I learn.

[/ QUOTE ]

You overestimate the amount of people who have a grasp of excellent bubble play. Good STTers tend to be too loose when the stacks are relatively equal, and too tight when they are varied. Curtains' describes the former pretty well in a lot of his posts, while the latter is commonly discussed in posts like this.

Also COME ON, 7740 chips with 4 people remaining is pretty amazing. A lot of luck, but also a lot of manipulation.

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Gigabet stack size theory is not important for low buyin SnGs

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe some parts of it are not as applicable, but IMO some of it applies to any type of tournament regardless of player skill. For example, the part about how to use the amount of your stack that is "above the line" is a generic concept that most people do not use properly.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Gigabet stack concepts maybe give you an extra 3% edge against the field. So if you are much much much better than your opponents, it's not worth bothering with. If you are only a little better than your opponents, then this extra edge becomes much more important.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would say that this is an excellent example (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=singletable&Number=289654 7&Searchpage=1&Main=2896547&Words=7740+The+Don&top ic=&Search=true#Post2896547) from a few months ago. Aside from one horrendous fold with A6o, this is exactly how I advocate playing based on stack sizes. I don't necessarily make any -EV plays here though. Those situations are fairly rare, I am trying to find something in my (now limited) database.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense, but while your hand illustrates pretty solid big stack poker (I also don't care for the KTs fold) I don't see any play that is comparable to the Q3 play Gigabet made. If you are referring to the hand where you come back over the top of the other stacks min-raise I think almost everyone here does that with any two cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, and I didnt even look at it, but I can probably tell (given a calling range) that it was +EV.

From the few hands I looked at, I think OP is confusing playing BigStack poker with something gigabet said. However you visualize it is fine BTW, but it is nothing ground breaking or earth shattering.

Calling in a -EV spot is probably never a good idea...but Ive been wrong before and I am sure I will be many times again... I love being proven wrong...only way I learn.

[/ QUOTE ]

You overestimate the amount of people who have a grasp of excellent bubble play. Good STTers tend to be too loose when the stacks are relatively equal, and too tight when they are varied. Curtains' describes the former pretty well in a lot of his posts, while the latter is commonly discussed in posts like this.

Also COME ON, 7740 chips with 4 people remaining is pretty amazing. A lot of luck, but also a lot of manipulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I mean...People should worry about how to play a bigstack before they take stupid risks trying to get one.