Keeping the Bubble Alive to gain $EV

[GtrHtr]

I’ve been analyzing this (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=3876338&an=0&page=1# Post3876338) post by Scuba Chuck. In the very last paragraph he writes this:

[ QUOTE ]
But back to the bigstack (‘cos we’re discussing proper bubble play). As you can see, in theory, bigstack doesn’t want to win this hand against shorty, as he transfers 21.6% of $EV to the other two stacks. (You can see that shorty has 24.4% of equity if he wins, but if big stack wins, he only gains 2.8% of equity) So in theory, again, bigstack really does not want to have a good hand here.

[/ QUOTE ]

On to the hand:

Preflop, the $EV of each stack is:
Seat 2: axbear ( $770 ) 20.9%
Seat 3: Hero ( $6420 ) 42.2%
Seat 9: galziegrl ( $2660 ) 32.6%
Seat 10: rrichone ( $150 ) 4.3%

Assume that shorty has top 50% of hands, perhaps 30% and 2d stack has any 2. If I fold, and shorty wins against 2d stack, shorty has 450 chips. Then assume I raise on the next hand, with a worse hand, and try and funnel chips to shorty, keeping the bubble alive to increase my $EV.

Also, if I fold and 2d stack wins the transfer of $EV is fairly irrelevant.

Thoughts?


***** Hand History for Game 2322140396 *****
NL Hold'em $50 Buy-in + $5 Entry Fee Trny:13712624 Level:8 Blinds(200/400)
Table Table 12197 (Real Money)
Seat 2 is the button
Total number of players : 4
Seat 2: axbear ( $770 )
Seat 3: Hero ( $6420 )
Seat 9: galziegrl ( $2660 )
Seat 10: rrichone ( $150 )
Trny:13712624 Level:8
Blinds(200/400)
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to Hero [ 6c 6d ]

[pineapple888]

Scuba Chuck's analysis was wrong, as I pointed out in his post.

Losing to shorty to keep the bubble alive has been discussed before. I'm not a big fan of the idea cause I think you'll get spite calls, but YMMV.

[Nicholasp27]

if u are willing to be aggressive, then keeping shorty alive can be really good...the midstacks will fold to u all day long cause they want itm, even if they are mad at u for folding...half the time they'll think u are just a stupid donk so won't spite call u; the other half they'll wanna spite call u but won't wanna lose out on the cash, so won't

but if u purposefully keep shorty alive on the bubble, u better be aggressive and get that ev back (and then some) by bullying those mid stacks

it also works best when shorty is the seat before u, so you can bully the midstacks 50% of the hands without worrying that shorty acting after u may call

[valenzuela]

lol, youre not actually counting on other players having the correct calling range??? becuase that would be really moronic.

[GtrHtr]

[ QUOTE ]
lol, youre not actually counting on other players having the correct calling range??? becuase that would be really moronic.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF are you talking about?

[valenzuela]

Im talking about the statement that big stack wants to lose the showdown, that statement counts on the other stacks to play correcty.

[GtrHtr]

[ QUOTE ]
Im talking about the statement that big stack wants to lose the showdown, that statement counts on the other stacks to play correcty.

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks for your input.

[junkmail3]

I wrote up something longer, but in short, I think it's alright to let the small stack stick around, because you are likely to be able to pick up one more round of steals due to the fact that no one wants to bust here.

(and this is all you would lose, one steals worth of chips)

In fact, I'll often fold to the small stack in the BB if I can in order to keep pushing with my giant stack.


Edit: I don't care if he knows it or not, but to be correct, his calling ranges would have to be sooooo tight, that it could be more profitable for you to employ this tactic. (of course, I'm not sure, but I suppose) So tight to the tune of AA/KK.

[GtrHtr]

[ QUOTE ]
Scuba Chuck's analysis was wrong, as I pointed out in his post.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with your point. Here the blinds are worth > 10% $EV and will go up in value on the next level.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Scuba Chuck's analysis was wrong, as I pointed out in his post.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with your point. Here the blinds are worth > 10% $EV and will go up in value on the next level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Scuba Chuck was simply misunderstanding EV, and he was wrong, and you are wrong if you agree with him.

If your point is that it's worth giving up some EV now for the prospect of EV later, that's open for debate, as this thread, and many others, show.

[GtrHtr]

Your point on the Scuba post was that by giving up 2% EV or any EV was wrong. My point is that stealing the blinds from 2d or even 3d stack by keeping shorty in the game is worth more than 10% EV. Also, if you read his words in that paragraph, he starts out by saying "in theory".

[pokerlaw]

I still push here - I dont want any shorty making a comeback on me or anything. if the hand were junk instead of 66, then fold.

here is a slightly different situation I had last night in a $25+2 Stars turbo (notice the shortie is posting the BB). my pushing range was any two as far as BB was concerned, as I had won the last 6 hands via pushing or getting my BB folded to me.

PokerStars Game #2992396999: Tournament #14776008, Hold'em No Limit - Level VIII (200/400) - 2005/11/06 - 21:30:01 (ET)
Table '14776008 1' Seat #9 is the button
Seat 2: metfan630 (6960 in chips)
Seat 4: nearlythere (1140 in chips)
Seat 6: sammyss (3520 in chips)
Seat 9: Dazuko (1880 in chips)
metfan630: posts the ante 25
nearlythere: posts the ante 25
sammyss: posts the ante 25
Dazuko: posts the ante 25
metfan630: posts small blind 200
nearlythere: posts big blind 400
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to metfan630 [6s Ad]
sammyss: folds
Dazuko: folds
metfan630: raises 6535 to 6935 and is all-in
nearlythere: folds
metfan630 collected 900 from pot
metfan630: doesn't show hand
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 900 | Rake 0
Seat 2: metfan630 (small blind) collected (900)
Seat 4: nearlythere (big blind) folded before Flop
Seat 6: sammyss folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 9: Dazuko (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
Your point on the Scuba post was that by giving up 2% EV or any EV was wrong. My point is that stealing the blinds from 2d or even 3d stack by keeping shorty in the game is worth more than 10% EV. Also, if you read his words in that paragraph, he starts out by saying "in theory".

[/ QUOTE ]

In theory, he is wrong. He said nothing about second-order effects. He claimed that you should pass up a clear benefit since other players also benefit. This is simply, obviously, 100% theoretically wrong.

Meanwhile, I understand your point very well. I'm not even really arguing with you about your point. It's open for debate, and others have debated it, and I don't feel like debating it.

I'm done.

[GtrHtr]

Fair enough.

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
Scuba Chuck's analysis was wrong, as I pointed out in his post.


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. You picked out one point in my post, and so the rest of it is wrong. Great job.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Scuba Chuck's analysis was wrong, as I pointed out in his post.


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. You picked out one point in my post, and so the rest of it is wrong. Great job.

[/ QUOTE ]

OP quoted one paragraph. I was referring to that paragraph, which is completely obvious if you bothered to read this post.

Lighten up.

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As you can see, in theory, bigstack doesn’t want to win this hand against shorty, as he transfers 21.6% of $EV to the other two stacks. (You can see that shorty has 24.4% of equity if he wins, but if big stack wins, he only gains 2.8% of equity) So in theory, again, bigstack really does not want to have a good hand here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Big stack wants to win because he gains equity, period. The other two stacks are also happy that big stack wins, but that's irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said in my original post, this part is just theory. Why do you think it is flat out wrong?

[sofere]

The way it is worded, i believe your theory is incorrect because you are judging a move based on how it affects your opponents $EV, not by how it affects your $EV.

Your data was as follows:
[ QUOTE ]
Again, assume the 200/400 blinds.
UTG 5000 (39.3%) (34.1%) (42.1%)
Button 800 (13.1%) (24.4%) (0%)
SB 1500 (19.9%) (16.4%) (26.6%)
BB 2700 (27.7%) (25.1%) (31.3%)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
bigstack doesn’t want to win this hand against shorty

[/ QUOTE ]

As I read it, your contention was that if called by the small stack, you would prefer lose the hand to winning it. According to ICM your equity if you win is 42.1% vs 34.1% if you lose.

Therefore, given that small stack and only small stack calls winning the hand makes you 8% better off than losing. It doesn't matter how much equity was transferred to or from your opponents, all that matters is that you are in a better position than you were before.

[durron597]

I haven't read the replies to this thread yet, but I would only care about keeping the bubble alive if like, you had 2000 fewer chips and the 770 guy had those 2000 chips. Then there would be a lot of chips to pick up by exploiting the bubble.

But with the stacks as given in the OP, you have almost 2/3 of the chips in play already. You are basically guaranteed at least second. Just play to maximize cEV.

[axeshigh]

The big stack will call you with KTo anyway. With 6k+ chips, you have more to lose than to gain.

[GtrHtr]

[ QUOTE ]
The big stack will call you with KTo anyway. With 6k+ chips, you have more to lose than to gain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aside from the main point of this post - a discussion on keeping the bubble alive in this scenario, the 2d stack (the one I assume you mean big stack) would be making a huge -EV call with anything less than AA or maybe KK. KTo, your example, would be a massive -EV call.