A (way too) typical satellite bust-out hand (PStars)

[McMelchior]

Playing the two-table $13+1 satellite for Sunday's $200+15 tourney. Entry to the winner, $19 to #2.

Down to 10 players at two 5-handed tables, blinds are 75/150, I have 2,175 in the CO, average is 2,700. Shortest stack is 250 on the other table, shortest stack on my table is on the button with 1,300. SB holds 3,500, BB 4,750.

The game has been aggressive lately, with preflop pot-size raises consequently taking down the blinds. Earlier in the sat I've shown down some solid hand, lately I have increased my stack by means of some stealing and all-in re-stealing on the BB, but I'm not comfortable at the table & believe my image to be somewhat weak/tight. Then again, it might just be my paranoia.

The BB (from Sweden, maybe it's just my prejudice, but to me players from Sweden and Finland seem more aggressive than the average) is the most aggressive player at the table, and have mainly accumulated his stack by massive preflop raising.

UTG folds, I look down at 77, and make my standard pot-size raise to 525, leaving me 1,650. Folded to BB, that moves all-in. I put him on a small pair or a middle to somewhat better Ace, trying to scare me out of the pot.

If I call and win I'll have 4,435, having taken a dent out of the biggest current problem (the BB), and probably very soon finding myself at the final table with a good chance of being a real factor. The pot is offering me 2,250 for an investment of 1,650 (1:1.4).

In spite of my unease I estimate myself as 20% - 30% better than the average player left, that is with a marginal skill advantage. This being a satellite with low stack/blinds ratio I'm concerned that my skill advantage is not going to help a lot unless I can back it up with a decent sized stack.

If I fold I'll definitively find myself at the final table within minutes, but with only half of an average stack, blinds eating into me with a rate of 20% pr. round, and a number of much bigger stacks willing to gamble. I'm not fond of this scenario - I'll need a lot of luck not to exit as #6 or #7 ....

Is it possible to fold here? Or should I – aware of maybe a 30% - 40% risk of being popped by one of the blinds - have limped instead of raising preflop and folded to the raise?

Anyway, I call, BB shows AJs, and the board presents two Jacks and no 7s.

As Sklansky points out my last chips have the most value, but I also believe in the necessity of making at stand before my chip count goes too low to be playable. This type of situation – where I’m more or less even money against a big stack moving in, but also consider myself pretty chance-less if I fold, seem to ride me like a nightmare., and all comments & suggestions are highly appreciated - thank you!

Best,

McMelchior (Johan)

[sam h]

If the BB is indeed that aggressive, then you probably just have to call and hope.

[ QUOTE ]
In spite of my unease I estimate myself as 20% - 30% better than the average player left

[/ QUOTE ]

I never understand where people get these kinds of numbers from. How are you calculating that and what does it mean? Anyway, my gut feeling is that this number, however determined, is a little optimistic. I'm not sure anybody is 30% better than the field.

[jomatty]

this is a similar question to one i posted last night. you might take a look at what people responded as i thought people gave goodfeedback.
anyways given the situation you presented youre in a position where youre going to have to gamble either now or very soon so the blinds dont eat you alive. there a lot of hands that could dominate the 77 but as loose as you describe this player you probably need to make a stand here
just be sure when you win these coinflips to make the best of it and go on to finish in the top three.

[McMelchior]

Thank you to Sam H for your reply; I assume that your goal - more than giving me feedback on my play of the hand - was to bring this (absolutely relevant) question up:

[ QUOTE ]
I never understand where people get these kinds of numbers from. How are you calculating that and what does it mean? Anyway, my gut feeling is that this number, however determined, is a little optimistic. I'm not sure anybody is 30% better than the field.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a tournament being able to determine how good you are in relation to other players is obviously very important for your strategy. If you see, that you're the absolute donkey of the table, there's only one way to stand a chance of finishing in the money: GAMBLE. On the other hand, if you find yourself to be (among) the best player(s), you probably should go out of your way to minimize the gambling aspect of your game. In TPFAP Sklansky also discusses the importance of estimating your strength in relation to the other players in situations where your table is likely to break, and where it's not.

About half a year ago Andy Glazer had an interesting article in Card Player Magazine (dang, does anybody know of a searchable abstract for Card Player?), where he discussed why most players hold an inflated picture of their own strength compared to other players. Somewhat reductionistic he described poker skills as the operative knowledge of a given number of central poker concept. Recognizing that your opponent lacked knowledge of concepts you had incorporated in your game would lead you to assume, that your game was superior to their – without realizing, that you might be unable to understand their application of concept unknown to you!

Now, when I try to determine my level of skill in relation to other tournament players there’s no way I can avoid the problems of this schism – I recognize other players blatant disregard for (or ignorance in regard to) basic NLHE concept that I master, and I’m likely to be blind for the application of concepts I haven’t internalized yet.

But: I also believe a basic/solid grasp of the game must be based on an understanding of a certain number of specific and somewhat interrelated concepts, without which the player acts like a fool.

If I see a player early in the tourney (where the blinds represents a small fraction of his stack) defending his BB for 1/4 – 1/3 of his stack with hands like J3 (and I see this because he miraculously - after calling all-in on a J high flop - made two pair on the turn to beat the preflop raiser’s pocket QQ), I conclude that I skillwise hold a substantial advantage to the player in question. Likewise, if I see a player move all-in UTG at a 6-handed table for 10 – 15 times the BB holding comparable hands, I have no problems discarding him as a donkey. And so on.

If the same 10 players holding equal skills sit down in a satellite n times, statistically each will win n/10 or 0.1*n times. Now, if n is a great number, and one player instead wins 1.5*n/10 times or 0.15 *n times (thereby reducing the other players number of wins to 8.5*n/90 or approximately 0.094*n times), I’d say his skill level is 0.15/0.094 or approximately 1.6 times the other players. Or 60% over the other players.

I see no reason why this should be not only a possible, but – with tons of new inexperienced players joining online-sites every week – a frequently occurring scenario.

So when I in my question estimated, that my level of skill was 20% - 30% over the average player at my table, it was based on the observation that during the course of the satellite 3 of the 4 other players repeatedly had applied the kind of strategies, that scream ‘inexperienced’ and ‘lacks basic understanding of the game’ - and the 4th player skillwise might be superior to me (I hadn’t spotted any goofy tendencies, and he seemed to be doing well and outplaying the competition without relying on miracles).

Let me be modest and say that I believe my level of skill was 50% over the 3 of the 4 remaining players at my table. And let me be careful and say that the 4th player was 50% better than me, or that if he and I sat down heads-up he probably would win 6 out of 10 games. I’m aware these figures are estimates, but I haven’t seen any compelling evidence they should be far off. I calculate my advantage over the average player like this: (3*50 - 1*50)/4/100 = 25%. Or, if you like, if we played the same game 100 times, I would win approximately 24 times, the three goofs would win a little more than14 times each, and the good player (with an 50% skill advantage over me, and a 125% skill advantage over the bad players) would win approximately the remaining 33 times.

I’m aware a lot can be said here in terms of mathematics and statistics, but I believe it’s possible to make this kind of estimates during the course of a tourney. Exactly like you make estimates like “If I semi-bluff of the turn this opponent will fold 30% of the time with the best hand”. And I believe it makes sense and can be useful to make them.

Best,

McMelchior

[Bozeman]

Admittedly x% better is usually a poorly defined concept, but I have a reasonable, mathematical model that I use: with how many more chips would an average player (among those remaining) need (compared to my current chip count) in order to finish as well as I would on average. For example, if I win 18% of my one table sng's, 1000 chips are worth about 1800 chips (80% more) to me. By this metric, it is almost impossible to be 100% better in a one table SNG, and fairly doable to be 50% better, or to be 100% better in multitable tourneys. However, your edge is a sensitive function of table conditions; your edge will generally decrease as blinds increase, as bad players are eliminated, and may depend on your stack size (i.e. you may be a much better small stack player than a big stack player).

As for estimating this edge at a particular table, McMelchior makes some good points, but while it is relatively easy to estimate your average edge, it is very difficult to evaluate its variability,
Craig