The Gap Concept - Extension perhaps?

[Poker Jon]

Hey All,

I must firstly say that I have never read Slansky's Book on this - so what I might say will already be covered.

I was thinking about a recent post regarding the gap concept which states:

'You must (theoretically) have a better hand to call a raise pre-flop than you would to make a raise pre-flop'

I guess what it is saying is that you can in theory be the first raiser with hands like KQ, A7, 22 but you are unlikely to call with the same such hands.

I was then thinking that if this is true then can you then apply the concept of:

'You have to have an exceptionally strong hand to call a re-raised preflop bet'

Sounds obvious I know. But especially in the later stages of tournament play when there is a lot of blind stealing going on, could you use this notion to bluff a lot more in late positoin than is commonly done.

Example:
200 player tourney down to last 50 lets say with top 18 to get paid. You have T10000 slightly above average chip count blinds are 300/600 and an opponent with a similar chip count raises to 1800 in MP. You are on the button with any non-premuim hand (72o, K4s, J10s) and you decide to raise it a further 3200 to 5000 (half your stack). What hand does MP have to have to call this significant re-raise.

I personally think, if they have anything less than AA, KK or QQ they have to fold. If this happens, you have just increased your stack by T2700 - a further quarter of your stack.

If they have AA, KK, QQ then they will either re-raise you all in in which case you can fold still have half your stack (and over 10 BB still) and can still do damage to other stacks. Of course they may just call trying to trap and then you have your chance on the flop.

What do you guys reckon to this extension of the gap concept? Am I talking absolute codswallop, or is this a serious notion that can be introduced to my game?

[Mark Heide]

Poker Jon,

If you are going to do this you are putting yourself in a position that will leave you guessing. Especially, if you have a weak hand. The kinds of hands your opponent has depends on what kind of hands you think he will do this with, and don't forget to think about what he thinks of your play. Plus, you have to assess whether the blinds are going to play.

I believe you are playing for your whole stack in this situation and if you are going to do it, you should just put in your whole stack because you are not going to get away from it.

I would avoid getting in this situation.

Good Luck

Mark

[Poker Jon]

Mark,

Thanks for the reply although I don't necessarily know that I agree.

The point I am trying to make, is that by using this play, you can, in effect, make a stone cold bluff. Maybe 72o is extreme, but IMO this is a perfectly valid play with KQo, 22, 87s.

If you win the hand uncontested you have increased your chips by a 1/4 and if you lose/re-raised you have lost 1/2 your chips.

If it was you in early position and decided to try and buy the pot with, lets say, A10 and then got re-raised you can't possibly call (unless you play on party poker of course!! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img])

I think it wouold be the wrong play to go all in pre-flop on a stone cold bluff in this situation. The only hands that would call would be AA, KK, QQ, AK maybe and you could extract this information out of them with the suggested raise as opposed to going out of the tournament.

I am not suggesting using this play as a matter of course, just a variation on play to acquire some more chips.

[Guy McSucker]

Unless I am misunderstanding, this is a completely standard move for tournament players: the resteal. Identify players who both make steal raises and can fold to a reraise, and reraise their steals.

In deciding when to make this play, consider not only the player's tendencies but also the depth of the stacks. I like it best when the reraise would put the original raiser about half way in, because now it doesn't really make sense for him to just call: he needs to fold or move all-in. He is forced to decide on playing for all his chips, while you have only committed half that many.

It's a powerful move, sure enough. Use it sparingly, though.

Guy.

[Copernicus]

I dont think he is talking about re-stealing. He is putting the raiser on a real hand but not a monster, and trying to force the raiser out by suggesting raiser's first level thinking will be "Because of the gap concept, he cant reraise me with anything but a premium hand, and I'm only a (fill in the blank...small pair?), so I have to fold".

There is a much simpler tournament concept that I think overrides this type of play...don't bluff unless the situation is perfect, and with a middling stack it is almost never perfect.

[Guy McSucker]

You're right of course.

I still like the play when used sparingly. Goodness knows how many ace-jacks I've folded to a reraise in my time.
You have to have a very good line on your victim to make the play though.

Guy.

[Greg (FossilMan)]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a much simpler tournament ... don't bluff unless the situation is perfect, and with a middling stack it is almost never perfect.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never heard this one, and I really can't say I agree with it. Perfect implies that the play has a significant amount of +EV. If that's true, then shouldn't you also be making the play on at least some of those less than perfect situations that are still +EV?

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[Mark Heide]

Poker Jon,

[ QUOTE ]
If it was you in early position and decided to try and buy the pot with, lets say, A10 and then got re-raised you can't possibly call (unless you play on party poker of course!! )


[/ QUOTE ]

I would move-in at this point unless I knew the reraiser to be an absolute rock (I only know a few of these). That's because it has a lot to do with the size of the blinds being 300 and 600. It's close to being 10% the size of your stack and I would consider 10000 in chips being close to short stacked. If the money was much deeper. Lets say we both had 30000, I'd consider folding to your reraise.

The reason why I perfer moving in is because your oppenent is not pot committed yet with his initial raise. Anyway this move works better when you reraise from the big blind.

Good Luck

Mark

[Al_Capone_Junior]

I think your concept has limited usefulness because not many people are consciously aware of the gap concept. Some understand it on an intuitive level, but even with DS's book out on the market, very few would actually know what you were talking about if you were to ask. So it's not really the gap concept you're taking advantage of if you make this move. What you're doing is catching someone with a weak hand trying to steal and forcing them to fold, or re-stealing (as already mentioned by another poster).

I generally would be very reluctant to do this in the specific situation you mentioned with anything even remotely close to the hands you talked about. I MIGHT make the play with a hand like 88 or AQs, but NEVER with a crappy hand. It would just hurt too much to lose half my stack getting fancy with BS. Also, you were talking about a pretty critical point in the tourney, a point that requires more cautious play.

al

[Copernicus]

I used "perfect" somewhat glibly, and to mean that all of the circumstances are favorable, which goes beyond the play being significantly +EV. There are circumstances where a play is hugely +EV on a standalone basis, but a huge mistake with regard to the tournament. (Go back to the folding AA pre-flop for one example).

Since the proposed play is a stone bluff all-in, knowing you are beaten and presumably drawing dead or close to it, the EV (or more explicitly the "hand EV") depends strictly on the probability of getting him to fold, the pot, and the size of the larger stack. The proability of him folding is dependent on many factors being "perfect", some related to the play of the hand (texture of the flop, being able to "misdirect" his read of your hand, etc, and some related to all of the plays up to that point (your table image, whether he is on tilt, or just made a big hand and most important chip position). All of these considerations must be evaluated to result in a decision whether sufficient probability of him folding exists... an inexact science at best, but one which, IMO, is dominated by chip position.

As noted above, "hand EV" fails to take into account the impact of being right or wrong on your tournament EV...also heavily dependent on chip position.

My point about things rarely being "perfect" with a middle stack against a similar size stack is that chip positions may no longer dominate the equation like they do when it is two giant stacks, two baby stacks, or one stack dominating the other. As such, the evaluation of the probability of folding cannot be sufficiently pinned down to determine a reliable EV. Furthermore, the result of being wrong (youre out) is catastrophic relative to what is gained for being right (you have the leverage of a bigger stack), in terms of tournament EV. Thus, it is highly unlikely that a stone bluff in these circumstances could be that "perfect".