Positive EV vs. survival in Tourneys

[triplc]

Hi all,

there have been several threads recently in which debates have arisen surrounding making plays when you have positive (tourney chip) EV. For example, if I hit a four-flush on the flop, should I call an all-in bet (when covered) if the pot is laying me the correct odds. This particular post does not attempt to cover the situation when you are not putting all of your chips at risk, but we can branch out to that topic here as well if folks want to.

Here's my take on it...feel free to blast away, folks.

In a ring game, when you decide to chase a four-flush (1.9 to 1 to hit by the river) because the pot odds are correct, you are talking about real dollar EV, and thus it is correct to chase the four-flush because in the long run you will win more real dollars than you lose, which is what we all strive to do. However, in a tourney (multi or SnG) you are not playing with real dollars, but tourney chips. So, the decision has to be based upon the real-dollar EV vs. the tourney chip EV.

For example...you flop a four-flush with T1000 and a player who covers you pushes all-in. The pot is laying sufficient odds for you to call (let's say 3-to-1 to make it simple). Even so, two out of three times you are going to bust out, and once you are going to quadruple up. So, do the 3000 chips you win one time make up for the two times that you bust out? I don't think so, especially if you are one of the better players at the table, and figure to have a spot sometime soon when you have the best hand. What if the pot odds are 4-to-1? 5-to-1? Do you chase it now? Are there any odds that would make you chase it?

What about a gutshot straight draw. Say the same scenario but now the odds of making are 5.1 to 1 against and the pot is laying to 8 to 1 odds (far-fetched in NLHE, but possible). Here, you are gaining 8000 chips once, and busting out 5 times. Granted, the 8000 put you in great position to win the one tourney, but does that outweigh your survival in the 5 others. In this case, I'm even less inclined to do this because I am going to bust out 5 times out of six.

These are contrived examples, and in reality there is a lot more to consider, such as stack size, how close to the money, blind size etc... But most recognized (Sklansky, Cloutier/McEvoy) experts feel that protecting your stack is more important that positive tourney chip EV, especially if you are one of the best players at the table, and you are putting your entire stack at risk in a drawing situation.

Does this change for multis vs. SnGs? Do the two different structures (one being quick and the other requiring more time invested) mean you think about this issue differently?

Interested to hear the debate. Flame away.

CCC

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Most of the advice says don't chase small edges in a tournament. The question then becomes how to define small. A lot depends on your read of the opponent (are you really behind) and the possibility of other outs.

If you play x SNG's during the season, passing up 3-1 pot odds every time when a 7-5 dog is going to cost you money in the long run.

But, as Dennis Miller would say. That's just my opinion. I might be wrong.

[agenbite]

In a tournament I don't believe you should put all your chips at risk on any draw. In my opinion, draws are only profitable in a tournament (long term) when you see them for better than the correct odds (pot laying you 3:1 or better to play a 4 flush on the flop, for example). This is usually only the case very early when the blinds are puny and the table is full of limpers, of course.

Cloutier says he never plays draws in tournaments. If you never did I don't think it is a mistake. Sort of like never playing low pairs. I'm more prone to muck them early unless I see a flop for free in the BB.

I'm tighter than most, so I'd like to see what others have to say too.

[VVildo]

This is an issue that has been bugging me for a while, especially in the 4-flush situation. I tend to not go on draws as well. So the situation is reversed for me. I get good cards early in the tournament, let's say Kings, and raise it a good amount, let's say to 100 when blinds are still 15/10. I get a couple callers (probably because I play on the kiddie tables on Party) and we go to the flop with a 300 chip pot, pretty large in the early stages of the tournament. Flop comes all rags, but there's two cards of the same suit. What do I do?

Right now I'd be very happy just picking up the pot as it stands, so I'm not concerned with trying to bait people into calling. In this vein, and in the confidence of my overpair, I want to go all in and get rid of any people that are on a flush draw. However the odds are only 1.9:1 in my favor. So if I get calls by those flush drawers I run the risk of getting myself thrown out of the tourney pretty early, even though this is a +EV situation (correct?).

So take it to the other extreme. I just check or call on the flop and see what comes on the turn. If it's that cruical 3rd suited card then I just tossed away a large pot when I had the (presumably) the best hand on the flop. If it doesn't help the flush draw do I bet a lot now and hope that they don't want to stick around just for one more card?

The only other alterative that I can think of is to bet a sizeable amount on the flop, but not so much that you screw yourself over for the rest of the tournament if that suited card comes on the turn. If the card comes on the turn then you just lost more money than the 2nd option. However if it doesn't you can bet again and hope that the flushers will fold this time. The problem with this method is that you're probably giving the drawers correct pot odds to call on the flop, so you're setting yourself up for failure in a way.

Opinions?

[Utah]

The problem is that each chip you acquire becomes less and less valuable. I dont know the crossover point when the draw overpowers the odds and where you dont mind being all in, but there is a point. For example, if 2 players are all-in and you have a straight flush draw with overcards then a call would most likely by correct.

Time also is a factor if you are a winning player. So if you bust out the first hand then you can just join another SNG, which I believe has the effect of rebuying.

There is an interesting although incomplete discussion of tourney chip value in Masons "Gambling Thoery and Other Topics" book.

[AleoMagus]

I just made a post about this in the thread "Bubble,Bubble,...toil and trouble"

I am not going to say all the things I said there again here, but I will answer the rhetorical question I posed at the end of that post.

The question was, with AA in the BB on the first hand of a sng, do you call if everybody else goes all in?

It is definitely a +EV situation (chip values). AA wins about 1/3 of the time against 10 random hands and you are getting 9-1 odds on your call.

Problem is, by calling you will then get Zero dollars 2/3 of the time. You will get $50 (assuming a $10+1 party sng) about 33% of the time (taking all split pots out of the equation for simplicity)

this means you will on average win (2/3)(0)+(1/3)(50)
which equals about $16.67

If you fold, you will get 2nd probably 90% of the time because you will be so shortstacked and 1st 10% of the time.
(again this assumes only one opponent who win the big all-in fest)

this means you will on average win (9/10)(30)+(1/10)(50)
which equals $32

It should be obvious from this that +EV decisions are not what really matters all the time. The apparently -EV decision of folding AA will actually make you almost twice as much in the long run.

Regards
Brad S

[agenbite]

Well, in your case of having AA count my vote as an adamant yes (call). If by some bizarre set of circumstances you are a few spots from the money in a large multi-table tournament, and would bust out of it by virtue of having one of the smaller stacks in that case, then I may possibly fold AA. Especially if it were one of the big tournies (Stars' $200 Sunday event, for instance).

Would anyone make the call in that specific case?

Heads up or against 3 or less opponents I believe I make the call no matter what, when, or where.

[Utah]

I believe miss the value of time of the course of tournaments. Lets say this situation came up over and over again.

You will make more money over time going all-in preflop with AA. It simply takes you too many hands to get to the end of the "folding option" to make it worthwile over time.

The reason is that it will take you at least one more hand to collect your value. The best option to do that is to go all in, hope you opponent calls and hope that you lose.

This way in 2 hands you have made 30 dollars. and you are ready to do it again. However, I have already went all-in with another AA and I am now ahead of you.

However, it is at best 50% likely that you will lose one hand one and reality it will be far more hands, since the opponent can fold a weak hand and you only pick up tiny blinds.

So, you can see that pushing in with AA is a far best choice under certain circumstances.

[AleoMagus]

My post is claiming this exactly - That over time, you will lose more by calling everybody's all in with AA.

The math I have given describes this. I have simplified it yes (because of split pot possibilities and even 2nd & 3rd place prize money)

Rest assured though, over time you will lose more by calling the all-in. I will describe this again as I fear my post was misunderstood. In my example, it is the first hand and in the big blind you are dealt AA. Every other player at the table goes all in. This means that if you call, in all likelihood, the tournament will be over on the first hand. Against ten random hands, this means that you will win about 1/3 of the time. Over the long run then, you will win about $16.67/tourney. Actually, it will be more because of 2nd and 3rd place finishes and split pots

It will not, however, be as much as you will win by folding. By folding, you will win - over the long run - $32 on average

I know this example is hypothetical. I sure have never been in a tourney where everybody pushed all in preflop, but it is hypothetical to make an important point. This situation paints a very clear +EV situation under normal circumstances which is clearly a mistake in tournament play!

These kinds of situations do come up, and more often than I think people on here realize. I am amazed lately by the amout of "is +EV the right way to play tourneys" posts I am seeing. I seriously recommend you guys all go get TPFAP and mason's 'Gambling theory and other topics'.

I am reading your post again and I have to say I just don't understand what you mean by some of your statements. Yes, you will be ahead of any one given player with AA, but you will not be ahead of the whole table. Survival should be your key concern here.

I don't know how to put it any other way. Anybody who thinks calling with AA here is correct is just plain wrong. It is most definitely the right play in a ring game, but it's not going to be correct in a tournament.

Regards,
Brad S

[AleoMagus]

lol. Looking at your earlier post Utah. I guess you have read Mason's book. Perhaps my post was just unclear.
I hope the first response clarified that I am talking about situations where EVERYBODY goes all in, and why I am using such a hypothetical example.

Regards,
Brad S