push or fold under 10 bb's rule

[ChrisV]

Firstly, I don't think the objective of a 10+1 player should be to become a master at the 10+1's. People should be building a game that can beat higher levels as well.

Secondly, the biggest mistake I think people make in SNGs... it's kind of a two-part mistake, abstract and concrete. The abstract mistake is that people imagine they have more control over the outcome towards the end than they actually do. This leads to the most common concrete mistake of making terrible folds. When I first started playing SNGs on Paradise several years ago, starting chips were 800 and the blinds went all the way up to 500/1000 (not sure if the structure is still like that). My play at the end, looking back, was unbelievably poor - I was under the impression that it was a crime to get allin with the worst hand. Even at the 200's now, I see people day in day out making the most ludicrous folds.

There may be the occasional situation where pushing as dictated by the 10BB rule isn't correct, but:

- 10+1 players may well lack the judgement to distinguish between these situations and other situations where not pushing is hugely bad.
- Given people's propensity for bad folds, it is far more likely that a player raises small too much or folds too much than it is that they push too much.
- It is more important to understand the maths and to understand that there is virtually no scope for fancy play when under 10BB than it is to take advantage of these situations.

In short, the general principle is so important that discussing possible exceptions is counterproductive. If you want an analogy, it's making "tough laydowns" in limit holdem. It's possible that an expert player can save a bet here or there folding on the end in big pots. However when advising a 1/2 player how to play, it's "don't make tough laydowns on the river in big pots". Period. It's also quite possible for even an expert player to simply delude themselves about their ability to make good laydowns. I discovered this in Melbourne recently, folding a winner in a $840 pot for one bet on the end in a 30/60 game.

If this appears to contradict what I said earlier about pushing small edges in poker, then that's because your small minds can't comprehend the higher plane my brain operates on [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Phil Van Sexton]

[ QUOTE ]

- BB always folds
- SB folds A2-A6, QJ, QT, 22-55 where he would otherwise have pushed
- I ignored splits for simplicity and used 42.82% win.

The equation is:

(.4)(0.3693) + (.6)(.4282)(.4540) + (.6)(.5718)(.2)

This comes out to 0.333 - a clear winner.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am curious how this turns out as well. My question is, why use 42.82% win? I thought your original post put the equity against this smaller set of hands at 36.01%?

Also, you are saying that pushing causes you fold to 40% of the hands you would've pushed with. You said you'd push with 14.93% on the 1000 raise, and 10.25% on a push. That's more like 30% fewer (actually 31.346%).

Making these minor adjustments, my equation looks like...
(0.3)*(0.3682)+(0.7)*(0.3601)*(0.454)+(0.7)*(0.639 9)*(0.2)

The result is 31.45. Still better than the 31.01 we got from the non-push, but not outlandishly so.

In any event, your instincts were correct that this play is not ideal against you. I've said all along that I would push if the blinds were very aggressive, and this proves it to a reasonable certainty.

Given how close this turned out against a player like yourself, I'm quite confident that the non-push would be the better play with a more typical 10/1-30/3 player in the SB.

It is simply the better play against these players. It's a matter of opinion whether newer players should be encouraged to exploit these opportunities. Your position on this is much clearer now after your latest posts. I happen to disagree, but maybe I'll have a different opinion in the morning.

[ChrisV]

Ugh. I've disgraced myself with my maths in this thread lol. You're right about the 36.01 thing. With the 40% thing though I'm originally pushing 25% of total hands (any pair, any ace, KQ-KT, QJ-QT), but if you push only calling 15% of total hands - so 60% of the hands I was originally pushing.

[El Maximo]

Good Post Chris. I always find your posts very informative and spot on. I think you are one of the most underrated posters on this forum. Enough ass kissing. I agree at the $10+1 building a solid foundation is more important than learning the exceptions to the rules. Ive seen alot of posts and comments from the new 5-10 players that talk about min-raising, completing in the sb, and 2.5-3x raising when under 10bb on the bubble. They are learning bad habits and it will only hold them back when they jump levels.

[Phil Van Sexton]

Thanks for doing all the math work. I'm usually far too lazy to follow up like you have.

I agree with most of your last post, but I do have a couple final thoughts.

[ QUOTE ]
Firstly, I don't think the objective of a 10+1 player should be to become a master at the 10+1's. People should be building a game that can beat higher levels as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe that these 2 things are mutually exclusive. For example, I think Ed Miller's Small Stakes Holdem does both for low-limit ring game players.

My earlier post can be summarized as "if the SB is not aggressive, it is +EV to not push even though you have less than 10BB in this particular case". Assuming I have the numbers right, this is +EV at 10/1, 30/3, or 200/15.

Maybe the situation doesn't come up as often in the 200/15 because most player are aggressive, but situations like this will appear at every level. I am quite certain that you are taking advantage of +EV plays rather than blindly following the 10BB rule.

Therefore, when you tell new players to just follow the 10BB rule, you are giving advice that is:
- Sub-optimal for 10/1, 20/2, 30/2
- Sub-optimal for 200/15
- Not how you actually play.

As you point out, the advantage of the 10BB rule is that it basically idiot-proofs bubble play, and stops players from making bad folds. This is fine for Aleo's 10/1 cookbook, but blindly following a rule doesn't help players get better, so it doesn't achieve your stated goal.

In order to compete at the higher levels, players need to understand *why* pushing is correct in most cases. As you well know, the answer much more complicated than "because I have less than 10BB".

Maybe some 10/1 players need training wheels because they can't tell the difference between a +EV play and a weak-ass min-raise. If a player can't understand this obvious difference, I would argue that it's unlikely that they have the ability to ever play the higher limits. Giving them a 10BB rule isn't going to change this.

I recognize the OP, schwza, from the NL forums, and I'm fairly confident that he doesn't need the idiot-proofing. He asked if his play was correct even though it violated the 10BB rule. My answer is: against non-aggressive opponents, his play was correct. I feel that schwza (and most others) will be able to parse this sentence.

Your point is well taken though. I will need to be careful when making posts like this so that my advice is not misinterpretted as advocating weak play.

[Laughingboy]

At the risk of adding still more complexity, I have another wrinkle. There are cases when you'd prefer to be called rather than just picking up the blinds (e.g. AA). The strategy that Phil suggests (which, correct me if I'm wrong, amounts to putting a short stack, but not yourself, all-in when there is a semi-passive big stack between you) has the added benefit that if you do fold to a big raise from the big stack, you've set some precedent for being pushed off a small raise. Then you can deceptively make a small raise with a premium hand and have a better shot at inducing a push rather than suspicion of trapping. I know that "advertising" at these high limits is not a good idea, but I believe this adds further +EV to the play in the cases where it is appropriate.

I randomly raise about 3x BB instead of pushing about 5-10% of the time when near 10xbb, knowing I will call a push, for a similar reason. If I call a push, everyone sees I made a small raise with a pushing hand. It mixes things up just enough to make my opponents unsure when I make a small raise with a huge hand. Comments on this?

Thanks,
Sean

[Phil Van Sexton]

[ QUOTE ]
if you do fold to a big raise from the big stack, you've set some precedent for being pushed off a small raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you've set some precendent, but I'm not sure how much value it really provides. As Chris points out, with blinds this high, there isn't much time to be fooling around.

It's pretty unlikely that I'll try this play, get bitch-slapped by the SB, build my stack back up again, then immediately get AA before anyone is eliminated.

Furthermore, once I get my ass handed to me with a small raise, I'm pretty unlikely to try that again without the goods. If a good player, the SB knows this. I'm not going to keep giving away $1000 bets, so the next time when I bet 1000 with AA, the SB may smell a rat.

Or maybe he will assume I'm a moron (reasonable), and push. It depends, but I certainly wouldn't count on it.

[Laughingboy]

All perfectly reasonable points, which is why I don't suggest doing this (i.e. folding) just for advertising. It's just a little extra bonus for a play you might make anyway.

What do you think of my randomized approach? I reiterate, I only do it if I intend to call an all-in reraise -- folding is out of the question. I believe at high limits where even a min raise is a big chunk of someone's stack, I give up little folding equity, but gain a lot in deceptive value.

I've had good results with this so far, but don't have much data.

[Phil Van Sexton]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe at high limits where even a min raise is a big chunk of someone's stack, I give up little folding equity, but gain a lot in deceptive value.


[/ QUOTE ]

Deception is of little value since the tournament will be over very soon after the blinds go up. Just play your hands in an optimal fashion.

You may get an "image" by accident depending how things play out. It's possible to take some advantage of your perceived image, but I wouldn't go out of my way to project a certain image once the blinds get high.

You certainly shouldn't engineer your game around getting the most out of AA when the blinds are high. Once the blinds are high, how many hands before the tournament ends? 40? Of these hands, how often will you be in a steal position (ie not in the BB, no one raised ahead of you)? Maybe 33% of the time? You only get AA once every 220 hands.

Therefore, this case only occurs 40 * .33 ....screw this, I'm not doing any more math. Trust me, it's not as often as you think, so it's a bad idea to adjust your standard play in order maximize your winnings with a hand that you probably won't be getting.