Knowingly Taking the Worst of it
 

I stated in a recent post that folding the best hand in the midstages of a tournament is far worse than folding the best hand in a cash game. I thought I might unpack that statement and think about some of the implications of it.

In a cash game it costs you money if you fold the best hand (or more accurately a hand that is ahead of the range your opponent might fold). In a tournament, however, not only does folding the best hand cost you chips, it also costs you the opportunity to invest those chips in +EV situations. This is something along the lines of a second order effect, which in this case exaggerates the first order effect.

However, this raises a question. Is there a time when the second order effect, that is the amount of chips you can win from putting chips you win now into +EV situations, changes what would normally be a slightly -EV situation, into a positive one. In other words, can the chips you give yourself a chance to win later in effect make-up for the chips you lose on average calling now.

One counter argument to this idea is that if the gamble will knock you out then you will not have the opportunity to win chips later. This however, speaks to the idea that a big stack is important. It allows you to take gambles based on the second order effect because losing the gamble will not knock you out, or seriously harm you.


Poker is freaking complicated.

Re: Knowingly Taking the Worst of it
 

I think it's one of the more intangible aspects of playing tournaments, but the ability to pick 'good' spots to gamble with the worst of it is one of the ways good players go deep in tournaments.

Re: Knowingly Taking the Worst of it
 

Isn't this your "inflection point" idea from a different angle?

Re: Knowingly Taking the Worst of it
 

[ QUOTE ]

However, this raises a question. Is there a time when the second order effect, that is the amount of chips you can win from putting chips you win now into +EV situations, changes what would normally be a slightly -EV situation, into a positive one. In other words, can the chips you give yourself a chance to win later in effect make-up for the chips you lose on average calling now.




[/ QUOTE ]

I think this pretty well sums up the thoughts Gigabet made on the A9o VS. his KJo hand.

I think the players ability to use these chips in the future in a +EV manner VS. just being caught back up to by the field at some point, is the key to pushing the edges early.

Re: Knowingly Taking the Worst of it
 

In a way. In that post I was just talking through the idea that deep in a tourney a whole bunch of factors change the game so much that tourney poker becomes a completely different animal from any other form and trying to figure when that happens, and how to adjust. Here I'm lookning at how one specific difference (the inability to put more money on the table to replace chips you lost, or increase to a more profitable amount) impacts decision making at crucial points. This could be early or late.

Re: Knowingly Taking the Worst of it
 

I played a tourny last night where some maniac was moving in almost every hand.. and got his chips up to about 6000 v v early.

I got a free look in the BB with 2/3 suited.. and flopped a flush draw.

the pot was about 100.. and someone (the maniac was not in this hand) went all in for about 1500.. and I called, figuring if I get lucky here and get to 3k.. I have a fantastic chance of taking on the maniac and getting to 6k or more.

If this is a loose example of what you are alluding to, then yes, I wholeheartedly agree.

If you lose, you can always move onto another tourny, but it seems like a golden chance to achieve a good stack in this tourny, and I dont like passing up those chances too often.

(I normally hate posting hands in someone elses post, but i wanted to post this to get a hold of whether its the kind of situation you refer to. My apols if it is bad form)

Re: Knowingly Taking the Worst of it
 

I think's its an extreme example, and probably was still a bad decision, but yes that's the general idea when the decisions are closer.

Re: Knowingly Taking the Worst of it
 

actually, gergery talked about this idea pretty specifically in that post.

Re: Knowingly Taking the Worst of it
 

I'm not sure this is the best example. You can extract chips from the maniac with less risk with your current stack, and you're also far from guaranteed if he's really spazzing out that he's going to still have a stack when your next opportunity to zap him comes up.

Re: Knowingly Taking the Worst of it
 

yeah, its not my greatest moment for sure...but i do like to gamb000l it up in the early stages [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Knowingly Taking the Worst of it
 

I think i would only *knowingly* take say what figures to be a 40% chance to double up or get more chips if i knew that i could do something with those chips
This is more or less the 'blocks' that Gigabet was talking about. I don't deny that taking a slight shot at having a big stack is correct in only the right circumstaces. Generally I could see it if:
*You would have the ability to run over the table with a big stack or something like that. A situation where having the chips would notably improve your chances at a big finish. I don't think it matters if on the first hand of a party super (or whatever) someone went all in and you *knew* that he had KJ and you had QTs that this would be a call. Because those 1k chips that you would have little value because everyone else has only 1k and the blinds are small thus having the big stack isn't worth being an underdog because there is little profit from it

Now if blinds were 1k/2k and you were offered the same choice (60/40 underdog) BUT you would have the ability to become the table captain and have the ability to run over the table (on the bubble say) would be worth the small loss of -CEV because you would be able to pick up 3k worth of blinds much easier and without risking your stack.

Anyhow i hope this wan't rambling, good post

Re: Knowingly Taking the Worst of it
 

seems to me that a main issue here would be the stack size of player that you are knowingly takking the worst of it against.

If Player A has 1000 chips and hero has 2200 in chips, and average was 1250. Just rough numbers. Hero could take a slightly -ev situation.

This would in effect not hinder your ability to maintain with the field, but give you positive expectation if you win those chips.


The obvious plus of having more chips than your villain in a hand is the inability of being eliminated. The slightly -ev gamble now could prevent you from being eliminated from a Bad beat in a +EV situation if your chip stack was smaller.

Re: Knowingly Taking the Worst of it
 

There is also the opportunity cost of nursing a small stack when you could be playing other games. This is especially true online with the limitless supply of new tourneys to play. I would much rather take the chance of a 40/60 with the opportunity to take the table chip lead than fold what could possibly be the best hand.

Re: Knowingly Taking the Worst of it
 

I have been doing a lot of thinking about a similar, but slightly more specific of a topic.

Mostly dealing with late game pre-bubble aggression. Basically knowingly entering into -CEV situations (usually open pushing). It is similar to Harrington's zone theories but less general

Your stack at this stage is almost exclusively reduced to two factors
The amount of F.E. it will carry independent of your image
The amount of chips it allows you to win if you double up.

Making a move now, will lead to the following
X% you win the pot (+1M)
Y% of the times you double (stack x 2 + some portion of 1M)
z% of the time you go broke.

When their are antes, there is a cost associated with every hand you fail to play.

X% will decrease by some small amount every time your stack loses an ante and blind (Most likely it happens in levels, rather than a continuos decrease, i.e 6.1xBB and 6.2xBB have the same F.E.)

The amount of chips that you win Y% of the time will decrease by 2x the ante or blind you pay.

There is also your image to consider, meaning the more you open push, the lower X% will be, but the higher Y and Z will be. The good thing about this is, Y% is bounded regardless of your image, and it will move in the opposite direction of X. (the more often they call, the higher your equity will be vs their wider range).

Often times we see advice based on the hand in question, but I rarely see players taking the likely implications of the play past a very general spot.


I havent read the replies to this thead yet, so if this is repetitive, or way off topic, oh well. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Re: Knowingly Taking the Worst of it
 

In general I disagree. On this board we see a lot of players who advocate "get chips. get chips, get chips." But poker is about patience too. I wish that Sirio would respond to this thread. He said something once, he said in a tourney update, "I made the most out of all of my chip-getting situations." or something like that. I think that this is the poker you should focus on.

I also see people using this (MLGs) advice to take some silly gambles saying to themselves, "if I double up here, doubling up later is worth more," but if you are making a bad decision here, what is going to stop you from making bad decisions with your bigger stack? It seems to me to be fish mentality - counting on a string of against-the-odds wins to make the money. I know that MLG has a much better tourney record that I do (which is why I'd love to hear from Sirio here), but I really don't like this advice.

CSC

Re: Knowingly Taking the Worst of it
 

[ QUOTE ]
but if you are making a bad decision here, what is going to stop you from making bad decisions with your bigger stack?

[/ QUOTE ]

this is, of course, the key. if you are consistently making bad decisions then there is no point in gambling for more chips. notice nowhere did I say that taking -ev gambles should always be done, i didnt even say it should ever be done. i just pondered the possible implications. you are right that many times my aggresive advice is misinterpreted by people on this board, and used to justify bad gambles. however, the misaplication of concepts is not the same as giving bad advice. I gave no advice in my original post, just pondered the possible implications of a fact that i know to be true, namely that laying down the best hand is much worse in a tourney than a cash game.

Re: Knowingly Taking the Worst of it
 

This works well when you have a tiny stack and will have no FE if you push later. Example from today: I have 800 chips on the button with 150/300 blinds in a Party MTT. Some guy in the cutoff opens for 850, and, getting over 1.5:1 for a workable stack, I call with T9s. I might be worse than 1.5:1 against his reasonable stealing range, but not by all that much, and winning gives me something to work with.

In general, though, the problem with this is Gigablocks. When you already have a decent stack, it's a rare situation where you get the extra 'block' of chips you have to work with.

Re: Knowingly Taking the Worst of it
 

Always good to read some different view points. FWIW, I tend to think that we do have a herd mentality here, which is what makes the views of CSC, DavidROss, Locutus, etc very valuable. I tend to disagree with a lot of it, but it always makes me think.

What I was getting at (and am having a damn near impossible time getting anyone to talk about, even when I jack a MLG thread) was very specific times when you find yourself in the <10xBB range far enough from the bubble where there is no pure value to survival. I think this is an area that many players misplay (both too agro and too passive). I also think that a basic improvement would bring a significant increase to our ROIs. It revolves around the ideas Harrington talked about with his zone theories, but I think that we can get much more specific (which I am sure Dan does, but generalized for the masses). There is no doubt IMO, that entering into a -CEV situation can be +$EV (even when we are far from the bubble), I just want to figure out the where and when.

Re: Knowingly Taking the Worst of it
 

I agree with everything you said (even though you jacked my thred and it wasnt what i was talking about intially [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]).

Re: Knowingly Taking the Worst of it
 

I think sometimes people don't realize how patient MLG is, especially when he is a small to medium stack.

The point to me here is how aggressive do you want to be with a big stack. Do you want to take some gambles that are -EV in hopes you hit or that you can then use this image? I for one don't like to take these gambles with a big stack because of the power of the big stack. I'm barely good enough to survive with +EV gambles, I'm dead with -EV gambles. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

In the building stages early there are plenty of +CEV gambles to take. If your taking maximum advantage of these spots then it is -EV to take -CEV spots I would think.

In the middle stages of a tournaments where those obvious + CEV spot seem to be fading away I think this becomes much more table dependent. There are very few situations though where knowingly taking the worst of it would be a good idea. I can only think of spots where you are at a table of very good players. Then maybe taking this risk to build a much larger stack than the rest of the table would be most advantagous.

Re: Knowingly Taking the Worst of it *DELETED*
 

Post deleted by Chief911

Re: Knowingly Taking the Worst of it *DELETED*
 

Post deleted by Chief911

Re: Knowingly Taking the Worst of it
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a working link to Giga's post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Grrr, I didn't even check, I just posted and moved on.

Re: Knowingly Taking the Worst of it
 

Post editing skills so broken. Sorry Che. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

Re: Knowingly Taking the Worst of it *DELETED*
 

[ QUOTE ]
Post deleted by Chief911

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks boss.

Re: Knowingly Taking the Worst of it
 

In reply to A_PLUS:

I struggle the most in this area also. We're pre-bubble and
I have around 10 BB's left. It seems to me the better players continously make better decisions in this area. They push and everyone folds or when they push they always seem to have two live cards. I think I'm getting better at this area. I think there's a lot more than what is your M. Poker has different dynamics every hand which changes how
you should be playing every hand. If a guy lost most of his
stack I would be reluctant to push with a less than premium
hand. If the loose big stack is in the BB I won't play most
hands. There are hundeds of variables and no chart can tell
one how to play each hand from all the different positions.
This is where you need to have a good intuitive understanding and feel for the game.

Bruce

Re: Knowingly Taking the Worst of it
 

I really like these two quotes and I think they are relevent.

"The typical tournament player should not ever turn down any situation with the smallest of edges. You could even argue that he should gamble in situations where he has slightly the worst of it. But that is not the way the vast majority of mediocre tournament players operate"

David Sklansky Tournament Poker For Advance Players p.25


"When I play (tournaments), I often feel as if I am in a race to get the chip lead at my table."

Barry Greenstein Ace on the River p.214


When thinking about knowingly taking the worst of it, I have always been stumped as to the extra "steallng/bullying/bigstack" value to assign those chips.

You cannot assign the same value to all players as all players will not use those chips to the same later and accumulate the same "extra" amount of chips later as a result of having the increased stack.

For the sake of discussion I do think you can come up and x factor. i.e. I can accumulate yBB's with a 20BB stack, but I can accumulate (y)(x)BB's with a 40BB stack.

I think this x has to be a function of the average stack at your table, the ratio at which you outstack your opponents, and your ability to use the big stack effectively.

For instance, if you have get to 200BB's and everyone has 100BB's your advantage is no where near having 20 when everyone else has 10.

So to get a true value, we should take into consideration:

a) blinds size

b) your stack size

c) stack size of opponents (opponents at your table, not the "average for the tourney") I can only bully those at my table, not the entire tourney. If the tourney average is 15BB's and I have a 30BB stack and everyone else at my table has 60BB then my 30BB isn't worth nearly as much as it would be if everyone at my table had 10BB's. Tourney average stack is a useless stat.

d) your ability to gains chips as a result of having more chips.

e) motivation for opponents to play weak-tight (bubble considerations, etc)

Although I am not good at being a real bully with the a big stack, I really make good use of the extra options it affords me in any given hand, so to me the big stack has a benefit, especially early, and on the bubble.

Another consideration for me, is "who is the villian in the hand".

If I have slightly the worst of it with the opportunity to take a big chunck of chips from MLG, JohnnyBax, Ackbleh, Rabscuttle, etc, I am more willing to do it as I think they have a skill advantage over me and taking their chips AND outstacking them after the hand would help negate that advantage.

Conversely, if my table is not that impressive and I feel that I can (Che forgive me) *find a better spot*, I am less inclined to gambool it up with the worst of it.

If we look at an example, maybe it can help define the x factor.

I have a K high flush draw on the flop (9 outs), and I *know* my opponent has a pair of K's, I am 1.9-1 to get there by the river. (assume no redraws for either)

If he offers me 1.9 or better for the rest of my chips I will take it, *usually* regardless of the opponent.

If its MLG and he offers me 1.5 on my chips, do I take it? Probably.

If I'm offered 1.5 on my chips, and if I win I have double the average stack and chiplead of the table do I take it?
Probably.

If I'm offered 1.5 on my chips by superdonk and it will bring me up even with some other stacks do I take it?

Depends on my stack size compared to the blinds, if I'm deep, probably not, if I'm getting shallow (under 15BB') and its early, maybe I'm more inclined to take it.

So to answer the original question of when to knowingly taking the worst of it, well.....it depends. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Regards,
Woodguy

Re: Knowingly Taking the Worst of it
 

[ QUOTE ]
For the sake of discussion I do think you can come up and x factor. i.e. I can accumulate yBB's with a 20BB stack, but I can accumulate (y)(x)BB's with a 40BB stack.

I think this x has to be a function of the average stack at your table, the ratio at which you outstack your opponents, and your ability to use the big stack effectively.

For instance, if you have get to 200BB's and everyone has 100BB's your advantage is no where near having 20 when everyone else has 10.

So to get a true value, we should take into consideration:

a) blinds size

b) your stack size

c) stack size of opponents (opponents at your table, not the "average for the tourney") I can only bully those at my table, not the entire tourney. If the tourney average is 15BB's and I have a 30BB stack and everyone else at my table has 60BB then my 30BB isn't worth nearly as much as it would be if everyone at my table had 10BB's. Tourney average stack is a useless stat.

d) your ability to gains chips as a result of having more chips.

e) motivation for opponents to play weak-tight (bubble considerations, etc)

Although I am not good at being a real bully with the a big stack, I really make good use of the extra options it affords me in any given hand, so to me the big stack has a benefit, especially early, and on the bubble.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are on to something...we intuitively feel that having more chips than our opponents gains us an advantage, but we can't seem to quantify it. If we could determine a formula to calculate how much extra EV our chips gain once they surpass all of our opponents stack sizes, we could calculate a -EV decision more precisely.

Of course this begs the question as to what is the optimium big stack strategy, and does the big stack strategy change at diffrerent stages of the tournament.

Re: Knowingly Taking the Worst of it
 

I really like the idea that Woodguy has presented. However, it is all theoretical because as he said, people use the chips they have to their advantage differently. Some big stacks have a certain range of cards that they are comfortable bullying people with. To some big stacks its just the players and not the cards. A lot of interesting ideas have been presented and I think it all boils down to the skill of the player. We have all seen shortstacks build up to a big stack just by being aggressive and we have all seen big stacks get blinded away. If you are comfortable putting yourself in a -EV situation to get these chips then I say go for it, but only if you got the skill.

Re: Knowingly Taking the Worst of it
 

[ QUOTE ]
Of course this begs the question as to what is the optimium big stack strategy, and does the big stack strategy change at diffrerent stages of the tournament

[/ QUOTE ]

I have always liked the advice in this thread.

Regards,
Woodguy

Re: Knowingly Taking the Worst of it
 

This is of course an interesting issue to discuss, and you and others make some nice points to consider on this thread (I haven't read it all though).

I have just one general thing to say, and it's definitely not an attempt to contradict you or others.

Well I think that on every MTT table, all the time, every hand, there are tons of +EV opportunities (some are big and clear, some small, some microscopic but still +EV) that most players, and I dare to say: most players here too (me included), are still very far from being able to exploit.

I mean: being able to recognize every small possible +EV spot is something that can take a lifetime to master. Only then it might make sense to move (knowingly!) into -EV territory.

But of course the ideas you present (and that were presented in a different manner by giga previously), can be very valueable to a great player.

2 Old Posts worth reviewing -
 

Zee Justin Post 12/10/04

Step 5 hand versus Gigabet 12/09/04

Re: Knowingly Taking the Worst of it
 

I think another way to frame this question is:

Is TEV( 2 X stack) > 2 X TEV(stack)
?
If it is then you can make a negative CEV play (knowingly taking the worst of it).

I think there is a wide range of situations where this is true and it can be affected by:

Ability (such as using a big stack)
Image
Opponents ability
Stack size
Structure
Online vs live (no gambler's ruin online)
steepness of payout and tournament position
Opportunity cost (each player's is different)
Inflection points
etc.

Like most things in poker it is highly situational and player dependent.

But I think its intuitively obvious that in many situations this inequality holds. In less clear situations I think it takes a great player to identify and objectify when the expression is true for them. The number of times many of us have won tournaments by knowingly or unknowingly taking the worst of it is a testament to how true the expression is in some situations.

In the case of Gigabet and Q3, I think his opportunity cost for continuing with an average stack is high enough to make some EV-/unclear plays on a regular basis. But pushing Q3 is probably just unclear because of the FE associated with any push.

I don't really like to label a hand as EV- because there are so many different things that make up the situation, play and outcome: image, reads, tells, position, stack size, etc. I think most hands are unclear. When you are willing to frequently play cards that are unlikely to be the favorites, then you must rely on these other aspects of the game to win chips. Although we realize the importance of these aspects through some obscure postings of taping paper over hole cards, most of our analysis is focused on the hands themselves; probably because its so difficult to capture the dynamics in an online thread.

I think an equally interesting question is: can I avoid putting the most chips into the pot when I knowingly have the best of it?

Re: Knowingly Taking the Worst of it
 

bump