Don't think you slid it past us, Fossilman..... - Page 10

BarronVangorToth · #91 10-07-2004, 07:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Most White folk have never heard of Ancient Nubia, a great African Kingdom, before Rome and Greece.

[/ QUOTE ]

And now we know the answer to the age-old question of "What's a Nubian?" Thanks!

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com

[/ QUOTE ]

no problemo. you gotta learn from somewhere. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

And, to think, it all started with "Chasing Amy" -- now, finally, the circle is complete.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com

Desdia72 · #92 10-07-2004, 08:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Most White folk have never heard of Ancient Nubia, a great African Kingdom, before Rome and Greece.

[/ QUOTE ]

And now we know the answer to the age-old question of "What's a Nubian?" Thanks!

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com

[/ QUOTE ]

no problemo. you gotta learn from somewhere. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

And, to think, it all started with "Chasing Amy" -- now, finally, the circle is complete.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com

[/ QUOTE ]

that's pathetic.

Vince Lepore · #93 10-07-2004, 10:14 PM

Greg,

I'm not sure that you were getting 2 to 1 but I don't accept that it was a correct call even if you were getting those odds or slightly better. There were othere things to consider, like how losing the hand would affect your overall chances of winning the tournament. Your chip position and blinds before the call were such that you would have found, I believe, a much better situation to "gsamble" your chips. I think your call was a big mistake and it also led to your moving in with a T.9 to bbe knocked out.

Vince [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

BarronVangorToth · #94 10-08-2004, 07:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Most White folk have never heard of Ancient Nubia, a great African Kingdom, before Rome and Greece.

[/ QUOTE ]

And now we know the answer to the age-old question of "What's a Nubian?" Thanks!

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com

[/ QUOTE ]

no problemo. you gotta learn from somewhere. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

And, to think, it all started with "Chasing Amy" -- now, finally, the circle is complete.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com

[/ QUOTE ]

that's pathetic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm assuming you're saying it's pathetic that you didn't see that punchline coming a mile away.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com

Spladle Master · #95 12-08-2004, 04:36 AM

Suppose Annie showed Greg AKo in the 98s hand. Would you still fold to her re-raise?

If so, your answer to that question is indicative of why you will never be as successful of a tournament player as you could be.

Myrtle · #96 12-08-2004, 09:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Greg,

I'm not sure that you were getting 2 to 1 but I don't accept that it was a correct call even if you were getting those odds or slightly better. There were othere things to consider, like how losing the hand would affect your overall chances of winning the tournament. Your chip position and blinds before the call were such that you would have found, I believe, a much better situation to "gsamble" your chips. I think your call was a big mistake and it also led to your moving in with a T.9 to bbe knocked out.

Vince [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Vince,

I’m not exactly sure what you’re trying to say here......I also have problems with the same issues. In dealing with these kinds of things I find that (for me) when I attempt to logically work through these issues, I inevitably end up running into what I call the ‘brain vapor lock’ wall. Let me try to explain and see if it makes any sense.

Before I do, is it not very important to understand the implications of the fact that this is a No-Limit,“Winner take All” format? As such, does that fact alter ‘conventional’ multi-place payout tournament strategy? Although I can’t put my finger on all of the specific reasons that it may, it seems to me that somehow it must.

In any case, that said, you bring up the issue of “gamble”. This is a concept that I struggle with. Most of us seem to accept the fact that when you’re a 51-49 fav, that you are mathematically ‘ahead’. When you are a 60-40 fav, you are ‘more” mathematically ahead. When you are a 70-30 fav, you are prohibitive favorite to win the hand. With that in mind, I still struggle with the issue of determining ‘when to gamble’ during a ‘normal’ tournament, never mind a winner-take-all format.

Contrast the above to ring game strategy, where, if you are consistent and play correctly, (i.e., get you’re $$ in when you are the favorite at all times) theoretically, you will have +EV in the long-run, therefore you MUST take every opportunity to get you’re money in when the math favors you.

Add to the above the issue of ‘compounding bad decisions’. For our purpose here, let’s say that what we’re really talking about is ‘unfavorable results’, not bad decisions. What I mean by this is......Let’s say that in a tournament you get your money in as a favorite, and you lose the hand. In doing so, this results in the ‘crippling’ of your stack, effectively limiting your range of play options from there forward. We’ve all had this happen to us, and we seem to accept it as ‘part of the game’, but I’m not so sure that it necessarily is.

On one hand, there is the ‘make good decisions’ school of thinking. Simply stated that means, whenever one takes an action, make the ‘correct’ decision, and let the chips fall where they may. Clean, simple, straightforward, math-based and for ring games (everything else being equal) appears to be a totally proper way to play.

It’s about at this point in my thinking that I must admit that I go into a brain ‘vapor lock’ situation, and I have some questions.

Are the different dynamics of standard tournament play significant enough to cause one to modify the above ring game strategy? If so, how?

Compound this with the difference between a ‘Standard tournament pay-out format’ and a ‘Winner take all tournament pay-out format’. Does the difference between these ‘similar-but-different’ formats cause one to re-modify ones strategy?

Is it possible that in jumping from ring games to ‘conventional tournaments’ to ‘winner take all tournaments’ that one actually moves back more towards optimum ring game strategy when one changes from ‘normal tournament play’ to ‘winner take all tournament play’?

I guess what I’m asking here is.........Is it likely that there are actually quantifiable differences in ‘best’ strategy for the 3 different formats?

My gut tells me “Yes”, but my brain can’t get me there.

Any light that any poster can shed on my confusion would be greatly appreciated!

Myrt.............

Vince Lepore · #97 12-09-2004, 05:12 PM

Tournament poker is not poker. Successful tournament play involves two skills, poker skills and tournament skills. The most important tournament skill is "survival" skill. "When you're broke, you're gone" is the anthem of for this skill.

In live poker if you are getting the best of it and the play that you are considering has no or minimal effect on your bankroll you make the positive EV play everytime. In a tournament this is also true. The difference in a tournament is that almost, if not all, of your decisions affect your bankroll. Certainly there are situations in which the effect is minimal. In live games you would be wrong to make a decision that had a negative EV regardless of how inconsequential it might be to your bankroll. In a tournament you might make a negative EV (tournament chip EV) play if it might result in eliminating an opponent. I'm getting a bit off subject here so I'll get back to Gregs situation.

Greg was getting 2 to 1 on his call. O.K. so his call has a positive EV if he is better than 2 to 1 to win the hand. So on the surface it would appear to be a good play. But in a tournament you must factor in the effect that your play has on your ability to survive. In this case if Greg loses which he will 60% of the time then he is severely crippled. You also must factor in what winning the hand will do to his chances of winning the tournament. Plus you also must consider the likelhood of getting a better situation to gamble his chips.

I am not a TJ fan when it comes to analyzing tournament situations but he once said and I aggree that when you are first to move your chips in you have two ways of winning. One if your opponent mucks his hand and two if you end up with the best hand. The power in NLH lies in betting and raising and not in calling.

Yes, there is difference in strategy in a multi-payout vs a winner take all tournament depending on your goal. However, even in a winner take all tournament when you're broke, you're gone must be considered. This is the driving concept behind getting you're money in first. Well that's how I see it anyway.

Hey, btw, did you call me an old goat?

Wait til I see you again.

Vince

Myrtle · #98 12-09-2004, 08:09 PM

Gee, I just re-checked my post, and I see no mention of an "old goat".....however, it could be your incredible reading skills that could see through me so clearly and read my mind.....except you mixed up the word 'goat' with 'fart'..... [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

To the post.....OK...so we're in agreement regarding the fact that there are 3 different strategies involved.

What I’m trying to get to is being able to articulate, define, catalog and quantify the specifics of those differences in some sort of reasonably comprehensible framework.

To use an example from your post........ “In a tournament you might make a negative EV (tournament chip EV) play if it might result in eliminating an opponent.”........

I’d like to attempt to define and quantify the circumstances under which this apparently contradicting play (Ring vs. Tournament Strategy) could be proven to be correct. Here’s where I’m trying to go........If a play has a quantifiable -EV value as defined by commonly accepted thinking, is there a corresponding set of circumstances in tournament play that somehow ‘offsets’ the –EV aspects (effectively changing a –EV ring game play into a +EV tournament play) because of the differing set of parameters present in tournament play? If so, (and it appears that many players agree with this sentiment), what are the specifics of those circumstances, and if one can get specific in defining them, can one then realistically quantify them?

....and that’s where my brain fart commences.....I can’t get any further, and I’m hoping that some brighter bulbs than I can shed some light on this subject.

Again I ask......any thoughts from our fellow posters on this?

As far as seeing you again, Vincenzo.....Will be in Vegas 3rd – 8th of January.....Looking forward to seeing you then.

Myrt.........

Vince Lepore · #99 12-10-2004, 07:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If a play has a quantifiable -EV value as defined by commonly accepted thinking, is there a corresponding set of circumstances in tournament play that somehow ‘offsets’ the –EV aspects (effectively changing a –EV ring game play into a +EV tournament play) because of the differing set of parameters present in tournament play

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow that be a mouth full! But the answer is "of course". What do you mean, you say? Well, for example, in a tournament you may be faced (happens a lot) with a decision that has a negative EV tournament chip wise but has a positive EV real money wise. For instnace if you are on the bubble and by taking the worst of it you have a reasonable or maybe less than reasonable chance of knocking out an opponent and getting into the money the corret play may be to go for it. Probably is correct to call with a pathetic hand like the one I normally call with all the time. This may be the only time in a tournament that yours truly's regular play has a positive EV.

Vince