Lets end the Stupidity Please

[scott8]

[ QUOTE ]
I know my theory about playing tight in the orange zone has been called dumb, stupid, retarded etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Its your theory that its better to be in the red zone than the orange zone, and perhaps some of your reading comprehension that seems to be the real problem.

[poincaraux]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not going to take more than a very slightly EV- gamble to get out of the orange zone. I might avoid a close gamble to stay in the orange zone or get there from the red zone. With a bigger stack, I try to avoid dropping into the orange zone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I know my theory about playing tight in the orange zone has been called dumb, stupid, retarded etc.



[/ QUOTE ]
No. Its your theory that its better to be in the red zone than the orange zone, and perhaps some of your reading comprehension that seems to be the real problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate to start this up again. However, I am of course not arguing that it is better to have a small stack than a medium stack. I am arguing that a small stack can generally be played more effectively than a medium stack. It is generally accepted that a large stack can be played more effectively than a medium stack, so I don't see why it is so outrageous to suggest a small stack can be played more effectively than a medium stack.

As for the suggestions that I need to learn how to play a medium stack, I am not sure if I play a medium stack badly or "pushbot" with a small stack well. Maybe some people don't agree because they don't know how to play a small stack effectively.

I am also not suggest taking extreme measures to stay out of the orange zone. I just think in borderline cases it is better to take approaches that will tend to lead to a larger or smaller stack. Getting blinded down may sound really bad, but you may not have a good alternative, except making EV- plays that have a good chance of busting you out.

I am not entirely sure why my post got such a strong reaction. I may be wrong, but this is not dumb, stupid, retarded etc.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Next time you have a 10-12BB stack, pretend you have a 5BB stack and push in all the same spots.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I have 12xBB and I push UTG with A8o, KTo, 76s, 22, etc. I probably will bust out pretty quickly.

[/ QUOTE ]

You will bust out less quickly than if you have 5BB. And you will do better than playing poorly w/ 12BB and leaking chips away until you have 5BB.

[/ QUOTE ]

I say this with only the utmost respect for El Diablo's posts, but I must respectfully disagree, assuming that "playing poorly" doesn't mean limping SCs and small pairs for set value (i.e. playing like an absolute donkey).

I think the problem with playing this way is that with 12 BB you will essentially push out the hands you want to have call you and usually only get called by the hands that are ahead of you. If you push with 5 BB, you will get called by a much wider range of hands. Thus, I would think that playing a 12 BB stack like a 5 BB stack is often more -EV than simply folding anything except premium hands until you get to 5 BB. This is, of course, very read dependent, and I'm not saying that it is or isn't the best (or even a good) way to play, but pushing a 12 BB stack on what you would push a 5 bb stack seems like a poor decision. Of course, an argument could always be made that when you do double up 12 BB, you stand to go much deeper than you would have previously, but I don't think that this outweighs the disadvantages.

Will

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
I am arguing that a small stack can generally be played more effectively than a medium stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

[ QUOTE ]
It is generally accepted that a large stack can be played more effectively than a medium stack, so I don't see why it is so outrageous to suggest a small stack can be played more effectively than a medium stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

[Br00mcorn]

it's clear from most of the posts here that those people who are disagreeing aren't grasping betgo's point. most are disagreeing with something that he's not even trying to say...

betgo, if i understand you correctly i think that your basic premise is correct. here's my take on it, but before i begin here are a few things i'd like to clarify right now:

1. no one is saying that having a short stack is better than having a medium stack.
2. what i'm about to write has nothing to do with me feeling that medium stack is hard to play
3. the ideas i have are assuming "perfect play"; i.e. i'm not talking about my personal results because i have flawed strategy in medium stacks or something like that. (in fact, i'm not a very experienced player, but that's irrelevant as i'm talking theory here)


ok. now that that's out of the way...

another way of saying what betgo is saying is that one has a greater average ev per hand with a low m than the average ev per hand with a medium m. in my opinion this is a pretty simple statement of fact, and is mathematically true.

from there, betgo builds on that premise to say that from medium stacks one should avoid marginal situations, and that if no good opportunities arise, it's ok to wait for a combination of losing chips and increasing blinds to get to a lower m. that is where my reasoning diverges from his, because i feel that there are exceptions.

from the basic premise stated above, i think that in fact, it is better to take marginal gambles with a medium stack in certain situations. when you are up against stacks shorter than yours (= will leave you with at least ~3m should you lose an all-in) it is very profitable to take a gamble with a marginal hand and push all in (or call an all in) when you only have slightly +ev, or even slightly -ev. i know it sounds contradictory to say that a play that is -ev can be profitable, but here's why. should you win the hand, you will almost double up, putting you at a substantial advantage from where you were. you will have greater average +ev per hand with a large stack - this is common knowledge. this means that your effective increase in chips is better than the actual increase in chips. by extension you will be in much better shape to win the tournament i.e. you substantially increase your actual tournament winnings ev. (this is a very important comcept: tournament chip ev and actual winnings ev are not the same thing. - this is key, because obviously in a cash game, one would make the most +ev play every hand, but you cannot look only at isolated hands in a tournament -you have to think about your overall tournament ev.) if you lose the hand, you're not in horrible shape because you still have at least ~3m to work with, especially since you get more +ev per hand with a short stack.
essentially, the idea is that you can take a slightly -ev gamble with a medium stack since the result of that gamble will put you in a situation (one way or the other) where you're getting more +ev hand for hand than you were with your med. stack. to reiterate, you're putting yourself in a slightly -ev situation to potentially put you in great shape to win the tournament, and will be offset by the gain in ave. ev per hand.

now this also works conversely, in that you should avoid making marginal plays, even slightly +ev plays, in other situations. this is more in keeping with what betgo said. if against stacks that have you covered, it can be correct to pass on a slightly +ev gamble. why is this so different from when you're against a small stack? firstly, whether you're the one pushing or calling you're going to up against a much smaller range of hands from someone with a med - big stack than from someone with a small stack. so if you get called, you're going to be in pretty bad shape. this is offset by the fact that since they are calling/pushing with fewer hands, they will be folding most of the time and you'll win the blinds. this is what makes the hand slightly +ev. but going from, say 8m to 9m isn't going to do much for you - you're pretty much in the same boat you were before, and if you lose the all-in, you're out of the tournament. by taking the slightly +ev gamble in this situation, you are essentially risking getting knocked out of the tournament in exchange for almost nothing - winning an insubstantial number of chips that does not result in an increase in your hand per hand ev or your chances of winning the tournament, and a slim chance to double up.

these are a bit more advanced concepts and is building on some older posts by some very experienced players and is only a superficial explanation, so i apologize. if you don't understand it right away, please don't post a knee-jerk response with your opinion on how wrong i am. please take some time to think about it seriously, and i hope you'll either see that this is a valid way of thinking, or come up with alternate reasoning that will show me i am wrong about this.

for an example of parts of this theory applied mathematically see pfkaok's post
here

[Ulysses]

I am simply saying that given these two scenarios...

You have 5BB. You must push with hand range x-y.

You have 12BB. You mush push with hand range x-y.

No other options.

...he would be better off starting with 12BB.

[scott8]

But, one scenario is +ev and one scenario is -ev.


Are you saying that you would choose a situation that is -ev over a situation that is +ev?

Jeez.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
You have 5BB. You must push with hand range x-y.

You have 12BB. You mush push with hand range x-y.

No other options.

[/ QUOTE ]

there's no way that your profitable pushing range will be the same in both scenarios. you obviously have more +EV push hands with the smaller stack.

[LethalRose]

[ QUOTE ]


there's no way that your profitable pushing range will be the same in both scenarios. you obviously have more +EV push hands with the smaller stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

my head just exploded.