Paul Phillips WSOP Hand

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Paul has an edge on the field and marginal chips are increasingly worth less.

[/ QUOTE ]

As was demonstrated by several strong players before (gigabet on this board, for instance), your last statement is highly debatable. Players who can handle big stack well, can definitely gain more than what the simple cEV calculation suggest, and might sometimes find that even -cEV spots are actually long term +$EV for them from the perspective of future table control and chips accumulation.

This is of course very different from the ideas presented in TPFAP, but this book is very far from suggesting an optimal MTT play, especially for LAGish, strong players.

[burningyen]

[ QUOTE ]

Nope not at all..I'll play Coinflips when

A) I still have chips left incase I lose it.
B) The risk/reward is so outrageous, there's no other choice but to call it.

For Paul's situation, I think the risk/reward is marginally in his favor! He's giving up alot of chips, nearly 30 BB on a flip, when he's probably the best player at his table!!

That doesn't make any sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
What sort of pot odds would you need in order to take a coinflip at this stage of the tournament with 30BB, and why?

[togilvie]

Can you point me to these "demonstrations"? I'm sceptical that it's been proven, but interested if that's truly the case.

That said, a big stack can definitely be a weapon in the hands of a good player. My sense is that it is principally due to the fact that without the risk of going bust, moves that are +Chip_EV are always +Tournament_EV. This allows the big stack to exploit the (proper) risk aversion that I'm indicating a good player should be exhibiting. Under the right circumstances, it might even make -Chip_EV moves +Tournament_EV. Would definitely be interested in reviewing what's been done.

[pokergripes]

Yeah, once you're at the "should I call?" question, seems like a pretty clear call here (at least for everyone who is not constrained by the "won't I look foolish if I bust?" worry...)

But I'm having a hard time seeing why a check-raise approach on this flop is even close to as good as a push on the flop, given the board, the read, and the chances that he is either going to push or check after you check, rather than specifically under-bet...seems to me that the fe in an initial push has got to outweigh the risk-adjusted fe after he underbets and you raise, given the risk he pushes or checks, and the reduced leverage you have once he puts in $3k on his own bet...

[sekrah]

If it put my into the Top 10 of the tournament among chip leaders, I would considering going for it.

PP would have still been #3 stack at his table! (I think, based on what he's written), even if he won the pot!.


I guess it all depends on whether PP feels he is 2.6 times more likely to finish high in the money with 26k than he does with 10k.. and obviously from his decision, he felt that 10k wasn't going to get him there.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]

I guess it all depends on whether PP feels he is 2.6 times more likely to finish high in the money with 26k than he does with 10k.. and obviously from his decision, he felt that 10k wasn't going to get him there.

[/ QUOTE ]

slight distinction, but he only has to be 2x more likely to finish high in the money with 26k vs. 10k. (not 2.6)

[pokergripes]

Sekrah, that is incorrect--it is all the more reason to call, assuming the call is a correct money play (based upon your chances of winning the hand, and the "money" in the pot you're trying to win.)

The "tourney chips EV does not equal prize money EV" point is that, as you approach a smaller and smaller remaining field (relative to the number of spots that pay), your EV on the tourney chips (whether in your stack or in a particular pot) is no longer 1:1 with your expectation for the real dollars you might win and use to purchase, e.g., big macs that you can eat.

That is obviously a correct point in theory (and is also at the extremes why you'd sometimes fold even AA under the right hypothetical conditions, for example, if enough other people were all-in and you were moving up automatically to higher money positions by folding).

However, the question is "when does this matter?", and the answer is "much later in the event than most of you think". In other words, if by "extending my tourney life" a person means that he gets to keep playing for purposes of showing off to his friends, not having to make that cell phone "I'm out, let's go eat" call, etc., then a fold based on "tourney life" might make a lot of sense with 20% of the field remaining in a major event. Or, if you had a huge last longer bet with someone, that could impact the analysis. But it doesn't take much high-level "monte carlo" thinking to know that you need to keep accumulating chips in the middle of a major event when you have +EV chip opportunities, assuming that you're trying to win the event or hit the real money at the top.

However, since people look for rational-sounding arguments to justify their irrational decisions all the time, "tourney life" has become a mantra for playing like a wussy for those mid-limit folks who just want to survive long enough to look cool [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
Sekrah, that is incorrect--it is all the more reason to call, assuming the call is a correct money play (based upon your chances of winning the hand, and the "money" in the pot you're trying to win.)

The "tourney chips EV does not equal prize money EV" point is that, as you approach a smaller and smaller remaining field (relative to the number of spots that pay), your EV on the tourney chips (whether in your stack or in a particular pot) is no longer 1:1 with your expectation for the real dollars you might win and use to purchase, e.g., big macs that you can eat.

That is obviously a correct point in theory (and is also at the extremes why you'd sometimes fold even AA under the right hypothetical conditions, for example, if enough other people were all-in and you were moving up automatically to higher money positions by folding).

However, the question is "when does this matter?", and the answer is "much later in the event than most of you think". In other words, if by "extending my tourney life" a person means that he gets to keep playing for purposes of showing off to his friends, not having to make that cell phone "I'm out, let's go eat" call, etc., then a fold based on "tourney life" might make a lot of sense with 20% of the field remaining in a major event. Or, if you had a huge last longer bet with someone, that could impact the analysis. But it doesn't take much high-level "monte carlo" thinking to know that you need to keep accumulating chips in the middle of a major event when you have +EV chip opportunities, assuming that you're trying to win the event or hit the real money at the top.

However, since people look for rational-sounding arguments to justify their irrational decisions all the time, "tourney life" has become a mantra for playing like a wussy for those mid-limit folks who just want to survive long enough to look cool [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

great post.

[TheJackal]

[ QUOTE ]

Said another way.... opponent bets out 4K on avg making a 10K pot. If we can convince him to fold his AK, we win 10K without a fight. If he calls, we have a chance to win 18K, but we only do so 50% of the time AND we are risking 18K to do so (the 10K in the pot plus the additional 8K in our stack).

CSC

[/ QUOTE ]

All true and good points, but ignoring the money in the pot, jamming in this spot looks like a bluff (or a semi-bluff). I'm saying if we are going to get called by AK or a small pp it's not devastating because our hand will win over 50% of the time.

[Sluss]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, once you're at the "should I call?" question, seems like a pretty clear call here (at least for everyone who is not constrained by the "won't I look foolish if I bust?" worry...)

But I'm having a hard time seeing why a check-raise approach on this flop is even close to as good as a push on the flop, given the board, the read, and the chances that he is either going to push or check after you check, rather than specifically under-bet...seems to me that the fe in an initial push has got to outweigh the risk-adjusted fe after he underbets and you raise, given the risk he pushes or checks, and the reduced leverage you have once he puts in $3k on his own bet...

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the real question here. Would it have been better to push instead of c-raise. Turns out a push would have been better.

However, with the min-raise Villain looks a little weak-passive. Maybe scared of Paul. So the check raise might extract that few extra chips and this guy seems likely to fold with anywhere from 7k-10k in chips left behind.