Finding rhythm in the madness (a theory)

[Prickly Pete]

[ QUOTE ]
The difference in net monetary outcome between 4th and 3rd place is bigger than the difference between any other adjacent spots.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a nitpick, it's typically a 20% bump to get 3rd, 10% to get 2nd and another 20% to get 1st.

[Irieguy]

You use AQ vs. JT as an example of why you would rather limp than raise preflop.

You are a 63% favorite with AQ, so why would you want to bet less? I'm not saying you should shove your stack in anytime you are ahead, but you should usually bet.

There are two fundamental concepts in poker upon which all others are based (these are not my ideas, in case you haven't seen them before):

1. Make the most of it when you have the best of it.
2. Anytime you can get your opponents to play differently than they would if the cards were exposed, you are playing correctly and they are making a mistake.

So if there are 3 limpers in front of you and you limp with AQ and then show your cards, what should 2-2 do behind you? What should A-4 do from the BB? They should call, and they do. So, you are giving your opponents the opportunity to play correctly. If you raise appropriately, they shouldn't call if they know your cards, so they are making a mistake... and they do.

That's just the way it is.

[Lori]

1. Make the most of it when you have the best of it.
2. Anytime you can get your opponents to play differently than they would if the cards were exposed, you are playing correctly and they are making a mistake.


This is flawed in a SNG environment.

It is particuarly flawed against the kind of idiots that play $10 events when you are likely to beat them anyway.

Getting your whole stack in, for instance, with a 55% chance would often be -EV because on the 45% of the time that you lose, you miss out on the times you could have got it all in with an 80% chance of winning later in the tourney.

I haven't checked the numbers on this particular example, however the prinicple is important.

Lori

[Irieguy]

This whole thread applies to $11 PP SNGs. The difference between 4th and 3rd is (-$11 vs. +$20 = $33). The difference between 2nd and 1st is (+$30 vs. +$50 = $20). So, the net monetary outcome between 4th and 3rd is bigger than the difference between any other adjacent spots.

Nitpick back at 'cha.

[Lori]

The difference between 4th and 3rd is (-$11 vs. +$20 = $33).

You mean -$11 and +$9 surely?

Lori

[Irieguy]

I don't remember saying anything about getting your whole stack in, did I?

The concepts are not flawed in a SNG environment, they just need to be applied appropriately. You should often pass on marginal advantages in the interest of survival, but that's not at all contridictory to the fundamental theorum of poker if you understand the context.

In TPFAP, Sklansky illustrates very well the concept of passing on an advantage when you are sure to have an even bigger advantage later. He doesn't feel the need to rescind the fundamental theorum during this discussion.

Lori, you are absolutely correct and your points apply particularly well to why you sometimes shouldn't call with the best of it. I just don't think you need to throw out fundamentally sound poker reasoning in order to make those adjustments. You know what I'm sayn'?

[Irieguy]

Surely I do, thanks. Same to pete... jump from 2nd to 1st offers same net as from 4th to 3rd.

He's a better nitpicker than I.

[LinusKS]

Irie, I haven't thought about it in those terms, but that is an intriguing way of looking at it.

The one thing I'd say about the PP$10 games is that the variance there has gotta be huge. In the first place, the stack:blind ratio is so small there's bound to be an enormous crapshoot aspect to the game. To take one example, if you get to the 50/100 level with 700T, and raise 3bb, you're pretty much pot-committed, and your outcome on that game could very well depend on that one hand.

In the second place, the abundance of loose-aggressive/maniacs at PP increases variance as well. Yes, you'll win more when you're running good, but you'll also lose more when the cards aren't coming the way you'd like.

More importantly, you lose the ability to bluff, which IMO, is the most important survival tool a good player has.

Anyway, I suspect your numbers aren't too far off, and I also think the variance in the PP games is far higher than people think.

[LinusKS]

To take the example one step further, if you got in with the best hand 100% of the time, and your average advantage was 60:40, that would mean you'd have a 40% chance of going out on that one hand alone.

If you had to do that twice to make the money, you'd have only a 36% chance of surviving both.

[Irieguy]

Exactly... but if you got all of your money in with a 60/40 advantage every time, then you would be doing 50% better than your opponents. (Your opponents win 40% of the time, and 50% more often would be an additional 20%, or 60% total.)

If you do 50% better than everybody else, you would finish ITM 36% of the time to their 24%, and that would make you a nice profit over the long haul. Fortunately, there are players who are willing to give you much more than a 60/40 advantage for all of their chips. So, you can do even better than a 36% ITM%.

Yes, variance is huge... but it must be. If you could beat these games any more soundly with any less variance, then the top 2% of the players would have all of the money within a year or two. Then what the hell would we talk about?

Irieguy