Positive EV vs. survival in Tourneys

[eastbay]

You might want to read the recent couple of threads regarding my "call/fold" model for evaluating chip EV vs. chip risk.

I think the qualitative ideas that came out of that analysis are correct. Knowing where to draw the line quantitatively in full-scale poker is another story.

eastbay

[CrisBrown]

Hiya Brad,

But that's part of the EV calculation, is it not? You don't simply look at the EV of betting/calling, but also at the EV of folding. In this case, calling is +EV, but folding is even greater +EV, so the correct decision is to fold. But I don't see that as an exception to the "+EV is the right play" principle.

Fossilman says that early in a tournament, real dollar EV ($EV) and tournament chip EV (TEV) are basically the same. Early on, then, basic ring game strategy applies. It's not until you're in or near the money that $EV and TEV begin to diverge, and at that point the $EV:TEV ratio decreases as stack size increases. I.e.: the chips you lose are worth more than the chips you win ... a good reason not to chase draws or make loose calls. I'm going to assume he knows what he's talking about, although I can't offer a mathematical proof. (Perhaps he can.)

When I first came to this forum, I attempted to prove the converse: that, for example, doubling up early doesn't much improve your chances to win a SNG, therefore if you face a double-or-gone situation, you should fold. Fossilman and several of the other posters convinced me that this was not correct; that if you had a clearly +TEV chance to double up, it was a mistake to fold. The argument is probably back in the Tournament Forum archives somewhere.

I think to some degree this also depends on the structure of the tournament. In a PokerStars two-table SNG, there are 27,000 chips in play. By the time you're nearing the bubble, the blinds are often 200/400+25 or more. So you need to build a solid stack along the way, or you'll be in all-in-or-fold territory just when you're at the bubble ... not a comfortable situation.

By contrast, the lower buy-in SNGs at Party have only 8000 chips in play, so one or two big hands will usually get you into the money. In that situation, it's better to avoid risks unless you're so short-stacked that you have no other option, and instead wait to pounce on a big hand.

To some degree, the correct strategy also depends on the dynamics of the tournament you're in. In a very "fast" game, with a lot of loose-aggressive players, it's better to sit tight and let the rabbits eat each other. A big stack's $EV is less than at a tight table, because the stacks are so volatile in a loose-aggressive game. You gain $EV every time a rabbit busts out, so it's better to wait.

By contrast, in a tight game, a big stack's $EV is greater than in a loose-aggressive game, because your steal-raises get more respect, so it's easier to maintain a lead. You have to pick up little pots along the way, because there aren't going to be a lot of big ones unless you get monster vs. monster or monster vs. monster draw. So while you're picking up little pots with bluff and semi-bluff steals, you have to be on the lookout for those monster draw opportunities and the chance to double through a big hand. When one comes along, if the pot odds are good enough, the shot at a dominating stack is worth the risk.

All in all, I just don't think there's any one, fixed answer to this question. Like almost everything else in poker, it's situational.

And that, BTW, is why I mention the buy-in when I offer a hand for analysis, and why I mention what buy-ins I play. What works at a $55 two-table SNG on Stars might be horrid at an $11 SNG on Party, because of the different structure and typical table dynamics. The advice which is "best" for a given player is probably the advice of successful players at that site, and at that buy-in.

Cris

[Henke]

I think there are some errors in your assumptions. First of all, you say that aces will win 1/3 of the time against random hands, but that it will never get 2nd price in an all-in contest? If we assume that it will snatch second place about as often as it will snatch first, we get that the EV of folding needs to be higher than about 26.67. To accomplish this, we'll need to snatch second (after folding) about 18% of the time, which basically means that we don't want a split pot more than about 70%-80% of the time. That seems to be a reasonable assumption though, so I'll have to agree with your conclusions after all [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Henke]

[ QUOTE ]
Fossilman says that early in a tournament, real dollar EV ($EV) and tournament chip EV (TEV) are basically the same. Early on, then, basic ring game strategy applies. It's not until you're in or near the money that $EV and TEV begin to diverge, and at that point the $EV:TEV ratio decreases as stack size increases. I.e.: the chips you lose are worth more than the chips you win ... a good reason not to chase draws or make loose calls. I'm going to assume he knows what he's talking about, although I can't offer a mathematical proof. (Perhaps he can.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Fossilman is correct in his statement, but, since in this hypothetical situation everyone is going all-in, it's no longer "early on" in a tournament. Instead, we instantaneously moved to the bubble! So having 10% of the chips left with just 1-2 opponents means that your chips has increased alot in value.

[Bozeman]

3 handed in a SnG among equal players, you need about a 1-10% percent better hand than ChipEV would indicate (depending on stack sizes). If you are the smaller stack, it can vary from 2-10%. Note however, that 3 handed is a situation where you are playing for 1st or 2nd, and 1st is worth a lot more. Overall, this curve reaches 0 at headsup, gets close to zero at 10 handed, and has a maximum at 4 handed.

As your edge increases, the edge you need to call allin can go up considerably, to about 10% more than for the equal player calculation (at 3 handed, other #'s I haven't done yet).

Craig

[Henke]

About 23.5% of the starting hands are suited. With only two opponents seeing the flop, that means that on average 1/2 (probably the better half [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]) opponent will have two suited cards. Since there are four suits, that gives a probability of about 1/8 that you're up against a flushdraw.

If we assume that our opponent has at most 5 killer-outs, then if you bet about half the pot, it should be enough to kill his implied odds (assuming you start with T1000). That would leave you with about T750. If the flushcard comes on the turn, you might still want to bet about half the pot, and you would still be left with 450 if you lost. If it doesn't come, a pot-sized bet might be correct. In this case, it would mean all in.

I'm by no means an experienced NL-tournament player, so it would be great if someone with more experience would comment on this...

[AleoMagus]

Yeah, I definitely simplified the math by leaving out 2nd & 3rd place finishes on the all-in call (and split pots). I suppose folding will not be twice as profitable in this respect, but I think we are agreed. It is more profitable

Regards,
Brad S

[AleoMagus]

Yeah, I guess it is a part of the EV calculation.
Maybe that's where +/- EV calculations seems to stop short sometimes. I, for one, often decide on whether or not something is +EV and just do it in the heat of the moment without also considering if alternative (and completely different) plays are even better.

That said, I think that the strictly chip value EV of folding AA in that situation is still negative. I certainly would not do it in a ring game. It would seem that the definition of EV is mixed. I'm not sure if I am using it correctly or if others are. You seem to be implicity taking chip values and $values into account and coming up with a true and ultimate +/- EV. I'm just saying that sometimes +/-EV calculations are wrong in tournaments if you are only looking at chip value.

As far as stack sizes are concerned, with so few chips on the table in a one table sng, startegy changes are often required very early on. It is not altogether rare on party's sngs that one player has a third or half the chips on the table in the first round. Single table tourneys feel a lot like the bubble from the start sometimes. In my aces example, I think this is especially true (as pointed out already by another poster)

Very interesting thread

Regads,
Brad S

[Henke]

As far as stack sizes are concerned, with so few chips on the table in a one table sng, startegy changes are often required very early on.

If you are refering to chip-values here, then I think you're wrong. However, a tighter and more conservative play might be in order because a) you play better short handed than your opponents, or b) a large % of the opponents will bust out because of stupid play.

Regarding b), I don't really know how big the % would have to be, but it is surely related to the chipwize EV of the specific hand.

[AleoMagus]

I've been thinking more and more about this. If by the third hand of a sng, the stacks look like this
1.800
2.800
3.785
4.15
5.1570
6.2400
7.785
8.845
9.out
10.out

would I not be correct in altering my play slightly against the big stack/the small stack? Perhaps I am drawing more conclusions than I should because (your suggestion) there are so many bad players who will bust themselves out. Maybe this is the biggest reason why tight play is right.

I've also been thinking about my aces example some more. As far as partypoker is concerned, players who simultaneously bust out are awarded prized based upon chip count when going into the pot. I assume that this means all the losing players would split 2nd and 3rd prize. In this case, my conclusion to fold would still be correct. If, however, 2nd and 3rd were awarded based upon a secondary criterion of hand strength, it might still be correct to call as aces will still be second best or third best a lot.

I suppose this does not change my original point - you can't just blindly follow usual chip EV calculations.

Getting back to opponent considerations, I also have considered some things. If I was up against the ten best sng players in the world, I would definitely call with the aces.

This goes back to an earlier example (another similar thread) where I suggested folding QQ even if you knew your opponent had AK (first hand all-in during a sng). It is ordinarily +EV, but if you think you have similar or better odds of making the money anyways, why risk busting on the first hand. If however, your odds of making the money are low (tough competition) you would probably call.

I'm just thinking out loud here, but perhaps the biggest things to consider when changing strategy early are not stack sizes, but opponent strength. Of course I know it all depends on a lot of things.

It's all got me thinking anyways.

Regards,
Brad S