OK, let's talk about wmajik's article

[AleoMagus]

Thanks for that work linus. Interesting.

Initially, I almost was ready to concede I was completely wrong until I realized that that you were doing this analysis based upon wmajik's 'loose' player.

What you have shown is as much as we all expected, raising with any two when opponents will call you 64% of the time isn't going to work. This softens wmajik's argument in the sense that it cannot be applied indiscriminately.

Lets consider the argument vs tight players instead, as I don't know of too many players who will call in that situation with hands like J6, Q3 or 54. Even the semi tight player seems too loose to me here. I just don't expect calls from KT or QJ either in this spot unless I've been stealing a lot.

Fold equity = Blinds*Fold%
=$2.24*72%
=$1.61

Caught Equity = (Win% * Pot) - Total Cost to Play
= (38% * $39.36) - $25.07
= $14.95-$25.07
= $-10.11

Caught Result = Caught% * Caught Equity
= 15% * -$10.11
= -$1.52

Total Equity = Fold Equity + Caught Profit
= $1.61 - $1.52
= $0.09

So, you'd make about a dime each time you tried this play against the sort of player who'd only call with AK-A7, AA-44, and KQ

I actually think that's a reasonable calling standard for most in that spot with the possible exception of hands like A9,A8,A7 and the inclusion of hands like KJ.

So it's not super great and you could not get away with this profitably more than once or twice as the calling standard would be reduced enough to make the play foolish.

Many will argure that for a dime, it's not worth it based upon the tight assumption. They might be right, becasue as soon as an opponent crosses the 16% mark for hands they will call with, it is unprofitable. I am still intrigued though, especially in situations where I can be very confident of the <16% call. This would mean at least a basic observation of play is necessary, and that there may be other factors which will encourage a fold (like a really short stack at the table). I also think there is something to be said here about the push in the BB vs 1 limper who you think will call <15%ish.

(Math note: I am actually unsure how you get the caught EQ of -$7.36 here, but most likely, it is me that is getting it wrong. Hopefully it's me, because I'm getting a much worse figure than you did. -$10.11)

An 8% ROI increase. Perhaps not, Not just on the bubble anyways.

Any thoughts?
Brad S

[Irieguy]

I have a couple of comments about this.

First, the $EV values change tremendously as the 4 players' stacks become more disparate... particularly if the shortest stack has folded. This is the type of situation where MJ's concepts can be applied most dramatically.

Second, with all equal stacks, it's usually correct to assume that all 4 players will tighten their calling standards at least 20%. I think it would be the rare player in this scenario that wouldn't fall into the tightest category. This makes the move clearly correct.

Interestingly, though, how would you react if you felt that one of the players was a maniac? It would suddenly become $EV positive to tighten up even more and watch the fireworks. Well... if you are open-raising all the time, your opponents will think you are a maniac. They will incorrectly think your calling standards are too low as well... and they will in turn make it even more correct for you to open-raise. Here's my pearl for this thread...


**If you open-raise often, opponents will call less than usual on the bubble when there are 4 equal stacks**

If your opponents are sufficiently tightened-up in these cases, I think you have to throw the ICM out the window.

Again, just some initial thoughts. I'm working this all out on the fly.

Irieguy

[AleoMagus]

Glad you came to post in this thread

[ QUOTE ]
I do indeed understand independant chip models and why chips are not on a linear correlation with $EV. There has been disagreement with what I assume are my remarks of a 10% late game improvement causing an increase in ROI. I can agree with that - more chips don't mean more $EV. But, I also happen to think that most (not all) ICM theory goes out the window in STT games once you're on the bubble. You should always be shooting for 1st, so this strategy is directly pertinent to the all-or-nothing mentality.

I _do_ believe ICM is a very strong concept and is fundamental to deep stack games like MTTs or early level STT where blind:stack:table ratios are all important. Late game STT, not so much. All that a STT really becomes late game is a steal and coin-toss circus, seeing who can pull off the most stunts before exiting the stage. There's not a lot of edges to exploit and no time to go around waiting for a clearly advantageous call or double-up situation. You have to hold a monster or see a flop for that to happen first. With a short stack, that's just not going to happen

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to disagree with what you have said about ICM and SNGs. I think that the jump from 4th to 3rd is very important also, and I think that CEV vs $EV considerations are FAR more important on the SNG bubble than are early. I'm much more likely to pass up a small edge to avoid a big confrontation on the bubble than I am in the early stages.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, this article was not and is not a comprehensive STT guide. I can't imagine how it can be construed as one. I do have a real STT guide on my site and have had a limit STT guide that has been sitting there since October of last year. In addition, I never remotely mentioned anywhere in my article applying this strategy from any position outside of the SB/BB - that's a whole different ballpark.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I can see that this is just another play to add to the arsenal. I think that is obvious. I do think that some of these ideas can be extended though. Perhaps not much, but some. Your limper suggestion is one example, and I think it would apply even if the limper was outside the SB in many cases.

I like your ideas about control, and I also think that these moves become profitable in more ways than the math alone indicates. I'm still not completely decided, but this has been some interesting stuff to look at.

Regards
Brad S

[LinusKS]

Well, by my calculations, the Villain costs himself $3.38 by calling here. Unfortunately, his mistake hurts both of you.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm no mathematician but your calculations look good to me, Linus.

However...who the heck is actually going to call all-in for 10xbb with 64% of their hands? I think even at the $10s it's extremely rare to find that loose a caller on the bubble. If one of you is down to, say, 5xBB, then maybe -- but by that point, winning just the blinds is much more profitable proportionately, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

At the 5xBB level your expected loss should be just $3.06.

[LinusKS]

Aleo, thanks for the post.

It looks like you made a mistake in the third line of your calculations. For fold equity and caught equity you're using the numbers for the "semi-tight" player, but for caught result you switched to the numbers for the "tight" player.

For caught result you should have

<font color="blue"> 28%</font>* -$10.11
= <font color="blue"> -$2.83 </font>

The final result is -$2.83 + $1.61 (fold equity) = -$1.22.


I am showing a $0.20 net gain from using this play against Magik's "tight" player.



[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for that work linus. Interesting.

Initially, I almost was ready to concede I was completely wrong until I realized that that you were doing this analysis based upon wmajik's 'loose' player.

What you have shown is as much as we all expected, raising with any two when opponents will call you 64% of the time isn't going to work. This softens wmajik's argument in the sense that it cannot be applied indiscriminately.

Lets consider the argument vs tight players instead, as I don't know of too many players who will call in that situation with hands like J6, Q3 or 54. Even the semi tight player seems too loose to me here. I just don't expect calls from KT or QJ either in this spot unless I've been stealing a lot.

Fold equity = Blinds*Fold%
=$2.24*72%
=$1.61

Caught Equity = (Win% * Pot) - Total Cost to Play
= (38% * $39.36) - $25.07
= $14.95-$25.07
= $-10.11

Caught Result = Caught% * Caught Equity
= 15% * -$10.11
= -$1.52

Total Equity = Fold Equity + Caught Profit
= $1.61 - $1.52
= $0.09

So, you'd make about a dime each time you tried this play against the sort of player who'd only call with AK-A7, AA-44, and KQ

I actually think that's a reasonable calling standard for most in that spot with the possible exception of hands like A9,A8,A7 and the inclusion of hands like KJ.

So it's not super great and you could not get away with this profitably more than once or twice as the calling standard would be reduced enough to make the play foolish.

Many will argure that for a dime, it's not worth it based upon the tight assumption. They might be right, becasue as soon as an opponent crosses the 16% mark for hands they will call with, it is unprofitable. I am still intrigued though, especially in situations where I can be very confident of the &lt;16% call. This would mean at least a basic observation of play is necessary, and that there may be other factors which will encourage a fold (like a really short stack at the table). I also think there is something to be said here about the push in the BB vs 1 limper who you think will call &lt;15%ish.

(Math note: I am actually unsure how you get the caught EQ of -$7.36 here, but most likely, it is me that is getting it wrong. Hopefully it's me, because I'm getting a much worse figure than you did. -$10.11)

An 8% ROI increase. Perhaps not, Not just on the bubble anyways.

Any thoughts?
Brad S

[/ QUOTE ]

[AleoMagus]

You are correct, I did make a mistake, though not in the third line, as I was actually trying to solve this assuming MJ's 'tight' player. My mistake was in the first line.

It should be:

Fold equity = Blinds*Fold%
=$2.24*85%
=$1.90

Caught Equity = (Win% * Pot) - Total Cost to Play
= (38% * $39.36) - $25.07
= $14.95-$25.07
= $-10.11

Caught Result = Caught% * Caught Equity
= 15% * -$10.11
= -$1.52

Total Equity = Fold Equity + Caught Profit
= $1.90-$1.52
= $0.38

Again, this assumes that in this situation, an opponent will call you with AA-44, AK-A7, and KQ. I think this kind of range is very reasonable to assume, even for a gambling player. More likely, the range of calling hands will be much tighter (it sure would be for me).

Oddly, it looks like we are still not getting the same numbers, as I am getting almost double your $0.20 results. Am I getting this wrong somehow? If I'm not, this play is looking better all the time. Just once/tourney would mean an extra $0.30ish/tourney (that's an immediate 2-3% ROI boost). I say only $0.30 instead of higher becasue sometimes you would be playing those hands anyways.

Regards
Brad S

[ZeeJustin]

Every calculation this guy does gives you a random hand in the SB. Just because a play is profitable with a random hand does NOT mean it is profitable with any 2 cards.

If you and the BB both have 10x BB, and you shove in the SB w/ 32o, and the BB calls you with the 64% range of hands that the author says a loose player will call with, you will lose about 1.572 BB / hand. This isn't even close to profitable.

Note that 32o will win 31% of the time when called against the loose player range of hands.
The loose player range of hands accounts for about 64% of hands.
When you steal, you will win 1.5x BB.
When you get called and win, you will win 10.5x BB.
When you get called and lose, you will lose 9.5x BB.

STEAL.36) x 1.5 .54
WIN: (.64 x .31) x 10.5 2.0832
LOSE: (.64 x.69) x 9.5 4.1952

4.1952 - 2.0832 - .54 = 1.572

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That I won't spell it out should be an indication of the value I think is there.


[/ QUOTE ]

That depends on whether you're taking the Irie/Sucker line that if information is really valuable, you should only hint at it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed I am, as anyone interested in +$EV would be.

eastbay

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
As a general reply to what has been said so far:

I do indeed understand independant chip models and why chips are not on a linear correlation with $EV. There has been disagreement with what I assume are my remarks of a 10% late game improvement causing an increase in ROI. I can agree with that - more chips don't mean more $EV. But, I also happen to think that most (not all) ICM theory goes out the window in STT games once you're on the bubble. You should always be shooting for 1st, so this strategy is directly pertinent to the all-or-nothing mentality.

I _do_ believe ICM is a very strong concept and is fundamental to deep stack games like MTTs or early level STT

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have that completely backwards.

eastbay

[Zelcious]

A very good point !
The $EV will be even worse I think according to ICM.