Is it good to stay in the red zone?

[FishInAPhoneBooth]

[ QUOTE ]
It makes no sesne, you don't pass up small EV situations, in order to pay off half your stack, just to POSSIBLY get into a SLIGHTLY better EV situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that what tournament poker is all about? Avoiding a slightly +ev situations that one would fully exploit in a cash game in order to survive looking for a better spot?

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe I am reading this thread. And to think some experienced posters are arguing for this...I am not going to cast any insults but this is all just so logically absurd I feel like its a geek's version of Who's on First...

Now excuse me bc I have to go cut both of my arms and legs off so I can collect 100/week workers comp...its +EV and easier.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I have explained several times, I presented this somewhat
ironically, but I am not arguing that a 6xBB stack is better to have than a 12xBB stack. I arguing that a 6xBB stack can be played more effectively than a 12xBB stack.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
Or maybe, this whole thing is retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really appreciate the polite intelligent argument.

[Exitonly]

way to respond to Adanthar's response TWICE. but ignore the things i bring up.

[FishInAPhoneBooth]

Betgo-
In the 9BB AJ UTG example, is your argument that you are going to pass on a that because you are certain that in the next round (possibly two) you are almost guaranteed to find a spot. The reasoning being that with a 7.5BB/6BB stack far more hands become very +ev to push because you are risking less while at the same time the villain's calling range becomes wider. Thus you move up in the payouts as people bust out while you maximize the possibility of going to the felt in a much more +ev spot.

Is that the essence of your theory?

[Exitonly]

[ QUOTE ]
much more +ev spot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not happening, his extra EV is that it'll be folded to him in LP, and the better EV isnt because calling rangers are wider, that actually hurts you. The better EV is that you're effectivly getting better "pot odds" beccause your stack is smaller.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry oak, this is not like the stack size theory (which, btw i also don't like) Look at the hand betgo tried to explain his 'theory' with.

AJs with 9BB's.. he says to fold because you'll get more EV situations after you pass the blinds. BUT YOU WONT. Sometimes it'll fold to you in LP and maybe you'll have a hand that will have more EV to push there. EVEN IF YOU DO, you'll just get back to where you were when you passed up on the AJs EV.

It makes no sesne, you don't pass up small EV situations, in order to pay off half your stack, just to POSSIBLY get into a SLIGHTLY better EV situation.


[/ QUOTE ]

OK. well i hadn't read Betgos other thing with the AJ, but now that i have, I still feel it definately fits into Gigabets stack size thing. Here, i'll try to explain a bit better.



Gigs post:





"Ok, boys and girls, this here may be the most -ev post I have ever written. The Q3 push thread received quite a few responses from players who were confused about the validity of it, while I thought that it was a fairly standard play for most of us here(read independent.) Even if the players do not know why they do it, I thought that at least they would understand intuitively the value from plays such as these. Before I get into the actual dynamics of that individual hand, let me see if I can explain the "Gigabet Dilemma."

For those that do not know, there was a very long and controversial thread(in the MTT forum) about another hand that I had played. Basically, I had made a -ev call because I had felt that the positive ev I would gain later in the game, if I win the hand, outweighs the negative ev of the specific hand. Because you cannot mathematically prove the positive equity of future happenings with any certainty, this is all theory. The controversy surrounding the argument of whether or not to take the immediate negative expected value or make the "correct" play has been coined the Gigabet Dilemma.

If you are on my side, and agree with my reasoning, then you have to take these negative situations and use them to your advantage. But the real question is, how do you recognize when you can get on the negative side of the situation and know that if you lose that individual hand, your stack will still be able to contend with the fields? Understanding that every situation is one long stream of events, and the results of any single hand mean nothing in the long run isn't enough. Because of Gamblers Ruin(cannot recover from zero) you are forced to recognize that each situation is independent, and have to be results oriented for that hand. It is counter-intuitive to make a move based on one situation, rather than 100s of thousands similar situations, but because you cannot recover from zero, there has to be a plateau in each situation that you can recover from. Since each situation will involve different stacks, you have to depend on your results from the texture of that individual setting to decide whether to make that -ev move. You cannot create hard and fast guidelines to make that decision, rather, you have to go by your feel for the situation at hand.

Here is where it gets interesting. Although you cannot make guidelines, you can create one "model" that you can look at, and decide what the best decision would be in that model. If you decide that your model calls for avoiding the -ev situation, then adjust the sizes of the stacks until you find a model that calls for embracing the negative situation.

If you think you would have troubles actually finding a correct model, here are some things that may help you. Put everyone at near the same stack size, except for one player, who has around 1/3 the rest of the field, and gradually increase the blinds, if you still cannot get it, gradually increase your stack, while leaving everyones the same, including the small stack.

Once you get your model, use it as a relative comparison to some past stts you have played, and see if you cannot see actual game situations that are relatively close to that situation that is represented by your model. Read through enough hand histories, and you will start to intuitively see the situations as they arise.

In my mind, I see each stack as a "block" that fits into a complete mold that encompasses all of the chips in play. I cannot comprehend what "one" chip is, because that is too small of a unit for my mold. Here is a very loose description of what I mean. At the beginning of a tourney, everyone has a block that is the same size, imagine 10 blocks sitting next to each other, with a bold face line running across the top of all of the blocks. I actually envision a pie type mold, with the blocks pieced in the pie evenly, however that is too difficult to put into words, so I will try and analagize it. Ok, so your bold face line is just a guideline that represents the saturation point of the chips in play, basically, the average stack, but the line could go above or below avg, if one of the stack gets excessively larger or smaller than the fields. As the tourney goes on for a time, and the blinds get to a certain point, your line will get very erratic, and there will be times, when the size of the blinds will equal, or nearly equal the size of a "block" that is near the level of your line. When situations like these occur, and your stack hovers above the line, then any part of your stack over the line is essentially meaningless. However, because the line is erratic at that level of play, using those meaningless chips to capture a "block" will make your stack a real force that controls the level of that line. Basically, capturing a block is nearly equivalent to doubling up.

Here is a kicker, if your stack is flush with the line, and the size of the pot is nearly flush with the line, then you have an ideal situation to take alot of negative ev to call an all in from another player. If you can understand that statement, then you will understand alot more than just what I have written so far.

There will be situations where math tells you to push with any two cards to pick up the pot(preflop, of course), however, if you are using my model, you will see that because the "line" is relatively stable, and your stack hovers above the line, than taking down that pot is very nearly always wrong. This is working on the opposite side of the coin, and recognizing when +ev situations should actually be avoided, because it would be more positive to wait until either the line moves, or your stack moves closer to the line.

Now that you have read this, go back and look at the hand history, and see if you can see why I pushed all in with Q3, knowing I was going to take the worst of it in a showdown. If need be, I will go through and explain that hand in detail, and try and put together a more easily identifiable model that represents the stacks at that table.

I have never put this theory into words before, however, I have put them in use enough times to know that there is no doubt in my mind that they are true. I hope that this isn't too disjointed to read, and while I know that understanding it may be difficult, please read through it a few times before asking questions that may have an obvious answer. Obviously newer players will benefit from this more, since they have less "preconceived" notions of how to play. More experienced players may actually intuitively understand it more, but find it hard to believe that this is any kind of poker, and never really incorporate it into their game.

Gigabet"




Now betgo's AJ hand is an example of the concept highlighted. you do'nt have to always take a +EV spot. sometimes, even thought the mathematical average or expected EV is positive, the scenarios that are likely to result (possible stack sizes) after making that play might not be favorable.

[Exitonly]

Your result of folding, is that you lose %20 of your stack the next two hands. So that MAYBE you can get it back if you have a chance to steal in LP. You think that's favorable?

Every time betgo posts I chuckle. Totally disagree with this post. I'd rather have the largest stack and push around the little guys every day of the week. With an M of 5 you still have to double up every 12 to 15 minutes on line as the levels increase. Eventually even with +EV you get beat and you're out. It's like you're hoping a fair coin turns up heads 10 times in a row. theoretically possible, but highly improbable.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
Betgo-
In the 9BB AJ UTG example, is your argument that you are going to pass on a that because you are certain that in the next round (possibly two) you are almost guaranteed to find a spot. The reasoning being that with a 7.5BB/6BB stack far more hands become very +ev to push because you are risking less while at the same time the villain's calling range becomes wider. Thus you move up in the payouts as people bust out while you maximize the possibility of going to the felt in a much more +ev spot.

Is that the essence of your theory?

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty much. Moving up in payments as people bust out is not part of the theory.

However, in some cases you can remain a short stack in relation to the blinds while your stack increases as do the blinds.

I am often comfortable keeping it in the 4-8xBB range. I may not take a lot of risks to gain or maintain an orange zone stack. If I get to the orange zone, I may gamble to get a big stack or let myself get blinded to a small stack.

In some fast structures, late in the tournament almost everyone is in the red zone, so you can play red zone the whole way and make the final table.

Of course if everyone is in the red zone, I like to have a big orange zone stack; since I can get good odds by pushing and at the same time terrorize people with my big stack.

This works well for my style of play. I can play a short stack well. Playing flops with shallow money is not my strength. I get better results if I have a big or small stack that I can play aggressively.