Gigabet's STT Theory for Laymen (cliff notes version)...

The Don · #1 11-05-2005, 05:44 PM

Everyone seems to be confused about this so I will give my interpretation. He really gave away a ton of information in this article and it has really changed my game a lot (for the better obviously).

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...part=1&vc=1

The main point Gigabet was trying to make was that high blind/stack ratio STTs are all about stack sizes in the late game. People's ranges change based on the stack situation, whether they realize it or not. There is a certain point in STTs where your stack becomes large enough so that the cards you are dealt become irrelevant. Gigabet is willing to take "-EV" gambles in order to get to this point. On that specific hand the play is -cEV, but when taking into account potential future hands the play is both +cEV and +$EV. This is also the reason why he takes more gambles in the early game than most people.

Gig's theory is directly related to ICM and pushbotting. These concepts are all about making decisions based on opponent's ranges, which are directly related to stack sizes. Gig merely downplays the importance of his holdings, hence his "line" metaphor. This is why he articulates his logic verbally (although fairly poorly), rather than mathematically like eastbay does.

Just think about it, haven't there been a ton of situations where you have felt helpless because of the the stack situation and payout structure, even though the dominant stack is a poor player who is giving up a ton of +EV opportunities?

applejuicekid · #2 11-05-2005, 06:22 PM

Interesting, I think I get what you are saying but am not sure. Could you post an actual hand history with some commentary as an example?

ace_in_the_hole · #3 11-05-2005, 07:21 PM

Very good summary. I find it so funny when there are 4 left with Stack sizes: 1500, 1500, 1500, 5500. The 5500 stack will fold 90% of the hands rather than push 90%.

LesJ · #4 11-05-2005, 09:30 PM

Does anyone have a link to the original Gigabet post that Gigabet references in this linked post? The Q3 post from MTT?
Thanks,
Les

The Don · #5 11-05-2005, 09:30 PM

I would say that this is an excellent example from a few months ago. Aside from one horrendous fold with A6o, this is exactly how I advocate playing based on stack sizes. I don't necessarily make any -EV plays here though. Those situations are fairly rare, I am trying to find something in my (now limited) database.

ramses · #6 11-10-2005, 04:09 PM

I think your analysis of the outcome is correct, but both you and gigabet seem arrive at the conclusion via empirical means when actually there is a sound mathematical basis for it. And no I am not going to share.

durron597 · #7 11-10-2005, 04:17 PM

I've said it 100 times, and I'll say it again. Gigabet stack size theory is not important for low buyin SnGs and making -EV plays because of it is so rare even in high buyin ones that 95% of the players on here should not even worry about it.

The Don · #8 11-10-2005, 06:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I've said it 100 times, and I'll say it again. Gigabet stack size theory is not important for low buyin SnGs and making -EV plays because of it is so rare even in high buyin ones that 95% of the players on here should not even worry about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. But his emphasis on how relative stack sizes dictate decisions is important.

The Don · #9 11-10-2005, 06:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think your analysis of the outcome is correct, but both you and gigabet seem arrive at the conclusion via empirical means when actually there is a sound mathematical basis for it. And no I am not going to share.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is tough because so much is implied based on future situations, not concrete.

pooh74 · #10 11-10-2005, 06:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've said it 100 times, and I'll say it again. Gigabet stack size theory is not important for low buyin SnGs and making -EV plays because of it is so rare even in high buyin ones that 95% of the players on here should not even worry about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. But his emphasis on how relative stack sizes dictate decisions is important.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course its important! But thats what we talk about here 90% of the time! Making -EV decisions however, is dumb, not for 95% of us, try 99%. They should be by definition.

His post (the Q3 hand?) was +EV for those of us that play against those that try to implement it. Thats all...nothing against him, because obviously he is a great player.