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%.

#4 11-10-2005, 07:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
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%.

[/ QUOTE ]

In most STTs, when down to 4, the stacks are more like 1000, 1500, 2000, 3500. No wiggle room for -EV moves by bigstack. In a MTT perhaps (bigstack has 25,000 and shorstack has 1,500).

pooh74 · #5 11-10-2005, 07:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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%.

[/ QUOTE ]

In most STTs, when down to 4, the stacks are more like 1000, 1500, 2000, 3500. No wiggle room for -EV moves by bigstack. In a MTT perhaps (bigstack has 25,000 and shorstack has 1,500).

[/ QUOTE ]

The issue is, which has little to do with -$EV moeves, is that even in an STT in the above layout, there wont be many -EV plays for the bigstack if the blinds are high enough...this is because the 1500 stacks' calling ranges will be ridiculously tight because they dont want to bust. I am speaking in the abstract of course. On the other hand, same situation, and you are the bigstack in the BB and blinds are 150/300 and you look down at 23o, it would be wrong to call UTG's push...there is no theory that you can tell me that would refute this. In fact, busting him means much less stealing for you. I am getting off track...lets just say I should stop getting involved in these threads.

The Don · #6 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.

vinyard · #7 11-10-2005, 06:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense, but while your hand illustrates pretty solid big stack poker (I also don't care for the KTs fold) I don't see any play that is comparable to the Q3 play Gigabet made. If you are referring to the hand where you come back over the top of the other stacks min-raise I think almost everyone here does that with any two cards.

pooh74 · #8 11-10-2005, 07:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense, but while your hand illustrates pretty solid big stack poker (I also don't care for the KTs fold) I don't see any play that is comparable to the Q3 play Gigabet made. If you are referring to the hand where you come back over the top of the other stacks min-raise I think almost everyone here does that with any two cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, and I didnt even look at it, but I can probably tell (given a calling range) that it was +EV.

From the few hands I looked at, I think OP is confusing playing BigStack poker with something gigabet said. However you visualize it is fine BTW, but it is nothing ground breaking or earth shattering.

Calling in a -EV spot is probably never a good idea...but Ive been wrong before and I am sure I will be many times again... I love being proven wrong...only way I learn.

Exitonly · #9 11-10-2005, 07:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Calling in a -EV spot is probably never a good idea...but Ive been wrong before and I am sure I will be many times again... I love being proven wrong...only way I learn.

[/ QUOTE ]

It all depends how you calculate EV.

You're correct that it wouldn't be good to call in a -EV situaton.

But cEV and EV can be completely different, both when -cEV translates to +EV, or +cEV translates to -EV.

If calling and winning is more +EV than calling and losing is -EV, then it's fine to take a marginally -cEV situation. (all these EV's i'm blabbering about is bound to make this look retarded). And conversely if calling and winning is LESS +EV than calling and losing is -EV. blah blah

i duunno if i made any points or not.

But i semi-agree with you.

pfkaok · #10 11-10-2005, 07:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Calling in a -EV spot is probably never a good idea...but Ive been wrong before and I am sure I will be many times again... I love being proven wrong...only way I learn.

[/ QUOTE ]

in the linked thread, gigs KJo is a perfect example of when taking a -EV(Tchips) gamble is clearly correct.