Problems with Tournement Theory and ICM

[Moonsugar]

You bring up interesting points.

Basically what math types assume to make the math more simple is that all players have the same skill etc. If you read TPFAP this assumption is given for almost every problem.

What Daniel N., Gigabet (and ZeeJustin in a thread I have no link to) and I am sure many other great players suggest is that is a stupid assumption.

They say that decision X may be -chipEV and -$EV for the average player, but I am great at 1 (or more) of the possible outcomes of decision X and, even though it may be -chipEV it is +$EV FOR ME.

So, my questions for the forum remain:

What types of situations would you study more and play differently than you play today?
How would your approach to a SnG change?

Is it only the play of a big stack against thinking players?

[Moonsugar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are correct that I can't make those reads however you are incorrect and missing the whole theory behind Giga's call in this hand, and how it differs from accepted tournament theory.

[/ QUOTE ]



Please elaborate. What is this "accepted tournament theory" and what is Giga's motivation for deviating from it? IE, why is he incorrect?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can't see this you shouldn't have made your previous reply. I suggest you read the thread linked in my OP.

[Gramps]

[ QUOTE ]
If you were going to experiment with this concept that chips could have INCREASING marginal utility/value what would you study? What situations would you play differently? How would your approach to SnGs change?

[/ QUOTE ]

There was some Step 5 (2-table) post from Gigabet a couple months back in the MTT forum where he raised KJo and called a push and got severely flamed for it by the masses - it was a situation though where one could argue that while it was -chip EV (given his opponent's likely range of hands, and the odds the pot was laying), it was +$EV, because the times he won it would open up a significant chip gap on all the other players at the table, and allow him to pretty much steal at will (aided by the fact that people wouldknow they can't resteal from him without having to win a showdwon - KJo call, and the fact that given the higher $$ stakes other players were more likley to play scared).

So...when it's chips that make the difference between you having a significant stealing edge (i.e. gives you a chip gap on the other players at the table that they will respect), and no stealing edge, the marginal value of the chips you could win is greater that that of those you're putting at risk - enough so to turn a -EV chip play into a +$EV one.

In short - the opportunity to open up a chip gap that will give you a significantly greater stealing advantage is a context where the situation may arise.

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you were going to experiment with this concept that chips could have INCREASING marginal utility/value what would you study? What situations would you play differently? How would your approach to SnGs change?

[/ QUOTE ]

There was some Step 5 (2-table) post from Gigabet a couple months back in the MTT forum where he raised KJo and called a push and got severely flamed for it by the masses - it was a situation though where one could argue that while it was -chip EV (given his opponent's likely range of hands, and the odds the pot was laying), it was +$EV, because the times he won it would open up a significant chip gap on all the other players at the table, and allow him to pretty much steal at will (aided by the fact that people wouldknow they can't resteal from him without having to win a showdwon - KJo call, and the fact that given the higher $$ stakes other players were more likley to play scared).

So...when it's chips that make the difference between you having a significant stealing edge (i.e. gives you a chip gap on the other players at the table that they will respect), and no stealing edge, the marginal value of the chips you could win is greater that that of those you're putting at risk - enough so to turn a -EV chip play into a +$EV one.

In short - the opportunity to open up a chip gap that will give you a significantly greater stealing advantage is a context where the situation may arise.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the perfect example of what Moonsugar was looking for.

However, that still doesn't mean that Sklansky's tournament theory is wrong, of course. To be able to benefit from these types of plays, you have to:

a) Be very good at making reads
b) Know how to win pots postflop regularly when you don't have a made hand and probably don't have the best hand
c) Be aware of your own table image
d) HAVE TIME

(d) is important as to how it relates to shallow stacked STT's. The kind of poker that we play in this forum simply doesn't allow for the above kind of fancy play. Giga's KJ hand, for example, was in a MTT step tourney. Different format altogether. That's not to suggest that he's incapable of making the same play in a STT, but it's value is reduced.

On PokerSuperstars 2, Michael Konig (spelling?) made an astute observation about Bobby Hoff. He pointed out that Hoff is top cash game player, but not well known for his tournament play. Hoff made a couple of clear mistakes that can be great cash game plays when you have 100BB sitting in front of you, but not in a tournament where you start with 50BB and the blinds increase fast.

The same applies to Daniel N. and Gus Hansen. In a deep stack $10K multi, you have room, time, and reading ability that isn't present in STT's. I guarantee that if these players jumped into 4 $200 STT Party tables that they would change their style. Because if they didn't, they wouldn't win at a rate that is acceptable to them. They're perfectly capable of doing that, of course.

BTW, Gramps, this post isn't directed at you.

[Moonsugar]

Thanks for the recap of the thread I linked. One thing you left out was that many people should not call the reraise. People should still read it I think. One can learn a lot.

So, basically, I need to study and learn how to play a big stack against people who think.

Thanks for your recap and input.

[Moonsugar]

Gramps recapped the thread I linked. I already understo0d all of it. He then suggested that it essentially comes down to knowing how to steal.

Regarding a): The player who originally posted the thread I linked in the OP was Giga's opp. in the hand in question, is a good player, and made the correct read, knew Giga made the correct read (and that everyone in these tournies would make the exact same read) and STILL did not understand why the call was correct. THIS IS NOT ABOUT HAND READING.

b) yes this is what I need to learn and what i am getting at

c) goes with b

d) this is a 20 person tourney that pays top 4 with 12 players left. Blinds go up every 10 minutes. The main difference v. SnG is that it would be shorthanded then full table then shorthanded before the end. And maybe this difference is what makes this call correct (combined with Giga's skill+image with a big stack).

[Gramps]

Yes, I'm lazy and assumed your thread was going to refer to his 63o play at the Mirage, or Step 5 Higher bluff hands ("Allow myself, to introduce...myself..."). I'm glad you picked out the KJo thread, b/c it's one of my all-time favorites. There were some intelligent players who thought Giga was clueless and that it was a fishy call. And it's a great example of a situation where a -EV chip call can be +$EV given all the variables present and player invovled.

And no, those plays don't come up very often, it's a function of (a) recognizing when they exist, and (b) having the skill to capitalize on the steal edge the times you win (like you said). So...being aware of your image and ongoing "stealing credibility", how others play, who's tight, who's loose, who makes spite calls/spite playbacks, etc., etc., etc., etc.

I think a second recap is in there somewhere.

[Gramps]

(a) - (d)

As you imply - in tournament poker, it always depends, depends, depends....

[DonButtons]

He was the one who pretty much introduced proper bubble play with the big stack, and if I gain a extra 800 chips over 2nd stack, I usually gain 2000 chips during the bubble too. But I still miss some spots where Im sure giga would capitalize on, but like gramps said, it all about identifying the situation, and its not always easy to point out, specially 8 tabling and up.

[maddog2030]

[ QUOTE ]
In short - the opportunity to open up a chip gap that will give you a significantly greater stealing advantage is a context where the situation may arise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

To the OP: I don't think this contradicts normal tournament theory or ICM. ICM of course it has its limitations because its hard to add anything more to a definitive equation, but those are well defined.

However, something you can do is use eastbay's tool to ICM the situation where there someone like Gigabet has a large chip gap. This is particuarly good if you have a lot of varying stacks with some small ones mixed in. See what your calling ranges should be at different stack sizes against the monster stack who is pushing any 2 from various positions. Especially take note of the calling ranges of the guys who can hurt you the most: the middle stacks. You'll often see as tight as JJ+ or so. Then you can input those calling ranges in for the middle stacks and analyze it from the perspective of the pusher and see what kind of hands you need to push with when the middle stacks are so tight. The small stacks should get fairly loose but realistically they're probably not as loose as they should be. Plus that's on the assumption of the guy really is pushing any 2, which very well may be the case, but are you willing to risk your tournament life with a T8s call? Maybe, maybe not. I'm assuming most people wouldn't, and if they're wrong just a little bit about him pushing any 2 it makes a call disasterous.

So now all of a sudden a pleathra of new +$EV pushes come into view that you wouldn't normally have. And while blinds and stack sizes are still just the right size, you can crush the table. So you see it's well within tournament theory, it's just hard to quantify something like that into an equation. Although if you look at it the right way, it does follow from it.

Edit: sp error.