Knowingly Taking the Worst of it

[Firefly]

I think i would only *knowingly* take say what figures to be a 40% chance to double up or get more chips if i knew that i could do something with those chips
This is more or less the 'blocks' that Gigabet was talking about. I don't deny that taking a slight shot at having a big stack is correct in only the right circumstaces. Generally I could see it if:
*You would have the ability to run over the table with a big stack or something like that. A situation where having the chips would notably improve your chances at a big finish. I don't think it matters if on the first hand of a party super (or whatever) someone went all in and you *knew* that he had KJ and you had QTs that this would be a call. Because those 1k chips that you would have little value because everyone else has only 1k and the blinds are small thus having the big stack isn't worth being an underdog because there is little profit from it

Now if blinds were 1k/2k and you were offered the same choice (60/40 underdog) BUT you would have the ability to become the table captain and have the ability to run over the table (on the bubble say) would be worth the small loss of -CEV because you would be able to pick up 3k worth of blinds much easier and without risking your stack.

Anyhow i hope this wan't rambling, good post

[Potowame]

seems to me that a main issue here would be the stack size of player that you are knowingly takking the worst of it against.

If Player A has 1000 chips and hero has 2200 in chips, and average was 1250. Just rough numbers. Hero could take a slightly -ev situation.

This would in effect not hinder your ability to maintain with the field, but give you positive expectation if you win those chips.


The obvious plus of having more chips than your villain in a hand is the inability of being eliminated. The slightly -ev gamble now could prevent you from being eliminated from a Bad beat in a +EV situation if your chip stack was smaller.

[jaym96822]

There is also the opportunity cost of nursing a small stack when you could be playing other games. This is especially true online with the limitless supply of new tourneys to play. I would much rather take the chance of a 40/60 with the opportunity to take the table chip lead than fold what could possibly be the best hand.

[A_PLUS]

I have been doing a lot of thinking about a similar, but slightly more specific of a topic.

Mostly dealing with late game pre-bubble aggression. Basically knowingly entering into -CEV situations (usually open pushing). It is similar to Harrington's zone theories but less general

Your stack at this stage is almost exclusively reduced to two factors
The amount of F.E. it will carry independent of your image
The amount of chips it allows you to win if you double up.

Making a move now, will lead to the following
X% you win the pot (+1M)
Y% of the times you double (stack x 2 + some portion of 1M)
z% of the time you go broke.

When their are antes, there is a cost associated with every hand you fail to play.

X% will decrease by some small amount every time your stack loses an ante and blind (Most likely it happens in levels, rather than a continuos decrease, i.e 6.1xBB and 6.2xBB have the same F.E.)

The amount of chips that you win Y% of the time will decrease by 2x the ante or blind you pay.

There is also your image to consider, meaning the more you open push, the lower X% will be, but the higher Y and Z will be. The good thing about this is, Y% is bounded regardless of your image, and it will move in the opposite direction of X. (the more often they call, the higher your equity will be vs their wider range).

Often times we see advice based on the hand in question, but I rarely see players taking the likely implications of the play past a very general spot.


I havent read the replies to this thead yet, so if this is repetitive, or way off topic, oh well. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[CardSharpCook]

In general I disagree. On this board we see a lot of players who advocate "get chips. get chips, get chips." But poker is about patience too. I wish that Sirio would respond to this thread. He said something once, he said in a tourney update, "I made the most out of all of my chip-getting situations." or something like that. I think that this is the poker you should focus on.

I also see people using this (MLGs) advice to take some silly gambles saying to themselves, "if I double up here, doubling up later is worth more," but if you are making a bad decision here, what is going to stop you from making bad decisions with your bigger stack? It seems to me to be fish mentality - counting on a string of against-the-odds wins to make the money. I know that MLG has a much better tourney record that I do (which is why I'd love to hear from Sirio here), but I really don't like this advice.

CSC

[MLG]

[ QUOTE ]
but if you are making a bad decision here, what is going to stop you from making bad decisions with your bigger stack?

[/ QUOTE ]

this is, of course, the key. if you are consistently making bad decisions then there is no point in gambling for more chips. notice nowhere did I say that taking -ev gambles should always be done, i didnt even say it should ever be done. i just pondered the possible implications. you are right that many times my aggresive advice is misinterpreted by people on this board, and used to justify bad gambles. however, the misaplication of concepts is not the same as giving bad advice. I gave no advice in my original post, just pondered the possible implications of a fact that i know to be true, namely that laying down the best hand is much worse in a tourney than a cash game.

[adanthar]

This works well when you have a tiny stack and will have no FE if you push later. Example from today: I have 800 chips on the button with 150/300 blinds in a Party MTT. Some guy in the cutoff opens for 850, and, getting over 1.5:1 for a workable stack, I call with T9s. I might be worse than 1.5:1 against his reasonable stealing range, but not by all that much, and winning gives me something to work with.

In general, though, the problem with this is Gigablocks. When you already have a decent stack, it's a rare situation where you get the extra 'block' of chips you have to work with.

[A_PLUS]

Always good to read some different view points. FWIW, I tend to think that we do have a herd mentality here, which is what makes the views of CSC, DavidROss, Locutus, etc very valuable. I tend to disagree with a lot of it, but it always makes me think.

What I was getting at (and am having a damn near impossible time getting anyone to talk about, even when I jack a MLG thread) was very specific times when you find yourself in the <10xBB range far enough from the bubble where there is no pure value to survival. I think this is an area that many players misplay (both too agro and too passive). I also think that a basic improvement would bring a significant increase to our ROIs. It revolves around the ideas Harrington talked about with his zone theories, but I think that we can get much more specific (which I am sure Dan does, but generalized for the masses). There is no doubt IMO, that entering into a -CEV situation can be +$EV (even when we are far from the bubble), I just want to figure out the where and when.

[MLG]

I agree with everything you said (even though you jacked my thred and it wasnt what i was talking about intially [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]).

[Sluss]

I think sometimes people don't realize how patient MLG is, especially when he is a small to medium stack.

The point to me here is how aggressive do you want to be with a big stack. Do you want to take some gambles that are -EV in hopes you hit or that you can then use this image? I for one don't like to take these gambles with a big stack because of the power of the big stack. I'm barely good enough to survive with +EV gambles, I'm dead with -EV gambles. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

In the building stages early there are plenty of +CEV gambles to take. If your taking maximum advantage of these spots then it is -EV to take -CEV spots I would think.

In the middle stages of a tournaments where those obvious + CEV spot seem to be fading away I think this becomes much more table dependent. There are very few situations though where knowingly taking the worst of it would be a good idea. I can only think of spots where you are at a table of very good players. Then maybe taking this risk to build a much larger stack than the rest of the table would be most advantagous.