Gigabet unplugged: percentage payouts and the value of disparate goals - Page 4

The Yugoslavian · #31 06-12-2005, 10:24 PM

Well if this is a play predicated on 'block theory' (which I don't think it is really)...then those chips he's trying to win would be more useful as part of a bigger stack than the chips he loses to become a small...but still playable stack. The other thing is that if he folds to minraises from short stacks there in these games....well...someone will notice I'm sure. Hell, he already just backed down from a t125 raise...so that opens up the fields raising standards on him somewhat. He could stuff preflop but has no FE...so probably wants to see a flop with those pot odds and then if he catches it he'll call of the rest of the short stacks chips.....or have options to get the short stack to possibly lay down.

Yugoslav

Freudian · #32 06-12-2005, 10:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I was more interested in the openraise than anything else. Or rather, the call of the minraise. Don't you figure that when you flatcall the raise, the rest of the shortstack's chips are going in on the flop?

Giga's stack was a little less than average himself. Given that the hand sortof played itself out the way it had to, is K7s the kind of hand you want to risk the better part of your stack with here? That's what I'm getting at. What value did his "block" have here? And was getting half of it in against a re-raiser, with K7s, a good idea?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he played it simply because he thought it was a good opportunity to gain chips. When the small stacked called and pushed on the flop, he thought he would win his fair share here. I don't think he played this hand to gain a "block". He played it to pick up 75+ chips often enough for it to be worth it.

The texture of the steps tables is different from your normal SnG, with the money involved and the top heavy prize structure which I am sure has a big impact on how he plays.

imported_cocarondelle · #33 06-12-2005, 10:25 PM

I agree with you , but there is a huge difference between being a big stack like 2000 (with another player having the same), and having a big stack of 2800, and basically covering the table;(as the second chip leader with 2000, I would not be very happy about this gap...)

chumdawg · #34 06-12-2005, 11:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I was more interested in the openraise than anything else. Or rather, the call of the minraise. Don't you figure that when you flatcall the raise, the rest of the shortstack's chips are going in on the flop?

Giga's stack was a little less than average himself. Given that the hand sortof played itself out the way it had to, is K7s the kind of hand you want to risk the better part of your stack with here? That's what I'm getting at. What value did his "block" have here? And was getting half of it in against a re-raiser, with K7s, a good idea?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he played it simply because he thought it was a good opportunity to gain chips. When the small stacked called and pushed on the flop, he thought he would win his fair share here. I don't think he played this hand to gain a "block". He played it to pick up 75+ chips often enough for it to be worth it.

The texture of the steps tables is different from your normal SnG, with the money involved and the top heavy prize structure which I am sure has a big impact on how he plays.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I follow. If the sole intent of the play is to pick up 75 chips (meaning that you don't necessarily like your hand if you get re-raised), then how can you be comfortable calling off more than half your stack when you get played back at?

Question: Given that he was played back at the hand before, when he made the same raise, and laid it down, is he more, or less, likely to get played back at again? And further, depending on the answer to that question, is raising with K7 in that situation a good, or not good, play?

If it's a case of: well, I got caught when I raised 125 here, so I have no other choice than to call off 350 chips...does the likelihood of this happening, and the likelihood of K7 being a good enough hand when it does, make raising to 125 in the first place a good play?

Freudian · #35 06-12-2005, 11:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I follow. If the sole intent of the play is to pick up 75 chips (meaning that you don't necessarily like your hand if you get re-raised), then how can you be comfortable calling off more than half your stack when you get played back at?

Question: Given that he was played back at the hand before, when he made the same raise, and laid it down, is he more, or less, likely to get played back at again? And further, depending on the answer to that question, is raising with K7 in that situation a good, or not good, play?

If it's a case of: well, I got caught when I raised 125 here, so I have no other choice than to call off 350 chips...does the likelihood of this happening, and the likelihood of K7 being a good enough hand when it does, make raising to 125 in the first place a good play?

[/ QUOTE ]

Winning 75 is what happens often. But that isn't the sole reason to make this play. Sometimes someone calls and he is able to win more. Search for the hand history of the first Higher Step tourney Gigabet won. There he made a similar play and took it down with a 300 bet on the turn or river.

I am sure that who the SB/BB was and the texture of the table made him make this play. If anyone but small stack had called, I am sure the hand would have played out differently.

I don't think this play is a good play for most players. But I also know that Gigabet is very good at gaining chips in the early levels with cards others wouldn't play.

If he mixes in just enough K7s with AA/KK/QQ/AK/whatever when raising in EP in level 3 he will gain extra chips in the long run.

chumdawg · #36 06-12-2005, 11:43 PM

If you make the play because you expect both blinds to fold, but one of them raises you instead, does that at all impact the way you proceed? (Whether you are Gigabet or anyone else, is what I mean.)

Freudian · #37 06-12-2005, 11:47 PM

I have no idea what he would do if a blind raise here. He would probably fold since he has a pretty clear idea what kind of hands the blinds would play there though and a raise would indicate a hand he is a big dog against.

But I don't know. Perhaps that would be one of those times he would be willing to take a -EV gamble to get a healthy stack to gain another "block".

chumdawg · #38 06-13-2005, 12:12 AM

Well, a blind DID raise there. And that's the reason I offer the hand for discussion.

pineapple888 · #39 06-13-2005, 03:00 PM

Well, no offense intended to the old hands here, but what's new or insightful about any of this? Why is anyone trying to figure out what Gigabet is talking about in his other post?

A LAG who knows he can run over a timid table if he gets the biggest stack can rationally take the worst of a single encounter to try to accumulate said stack and to simulteously build an advantageous table image.

Well, duh. You don't need blather over block sizes to understand that. But how often does this really come up online below these Step 5s? Once every 20 tables or so I get a timid table at the 215s, and then I go LAG. But this is rare. It probably never happens below the 215s.

Meanwhile, the concepts in irieguy's post are well-summarized, but already well-understood by good MTT players, and have no relevance to SnGs or to Gigabet that I can see. The payout is much flatter for SnGs, period. If the table is timid, LAG makes sense. Otherwise, if there are players (like me) ready to come over the top of a LAG with anything reasonable, you just have to tighten up in a SnG, given the payout structure. Or not, I don't care, just give away your $$.