Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Tournament Poker > Multi-table Tournaments

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-27-2005, 03:44 PM
ZBTHorton ZBTHorton is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 56
Default An In Depth View of Tournament EV and Short Term Variance

So I was sitting last night about 5AM, playing some poker. I start up a conversation with a buddy of mine who plays exclusively SNG tournaments(109's and 215's) with a decent ROI and is definitely a +EV player.

He is a occasional lurker of 2p2. But knows many of the big name posters here either in real life, or because they play a ton of SNG's. He also has several friends who are either regular 2p2'ers or regular high stakes poker players.

This particular person is one of those 'math guys'. Everything is black or white. It's a push or a fold. It's +EV or -EV. It can't be debatable. It can't be read dependant.

We begin talking about ZeeJustin's J9s hand from last month

He begins to tell me how -EV this play is. How no 'world class player' would agree with this play and the such. Being a MTT'r who thinks a little outside the box sometimes, I naturally disagree. Since if ZJ's READ were that good, of course it could be +EV. Anything can be +EV if your read is perfect.

The conversation spawns into live vs online play. With me using my hand from the 11R as an example of an 'online read' to which he states that it's the worst hand he's ever seen. Fair enough.

We argue back and forth for a while. I talk about ZJ winning 110K the other night. I talk about Gigabet and his Q4s push in a SNG, and he basically blames all of that success on short term variance. Bigslick789, JohnnyBax, etc. All short term variance. Because if they make -EV plays(basically any call or push that is not substantiated by math. ie: reads, bluffs, etc)., they must be donkeys in the long run.

This brings about some interesting questions to 2p2.

#1. Do you honestly feel like many of the big name tourney players out there are simply one hit wonders who accidentally won a couple of big tournaments?

#2. Do you think it is possible to have an 'online read' on a tournament player so strong in order to make -EV calls?(see my call from the 11R)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-27-2005, 03:51 PM
Mr_J Mr_J is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 639
Default Re: An In Depth View of Tournament EV and Short Term Variance

"and he basically blames all of that success on short term variance."

As an snger he should know that sng variance is quite low, and these 2 (gig and zj) have easily played enough to prove their skill (at sngs). As for a 110k MTT win, well of course that's luck [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-27-2005, 03:52 PM
Firefly Firefly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 73
Default Re: An In Depth View of Tournament EV and Short Term Variance

1) I think that there are a certain amount of 'shooting stars' that happen in poker, remember teecoy, or anyone else that shot up the ranks and disapeared. However, i don't think that you can call MLG or JonnyBax(the guy has a WSOP braclet jeez) a function of variance.

2) hmmm I believe in reads, but i prefer to make my reads +EV ones :P. Gigabet demostrated that small -EV calls can be beneficial, however you have to be @ that status...
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-27-2005, 04:06 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: An In Depth View of Tournament EV and Short Term Variance

I've been thinking some about your #2 recently (that sounds a little... gross, if you think about it, so don't), and I'd say that a 'read' online is rare. Harrington says that even the best players can never put their opponents on a single hand, only on a range of hands. Someone, and I've no idea who, on this forum said that when playing online, ALL you can do is make plays that are +EV against the range of hands your opponent could be playing. In other words, I know Villain could be pushing an overpair or a flush draw, and I have no way of knowing which in this instance, but mathematically I am getting the right odds from the pot to call, given the probability that he has one of these holdings.

A read helps you to determine which of the hands within Villain's range he is holding this time. Keep the hands and flop cards the same but move to a live tournament. Now, Villain makes the same push, and my first thought is, "He could have a flush draw or an overpair." But, I might be able to sense some nervousness on his part, or notice that he moved his chips in with his left hand, or he ate his Oreo, or whatever, and get a read on which hand in his range he is holding this time. This isn't impossible to do online, as the time Villain took to make his bet or the amount he bet (did he type in 350 or use the slider to make a bet of 347) could reveal a tell, but you certainly get a lot less information.

So I would say in your 11r hand, you didn't have a read. You just knew Villain's range was very wide, because you'd seen him make the same bet on prior occasions when you suspected he was bluffing. It's quite possible he would have taken the same line if he held pocket 2's and made a set on the river. So you didn't precisely have a read telling you that he was bluffing rather than pushing a set, you simply (and correctly) put him on a very wide range of hands, and then made a +EV call against that range. In other words, you knew he'd be bluffing often enough to make a call profitable.

In this sense, online poker is almost exclusively a game of identifying and manipulating mathematical probabilities. You pay attention to your opponents so that you can get the best sense of the range of hands they could have in any given situation, and you make yourself difficult to 'read' simply by taking lines that don't allow your opponents to put you on a very narrow range. Reads, at least as I would define the term, rarely come into play.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-27-2005, 04:31 PM
nightlyraver nightlyraver is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Over the river and through the woods...
Posts: 168
Default Re: An In Depth View of Tournament EV and Short Term Variance

I'm only commenting on question 2:

I definately think you can have an online read so strong as to make a -EV play +EV. Think about live poker - let's say you in the BB and Villian is on the button. It's folded to Villian who sticks in a 4xBB raise. You look over and notice that he swallowed real hard as he forcefully shoved in his chips. Villian now stares you down. In the past, you have observed all of these tells when Villian has an ace with an unsuited, weak kicker. Knowing this, you can come over the top for all your chips with a hand like JTs. Mathematically this is correct since you are a coinflip against a hand like A4o and there are plenty of chips already in the pot. WITHOUT this tell, you would have to assume that you are a sizable underdog against even a broad range of top 15% hands. Without the tell, the play is therefore -EV.

The question then becomes, can an "online" tell reveal the same information? I think so, but it may not occur as often IMHO. For example, let's say the same situation occured but it was online. However, Villian very quickly stuck in a miniraise. I have definately seen some guys quickly make small raises with trash on a steal. If the quick miniraise means that Villian can have ANY top 50% hand, coming over the top with the JTs ALSO becomes a +EV play since you are now a 50/50 shot over Villian's range.

This is just one common example that I thought of, many more probably exist. However, you still don't have the subconscious bodily movements that frequently occur in a B&M tourney.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-27-2005, 04:35 PM
Exitonly Exitonly is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 3
Default Re: An In Depth View of Tournament EV and Short Term Variance

1) I'm sure there are some, wouldn't really know who unless you knew how they played, how they think.

2) Of course you can, you determine EV by using your reads, you put them on a RANGE of hands, your read determines how narrow the range is. So if it's -EV, then no, your read was already accounted for, and it's not profitable.

Your 11r hand, was +EV because you deteremined the probability that he had squat, and you it was good to make that call. (Though, it was probably marginally +cEV)

- Ray
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-27-2005, 04:37 PM
nightlyraver nightlyraver is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Over the river and through the woods...
Posts: 168
Default Re: An In Depth View of Tournament EV and Short Term Variance

Another major factor to consider is what Mike Caro identifies as the strongest tells in poker - acting weak when you are strong and acting strong when you are weak. This certainly occurs in online poker. There are some people who almost never raise from EP w/ AA or KK, or better yet, they always miniraise with those hands. There are also those players who only will raise 5xBB w/ a big-ish ace when they don't want to see the flop, like with ATo from MP. I know that I have notes on people that state that a 4xBB raise always means AK-AT. Coming over the top, with a hand like 22 for example, can then become +EV when it otherwise would be mucked.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-27-2005, 04:59 PM
pfkaok pfkaok is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 103
Default Re: An In Depth View of Tournament EV and Short Term Variance

[ QUOTE ]
#2. Do you think it is possible to have an 'online read' on a tournament player so strong in order to make -EV calls?(see my call from the 11R)

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't believe the read could ever do this, b/c all the read could do is narrow down the range, which would change the EV of the play. possibly a player online could be so predictable that their actions(betsizes ect.) could narrow their hand extremely, to maybe only a few combos. but then that would just change the EV equation.

i think the main confusion here is in finding situations where Tchip EV and real money EV can be vastly different. situations like this do occur more than most people think in online tourneys. that was supposed to be a central theme in my posts supporting betgo's redzone idea.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-27-2005, 05:18 PM
A_PLUS A_PLUS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 44
Default Re: An In Depth View of Tournament EV and Short Term Variance

I think that your friend is looking at things the wrong way.

In many settings, like Finance, you take the EV of a situation, and adjust for risk (Sharpe ratio, Information ratio, etc, etc) Basically EV / Variance.

I dont see a problem valuing cash game decisions the same way. EV is good, risk is bad. Fair enough.

For MTTs, it just doesnt line up so neatly. Given the skewed distribution of payoffs, I think that a case can be made that the highest series of EV/VAR plays is very far from optimal. In some cases, I think the best play will be the higher variance option.

Now, wether or not you can get into -CEV plays or not, is questionable. I really dont know. But I think your buddy isnt realizing the inherent value of variance in and of itself in a MTT
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-27-2005, 05:36 PM
adanthar adanthar is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 27
Default Re: An In Depth View of Tournament EV and Short Term Variance

It's surprising your buddy doesn't get this, because the best examples of a read turning a play +EV are all at the 109's/215's.

Example (which has kinda been covered already): You are up against a perfect pushbotter during 150/300 etc; he pushes on the button with 5 BB. You have two cards in the BB, and you know he is pushing any two, so the two cards you call with are substantially lower in rank than they would be if you thought he was too tight on the bubble. There's no way your friend is *not* doing some version of this - he doesn't always call A8o and fold A7o no matter who is doing the pushing, does he?

I think what your friend is really getting at is that there's no such thing as a -EV play that, when successful, nonetheless increases future EV (such as by giving you a big stack with which to bully.) This is also wrong, and your friend no doubt knows it even if he doesn't understand it, because if he's a winning player, at some point during his play he has pushed over a button minraise with trash on the bubble solely because he had the button covered. That is a -EV play given his crappy hand, but it's nevertheless +EV because when he wins (often) he can bully and take first.

So, I think your friend needs to reexamine what it is that guys like Gigabet do a bit. However, he is nonetheless mostly right in that 95% of guys that try Gigaplays or ZJ-plays do it at the wrong time or just plain suck. It's quite possible he's never seen a really blatant example of it pulled off correctly. I have. It's lovely.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.