Is it good to stay in the red zone? - Page 7

Kevin West · #61 10-25-2005, 05:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I know how to play a mid stack just fine, and i'm sure Betgo does too. the point is, that a stack of that size simply can't be played all that profitably, no matter who you are. there are a whole lot of spots where you could raise or limp with a big stack, push with a small stack, but if you have a midstack you HAVE to fold. think about that. the reason its "tough" to play with a midstack sometiems is that all of your options are either breakeven, or very, very slightly +EV.

Its NOT a matter of learning to play the stack better. the point is that no matter how well you play, you won't have as many VERY +EV spots as you will with a different sized stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

With a mid stack you are able to fold marginal hands that would risk your tournament life because you aren't desperate. Would you rather have 10BB and AJo UTG, or 5BB and AJo UTG? Your EV is positive for the 5BB case, but your expected stack size after you push will be something like 6 or 7BB compared to the 10BB when you fold in the first case. Just because a play is +EV with one stack size and not with a larger stack doesn't make the larger stack worse. Your expected stack size is still larger in the larger stack size case. Combine this with the fact that your monster hands preflop have significantly more equity when your stack is larger and I don't think your argument works at all.

LearnedfromTV · #62 10-25-2005, 05:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
yes, that's it, betgo and you have stumbled upon a revolutionary new idea that everyone in this forum is too dumb and/or lazy to see, namely that taking -EV gambles for 3/4 of your stack is a good idea because when you lose you have lots of +EV opportunities (to double up to half of where you were)

Or maybe, this whole thing is retarded. Whichever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention, the number of people who disagree and are speaking up in the thread is much smaller than the number of people who disagree and have enough self-control to try to let the damn thing die.

Here's hoping I'm the last idiot to bump it.

pfkaok · #63 10-25-2005, 05:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
yes, that's it, betgo and you have stumbled upon a revolutionary new idea that everyone in this forum is too dumb and/or lazy to see, namely that taking -EV gambles for 3/4 of your stack is a good idea because when you lose you have lots of +EV opportunities (to double up to half of where you were)

[/ QUOTE ]

no. its not a new, revolutionary idea. reread the gigabet stack size thread. i feel like now i'm actually starting to understand that, and the idea that betgo presented here is critical to gigabets concept.

Exitonly · #64 10-25-2005, 06:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
yes, that's it, betgo and you have stumbled upon a revolutionary new idea that everyone in this forum is too dumb and/or lazy to see, namely that taking -EV gambles for 3/4 of your stack is a good idea because when you lose you have lots of +EV opportunities (to double up to half of where you were)

[/ QUOTE ]

no. its not a new, revolutionary idea. reread the gigabet stack size thread. i feel like now i'm actually starting to understand that, and the idea that betgo presented here is critical to gigabets concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry oak, this is not like the stack size theory (which, btw i also don't like) Look at the hand betgo tried to explain his 'theory' with.

AJs with 9BB's.. he says to fold because you'll get more EV situations after you pass the blinds. BUT YOU WONT. Sometimes it'll fold to you in LP and maybe you'll have a hand that will have more EV to push there. EVEN IF YOU DO, you'll just get back to where you were when you passed up on the AJs EV.

It makes no sesne, you don't pass up small EV situations, in order to pay off half your stack, just to POSSIBLY get into a SLIGHTLY better EV situation.

Kevin West · #65 10-25-2005, 06:08 PM

This idea has nothing to do with the Gigabet thread. In Gigabet's thread, he said the gamble would not hurt you significantly, since it would bring you back down to the average stack size which still was threatening to the bigger stacks, but winning the gamble would bump you up to the point where you can start to bully as a big stack. Never did he suggest taking a risk that would bump you down to a critical state.

You are overthinking things. Being in the red zone may give you more +EV opertunities, but that does not mean it isn't better to have a big stack. A big stack that folds a hand has an expected stack size of however big his stack was, while a red zone stack that has to push the hand will still have an expected stack size of much less than the bigger stack. Even though the small stack took advantage of a +EV opertunity, it doesn't mean he has gained anything over the bigger stack.

betgo · #66 10-25-2005, 06:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
yes, that's it, betgo and you have stumbled upon a revolutionary new idea that everyone in this forum is too dumb and/or lazy to see, namely that taking -EV gambles for 3/4 of your stack is a good idea because when you lose you have lots of +EV opportunities (to double up to half of where you were)

Or maybe, this whole thing is retarded. Whichever

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you are too lazy to see it, and it is not necessary to use insulting language like "retarded".

Say you have 20xBB and there is a gamble you know is EV-. If you for 3/4 of your stack, you know that you have a 40% chance of winning. If you win, you gain 20BBs; if you lose, you lose 15BBs. So you will either have 40xBB or 5xBB if you call. The expectation if you call is -1xBB.

However, if you call, the will either have 40xBB or 5xBB. Say the average stack is 15xBB. So if you gamble, you will either have a large stack you can play aggressively or a small stack you can play aggressively.

If your style is aggressive, and you are good at playing a short stack, this may be a good play for you. If you stay as a medium stack, you will lose many EV+ opportunities you would have as either a large stack or a small stack.

Exitonly · #67 10-25-2005, 06:15 PM

You don't lose the +EV situations, they're just harder to play.

As Strassa so eloquently put it "HARDER DOES NOT MEAN BAD"

#68 10-25-2005, 06:20 PM

I am pretty sure I understand the "concept" presented here. The title of the thread is probably misworded.

Anyway, reread Harrington Vol II about orange and red level decision making. He talks about this concept in detail. Even if your decisions available to you in the red are +EV, you're still gonna bust out most of the time when you're in the red and you push (pre-flop).

Gross

pooh74 · #69 10-25-2005, 06:24 PM

I can't believe I am reading this thread. And to think some experienced posters are arguing for this...I am not going to cast any insults but this is all just so logically absurd I feel like its a geek's version of Who's on First...

Now excuse me bc I have to go cut both of my arms and legs off so I can collect 100/week workers comp...its +EV and easier.

FakeKramer · #70 10-25-2005, 06:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
yes, that's it, betgo and you have stumbled upon a revolutionary new idea that everyone in this forum is too dumb and/or lazy to see, namely that taking -EV gambles for 3/4 of your stack is a good idea because when you lose you have lots of +EV opportunities (to double up to half of where you were)

Or maybe, this whole thing is retarded. Whichever.

[/ QUOTE ] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]