Theoretical problem about coinflips

[AleoMagus]

I think I am still being unclear. What I am really driving at is this:

We all seem to agree that taking a coinflip for your survival is a bad idea in a SNG and we try to avoid those sorts of confrontations. What about when you have a really big stack and it's not about your survival? Can you start to make more gambling kinds of plays if your stack is huge and you have the opportunity to bust a player?

Now, though I mentioned it in my original post, I don't buy the argument that we can do this because shorty's chips have 'extra' value. As we add them to our stack, they don't have that value anymore so that can't exactly be the reason why we would justify these kinds of plays.

Still, many tournament experts seem to advocate taking chances against small stacks where you have the opportunity to bust them.

Is our avoidance of confrontation a universal theme of good tournament play, or can we take advantage of small stacks by getting them all-in we have a huge stack. Even if we are only 50/50 or worse?

ICM says no

I guess my reason for this thread is just that when I was thinking about this myself, I suspected it would say no, but that wasn't my gut feeling about what was right. Now that may simply be because in reality the blinds will give us the proper edge we need.

Still, might it be something more than this.

While I don't like to deal in vague imprecise statements, I am reminded of a gigabet (I think) statement where he considers the extra chips in a big stack (when chipleader) somewhat useless, as he cannot double those chips on a single hand. Does this, or something like this change our opinion about putting those chips into play on even money confrontations, or even confrontations where we might be a slight underdog?

Regards
Brad S

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I am still being unclear. What I am really driving at is this:

We all seem to agree that taking a coinflip for your survival is a bad idea in a SNG and we try to avoid those sorts of confrontations. What about when you have a really big stack and it's not about your survival? Can you start to make more gambling kinds of plays if your stack is huge and you have the opportunity to bust a player?

Now, though I mentioned it in my original post, I don't buy the argument that we can do this because shorty's chips have 'extra' value. As we add them to our stack, they don't have that value anymore so that can't exactly be the reason why we would justify these kinds of plays.

Still, many tournament experts seem to advocate taking chances against small stacks where you have the opportunity to bust them.

Is our avoidance of confrontation a universal theme of good tournament play, or can we take advantage of small stacks by getting them all-in we have a huge stack. Even if we are only 50/50 or worse?

ICM says no

I guess my reason for this thread is just that when I was thinking about this myself, I suspected it would say no, but that wasn't my gut feeling about what was right. Now that may simply be because in reality the blinds will give us the proper edge we need.

Still, might it be something more than this.

While I don't like to deal in vague imprecise statements, I am reminded of a gigabet (I think) statement where he considers the extra chips in a big stack (when chipleader) somewhat useless, as he cannot double those chips on a single hand. Does this, or something like this change our opinion about putting those chips into play on even money confrontations, or even confrontations where we might be a slight underdog?

Regards
Brad S

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats funny, because my gut instinct always said "yes", it is a bad idea. The inherent advantage of calling a short stack's all-in is usually in the fact that their range will be much wider. But I dont see why taking 50/50s (putting aside that we never "know" for sure we have a flip) is commonly regarded as a good thing.

I think the value of having a short stack present is mainly to be able to exploit the medium stack(s). This, to me, is much more valuable than knocking out a player. I would rather use those so called extra chips exploiting someone who still has hopes of making the money ( or higher payout) than knocking out someone on a flip and then having much LESS leverage against those medium stacks. ICM will not take this into account but these concepts are huge IMO.

[valenzuela]

I came up with an example where it doesnt matter. I mean its not close, its the same thing!!. I repeat just in case, you lose 0,0055 of the prize pool and u win 0,0055 of the prize pool, im not considering blinds.
Im now trying to come up with a profitable example.

edit: I jus realized that its only the same thing becuase of ICM lack of more decimals.

[Degen]

Gigabet had a great post on this awhile back...he is willing to take the worst of it at times, if the result will allow him to have a MASSIVE stack and walk over the table

[Simplistic]

[ QUOTE ]
Gigabet had a great post on this awhile back...he is willing to take the worst of it at times, if the result will allow him to have a MASSIVE stack and walk over the table

[/ QUOTE ]which is against ICM theory

[se2schul]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Gigabet had a great post on this awhile back...he is willing to take the worst of it at times, if the result will allow him to have a MASSIVE stack and walk over the table

[/ QUOTE ]which is against ICM theory

[/ QUOTE ]
... and it will surely sometimes contradict a basic pot odds call as well, but it doesn't mean that it's wrong.

Just because it doesn't jive with the chip model that is commonly accepted within this forum, it certainly doesn't mean his play is wrong. He's just using a different chip model, and it may be better than ICM.

It's hard to argue with his success .

[Simplistic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Gigabet had a great post on this awhile back...he is willing to take the worst of it at times, if the result will allow him to have a MASSIVE stack and walk over the table

[/ QUOTE ]which is against ICM theory

[/ QUOTE ]
... and it will surely sometimes contradict a basic pot odds call as well, but it doesn't mean that it's wrong.

Just because it doesn't jive with the chip model that is commonly accepted within this forum, it certainly doesn't mean his play is wrong. He's just using a different chip model, and it may be better than ICM.

It's hard to argue with his success .

[/ QUOTE ]

[Lori]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Gigabet had a great post on this awhile back...he is willing to take the worst of it at times, if the result will allow him to have a MASSIVE stack and walk over the table

[/ QUOTE ]which is against ICM theory

[/ QUOTE ]
... and it will surely sometimes contradict a basic pot odds call as well, but it doesn't mean that it's wrong.

Just because it doesn't jive with the chip model that is commonly accepted within this forum, it certainly doesn't mean his play is wrong. He's just using a different chip model, and it may be better than ICM.

It's hard to argue with his success .

[/ QUOTE ]

However his success has nothing to do with this problem.

Lori

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Gigabet had a great post on this awhile back...he is willing to take the worst of it at times, if the result will allow him to have a MASSIVE stack and walk over the table

[/ QUOTE ]which is against ICM theory

[/ QUOTE ]

Not against. The word you're looking for is outside.

There are certain situations where it's correct to overrule the ICM and take a stab. Typically they arise 5-6 handed and in situations where you won't be close to going allin.

[FlyWf]

Do you know what ICM theory is?
Hint: It's not normative. ICM doesn't tell you what to do, you can't go against ICM.