Knowingly Taking the Worst of it

MLG · #1 08-03-2005, 06:59 PM

I stated in a recent post that folding the best hand in the midstages of a tournament is far worse than folding the best hand in a cash game. I thought I might unpack that statement and think about some of the implications of it.

In a cash game it costs you money if you fold the best hand (or more accurately a hand that is ahead of the range your opponent might fold). In a tournament, however, not only does folding the best hand cost you chips, it also costs you the opportunity to invest those chips in +EV situations. This is something along the lines of a second order effect, which in this case exaggerates the first order effect.

However, this raises a question. Is there a time when the second order effect, that is the amount of chips you can win from putting chips you win now into +EV situations, changes what would normally be a slightly -EV situation, into a positive one. In other words, can the chips you give yourself a chance to win later in effect make-up for the chips you lose on average calling now.

One counter argument to this idea is that if the gamble will knock you out then you will not have the opportunity to win chips later. This however, speaks to the idea that a big stack is important. It allows you to take gambles based on the second order effect because losing the gamble will not knock you out, or seriously harm you.

Poker is freaking complicated.

shaniac · #2 08-03-2005, 07:07 PM

I think it's one of the more intangible aspects of playing tournaments, but the ability to pick 'good' spots to gamble with the worst of it is one of the ways good players go deep in tournaments.

Che · #3 08-03-2005, 07:21 PM

Isn't this your "inflection point" idea from a different angle?

Potowame · #4 08-03-2005, 07:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]

However, this raises a question. Is there a time when the second order effect, that is the amount of chips you can win from putting chips you win now into +EV situations, changes what would normally be a slightly -EV situation, into a positive one. In other words, can the chips you give yourself a chance to win later in effect make-up for the chips you lose on average calling now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this pretty well sums up the thoughts Gigabet made on the A9o VS. his KJo hand.

I think the players ability to use these chips in the future in a +EV manner VS. just being caught back up to by the field at some point, is the key to pushing the edges early.

MLG · #5 08-03-2005, 07:35 PM

In a way. In that post I was just talking through the idea that deep in a tourney a whole bunch of factors change the game so much that tourney poker becomes a completely different animal from any other form and trying to figure when that happens, and how to adjust. Here I'm lookning at how one specific difference (the inability to put more money on the table to replace chips you lost, or increase to a more profitable amount) impacts decision making at crucial points. This could be early or late.

ekky · #6 08-03-2005, 07:47 PM

I played a tourny last night where some maniac was moving in almost every hand.. and got his chips up to about 6000 v v early.

I got a free look in the BB with 2/3 suited.. and flopped a flush draw.

the pot was about 100.. and someone (the maniac was not in this hand) went all in for about 1500.. and I called, figuring if I get lucky here and get to 3k.. I have a fantastic chance of taking on the maniac and getting to 6k or more.

If this is a loose example of what you are alluding to, then yes, I wholeheartedly agree.

If you lose, you can always move onto another tourny, but it seems like a golden chance to achieve a good stack in this tourny, and I dont like passing up those chances too often.

(I normally hate posting hands in someone elses post, but i wanted to post this to get a hold of whether its the kind of situation you refer to. My apols if it is bad form)

MLG · #7 08-03-2005, 07:51 PM

I think's its an extreme example, and probably was still a bad decision, but yes that's the general idea when the decisions are closer.

MLG · #8 08-03-2005, 07:52 PM

actually, gergery talked about this idea pretty specifically in that post.

gumpzilla · #9 08-03-2005, 07:53 PM

I'm not sure this is the best example. You can extract chips from the maniac with less risk with your current stack, and you're also far from guaranteed if he's really spazzing out that he's going to still have a stack when your next opportunity to zap him comes up.

ekky · #10 08-03-2005, 07:57 PM

yeah, its not my greatest moment for sure...but i do like to gamb000l it up in the early stages [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]