OK, let's talk about wmajik's article

[Irieguy]

First off, brilliant article. Very nicely presented. Others have mentioned that it ignores +chip EV/- $EV considerations (which it does)... but you need to be able to digest the information in the proper context. MJ alludes to the fact that he is only alluding to the facts. His point was not to present a formula for shorthanded play.

When I first read it I thought "yeah, I know all that... but nicely presented." But then I noticed something when I played my first session tonight. I started to notice that as the field and my stack got smaller, there were several opportunities to push where I otherwise would not have considered it. I did not expect this, because I have recently begun to feel that I'm playing a little overaggressively in bubblish situations with small-medium stacks. But these situations kept occuring, so I started making some notes. Here's what I found (initial thougths only, so take with a grain):

I was playing 4 tables at once, and made it down to 6 players in all 4 with less than 600 in chips (PP, $33 SNG). This is when I noticed that my thinking had changed a little bit as a result of reading MJ's article. I counted 16 situations where pushing would be advocated in the article when I would have otherwise folded. Sixteen! That doesn't count all the times I was pushing anyways. I was playing like a complete maniac. It was insane.

I never beat a better hand heads-up, not once. I stole the blinds at least 70% of the time. I got 3 firsts and a third. Interestingly, my third occured when I woke up with Kings on the button 3 handed and pushed. Both blinds called me with Q-9, and Q-6! They were sick of getting pushed around and decided to gamble. Q-9 made a flush, and I was the short stack, so I got 3rd... but I was poised to win all 4, which is something I haven't been fortunate enough to do yet in close to a thousand SNGs 4-tabling at multiple levels.

But my results are irrelevant. The point is that the applied concepts in the article influenced a very aggressive player to become even more aggressive. Here are my thoughts:

1. If applied indiscriminately, these concepts will probably not help your game, and will introduce so much variance that it may take months of regular play before you even know what's going on.

2. If applied discriminately, these concepts will improve your ROI without a doubt... but it will take several months of regular play to realize it.

3. If any significant portion of the SNG players apply any significant portion of these concepts to their game, SNGs will become very difficult to beat.

This should spark an interesting discussion.

Irieguy

PS- I would suggest that nobody provide the link or clarify what I'm talking about if somebody doesn't already know. In the spirit of MJ's article... you have to work at it to figure this one out. No spoon feeding.

[AleoMagus]

Yes, I think that while it does suffer from flaws of incompleteness and could easily be misinterpreted, it is a brilliant article. I also think that in a strange way, the only way to apply some of the concepts suggested properly, you almost already need to have some kind of foreknowledge of these concepts with which to fully understand what is being suggested.

This is not even to say that I fully 'get' what is being suggested, just that as I re-read that article I am starting to get a better and better idea of opportunities to be hyper aggressive with nothing. I have also been playing with these ideas lately and it has been fun if nothing else.

I think two things which are really noticeable to me are:

1) The amount that you lose when called is not always that great. Just as we assume that we should 'always' win when we push with AK and get called by Q9, it is tempting to think that when you push with 6J and get caught by AK you should 'always' lose. This just isn't so. I have had more than a few SB pushes caught by AK or AQ only to suckout and win anyways. It's actually quite a bit of fun. I think this equity in these pots where you get caught is really important. This is obvious I know, but it's just interesting to see it's effects. Beratement about my stupid lucky play seems to be popular.

2) If you have been pushing once or twice each orbit (which you will sometimes) and you are starting to sense that players are ready to make a stand, you really need to slow down. On this same topic though, catching a high pair becomes very valuable because rather than finding KK and raising 3xBB and stealing with it, pushing suddenly becomes a good option. A couple times now, I've been in this situation and though it hasn't been a lot of tourneys, players really seemed willing to get into a pot with me where they might otherwise have let me steal with my monster.

So, used right, these ideas are really big. The trouble is, that is hard to do and I'm not there yet, I'm sure of it. I don't find my results are sufferring, but I don't feel I'm necessarily going to see a big ROI jump yet either. Still, my presence at these games has been very big, and every player was aware of me, that is for sure. The guys on my immediate left in these games have been in for some interesting times. In this respect, SNG poker has been a lot of fun today.

As far as the article's flaws with respect to chip EV and $EV, I agree with Irieguy. I think that the real point is only being alluded to and if you think this flaw makes the article 'useless', then you might want to read and think about it some more. I have no doubt many will disagree and not because they are uninformed either. Dissenters might be correct as I think the jury is still out on this one.

There is some truth though, as I see it, and I am looking forward to the next few days playing with these ideas.

Any other thoughts?

Regards
Brad S

[Mike28a]

I see your point about not spoon feeding, but it only took me 13 seconds to get the article once I finished reading your post! Survival of the fittest, I say [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] On to the read! Thanks

[Zelcious]

You've all probably seen this before but lets say that there are four players on the bubble with equal stacks. One player goes all in and another knows he's a 60% favorite if he calls. According to ICM he would make a misstake if he called, but chip wise it would be a great move. Then you can think what happens if he's just 50-50 or even an underdog. This is why I think the article is dangerous. You could make a huge misstake if you only look to chips and not realizeing that it's a tournament and not a cashgame.

[KJ o]

True, and there is also the case that if you have more than one player to act behind you, you have to be more careful.

The case he describes, with four players remaining, hero in SB and UTG and Button folds, doesn't happen very often at all, even on Party $10. I'll check the figures when I get home, but my guess is it goes fold-fold to me in less than 25% of hands.

HU his advice is great, but HU with huge blinds is a crapshot anyway. I don't think perfect HU play can increase your ROI by the suggested 8%. (Or can it?)

[wjmooner]

I have been out of town for a couple of days, so I missed the thread with wmajik's article. For those who may have missed it, since it is buried in a Strassa thread, here is the link.

http://teamfu.freeshell.org/tourname..._stealing.html

Very interesting. I think this may be help my 3rd/1st ratio.

WJ

[AleoMagus]

Yes, I think for many, better and more aggressive HU play could easily yeild an 8% ROI boost (especially if your ROI is low already). The two places where ROI will get the biggest boosts are in bubble play and HU. This is because the jump from 1-3rd and 2-1st are the biggest jumps that you will take.

I think that with the tightness I see on the bubble in a lot of SNGs, the SB gets folded to at very least 25% of the time. Some SNGs, this is more like 50% of the time. Also, I think that the conclusions which will spring from that article apply (to a lesser extent, of course) on the button and UTG also, and even in less shorthanded situations.

And yes, you are right that caution must be exercised with more players to act, but I still think that just adds a caveat to the points that the article is trying to make.

As far as Zelicious and all the ICM stuff, I understand what you are trying to say here. And I understand that for these reasons, you will not literally be pushing with any two every time you can take a shot at the BB on the bubble. The point is just that there are more +EV opportunities than we often think. That's $EV I'm talking about.

I guess what I'd say is this. Take the numbers in the article and analyze them with ICM to see just how profitable these moves are. If you or someone else doesn't do it, I will eventually anyways. The results of such an analysis will no doubt diminish just how often this can be done, but I think we'll still find the move is profitable more than one might initially suppose. I can't say I'm positive, but we'll see sooner or later.

This actually reminds me of another play I make a lot. I think Jason brought it up a while back (about an opponent who always did it if I remember) and after experimenting with it a bit, I have really integrated it into my regular play (and quite profitably too, I think)

Anytime it is four or five handed and I am up against opponents who are not too tricky, if some, or all of them limp to me in the BB, and we all have stacks of about comparable size 8XBB or more... I push. Any two.

Maybe I'll start doing it sometimes in the SB also now.

...

I've been thinking a ton in the past day or so about variations on this kind of thing.

Just one example: A really good spot to do this in, is when all the stacks are roughly equivalent, but one guy is really small and already out of the hand.

Ask yourself, if I pushed to you in the BB on the bubble and the guy currently UTG has less than the Blind he's about to move into, what would it take for you to call me?

Same thing with my push against the limpers. If one guy is already really short and out of the hand, I never get a call. I mean that literally, I never have. The only way I forsee it happening is when a tricky player limps to me with a high pair. It'll happen sooner or later, but not yet.

I'm sure this is all obvious to many, and in a way it is to me too, but I still feel like this is prompting a SNG breakthrough of sorts for me.

Keep it coming, I'm crazy about this thread.

Regards
Brad S

[rachelwxm]

Wow, you already started using it while I havenot finished reading! To be more specific, could you provide some of the examples that you would not push previously and are doing it now? All 16 of them would be great. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Also, my understanding is that ChipEV is close to EV when there are 5 or more pepple playing, distorted from bubble on. And the gap created by bubble only help this pushing, like no one would call you for 60/40 situation since it's -EV for them so it benefit the aggressor, right?

I am playing more at ps recently to fine tune my skills to use more implied odds and bluffing, representing, HP etc. But I certainly see great value of this article. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[eastbay]

I think this theory has already been extended, corrected, and completed in various discussions on this board to any position with any set of stacks, with a reasonable approach to $EV. Open-raising all-in only, that is.

That I won't spell it out should be an indication of the value I think is there.

However, you just can't rely on open stealing all-in alone to crush these games. It's an important tool in the bag, but by no means enough, by itself, to be a big winner at the higher stakes.

For example, there's games where you'll never get to open from late position, or at least, not often enough to stay alive even if you pushed every time you had the chance. What then?

eastbay

[AleoMagus]

An interesting and mysterious post which generated some controversy at the time.

HERE

Hmmmmmmm....

Regards
Brad S