Adjusted Big Blind

While I understand the concept and value of an adjusted big blind, for the life of me I can't figure out the reason behind the calculation, why it's computed the way it is. In other words, why is .66 used as a multiplier?

If anyone who isn't familiar with an ABB, here's the math:

For example, 8 people are at a table and the blinds are $100/$200, the antes $25. The pot, before any betting occurs is, is 500. You multiply that figure by .66 (or divide by 2/3) and the result is 330.

For simplicity's sake, let's say my stack is 3300. My ABB would then be 330 and I'd have 10 big bets left.

Players who aren't adjusting for the antes will be thinking they still have roughly 16 big bets, when in fact they don't and may call down bets that could put them at risk earlier than necessary. They also might not start shoving soon enough.

Back to my original question--though I know I don't need to understand "the why" of the ABB to use it as an effective tool, I'm always curious about such things and can usually figure them out. For whatever reason, this one is escaping me.

You need to be looking at your adjusted bb because you are putting that ante in the pot every hand. If you don't take that into consideration you will be making a lot of very bad decisions.

Your example is perfect - someone may think they have 16 bb's when in fact they only have 10. This mistake is rampant in tournaments - and I love it lol.

So 3 things to consider now, used to be how many BBs then your M now your ABB what next your XYZ

Pretty sure it's "R.A.I.M" (more info. to follow....)

So same as harringtons M ?

No, actually it isn't. In my example, the M would be just a little over 6.5. The M of course, tells us how many orbits we have left. The ABB tells us how many "real" blinds we have left.

Consideration of M was a factor in why I asked my question about the reason for the math behind the ABB, specifically how the multiplier was determined.

Ok, gonna give up a little bit of info. early here... just a 'teaser' (with more to follow but will start another thread)
R.A.I.M. Reverse Adjusted Implied 'M'

OK I'll throw a BIG matsa-ball out there and stand up and say that Harrington's explanation of M (which is AWESOME) in his tourny books is only so-so applicable when considering the online game. It's much more relevant live because there are so fewer hands played per blind level, whereas there are more hands seen per blind level online...and yes, even in the turbo format.

To explain my thinking, in general low limit live tourny's where levels are less then 20 min, you may get an orbit and a half. Online, with 10 min levels, you can get maybe 3 orbits. Hence, you'll see up to 3X as many hands/level online compared to live. Therefore, you can wait just a little longer online for a good hand, where watching your M in a live tourny has more value because if you're short, you'll need to push with a wider range (iow, push sooner).

My 2 cents
Vollycat

exactly, since you don't see as many hands per blind level in a live game, blinds play much more of an impact on your stak, and therefore pushing is more reasonable on a wider range of hands as stated above. Theoretically the chance of getting AA or KK live is 30-50% less likely in the same time period when playing in a live game, making those premium hands that more valuable.

As to your question of why .66 is used, I have no idea. I'm the type that, if I'm interested in something, I'll research it to death to understand why it's done that way too. Which should tell you that I've really had no interest in being a proponent of ABB.

When I first read HoH and learned of M, I thought it was the greatest idea ever and would be far more useful and accurate than relying on #bb's. I started thinking in terms of green/yellow/orange/red zones, and when HEM added the M stat I immediately added it to my HUD and color coded it accordingly so that I could immediately recognize mine and my opponents' M at a glance.

After awhile, I fell back to bb's.

Why? Because even though M (and ABB) do more accurately affect your stack lifetime, virtually all training and feedback I'm accustomed to (books, videos, forum HA's, TV/pro commentary, etc.) still refer to bb's, and tend to ingrain decision points around bb's. Almost no body of work that I've come across except Harrington seems to use M these days. All the MTT videos I watch still talke about bb. They never mention M in the WSOP and other live game broadcasts -- it's always bb. The constant juggling of M vs bb became tiresome to me, and I preferred the easy/lazy route of speaking the same language as most everyone else.

I suppose for beginner/intermediate players that are in the process of taking their game to the next level, or maybe some obsessive students of the game who like a single stat that wraps everything up nicely for their autopilot decisions, a tool like M or ABB is useful.

However, I think the reason that more advanced players don't seem to put as much emphasis on it, and still refer to decisions and stacks in terms of bb's, is a because as you get better at poker I think you learn to just automatically factor antes into your decision. If I have 10bbs with no antes, I subconsciously make different decisions than if I have 10bbs with an ante. This allows me to consider antes while speaking the same language of bb's as most everyone else. Same if I'm playing a turbo structure vs a normal/slow structure. It's one of those adjustments that good poker players have to make on the fly.

I guess the best comparison I can come up with would be the metric system -- while I feel that it's a far more logical and intuitive system of measure than the Imperial system we use in the US, and would love for it to have taken off here, unfortunately it didn't. If you try to insist on using the metric system in your daily activities in the US, it becomes really awkward and tiresome because you're doing the conversions constantly both for yourself and for others you may be interacting with (unless you happen to live in the military or scientific world where metric is the more common system).

For me it's just easier to know what to do if you think of your stacks in terms of bb's or effective bb's. With M, I never know if I should start pushing at 5, 7, 10, etc. Every book seems to recommend something different. For me I pretty much know exactly what I should raise to, based on my effective bb.

As Debi said it's really fantastic because no one adjusts for it. I also completely disagree that effective bb's (or M for that matter) doesn't apply to online. You just have to take into account that the blinds could be increasing within the next orbit, making some marginal shoves more necessary/profitable.

Yea - I totally ignore M because I can only think one way - and adjusted bb's is the best way for me.

I think the more successful tournament players who don't talk that way - do that because so many people don't understand the concept. But trust me - they are using adjusted bb and not just bb's even if it is not stated or calculated in the same way I do it. (or using M)

It's okay with me if most people don't get it though.

To be clear, in case I wasn't in my post, I absolutely agree that it is crucial to think of so-called effective bb's, taking into consideration not only antes but also position (are the blinds hitting me next hand or two) and time until next level (when I do get the blind will it be double what it is now?). Those are what I consider fundamental considerations that affect your decisions.

I just don't try to quantify or calculate them into a single number -- to me it's more of an intuitive process where I consider "bb + ante + position + level time" on a more subconscious or at least automatic level. While a single, all-encompassing number would arguably be a lot easier to assess, the effort to arrive at that neat little number outweighs the benefits IMO. It's easier for me to look at a raw #bb's and just mentally adjust for the other relevant variables. But until someone's mind is attuned that way, I can see where it would be beneficial to having it quantified.

I'm not sure that many pro's think actively in terms of a concrete M or ABB, if so they sure never seem to communicate it. I just think they mentally deduce all of that without putting a name to the value. To me, it's along the same lines of QTip's response to the old argument that "professional players don't play by math, they play by feel." He counter-argues, as I do here, that when the old pro's play by feel, they are "feeling" the math! It has become so ingrained that it's an automatic decision process, which is how I've grown to look at bb vs M vs ABB.

Semi guess about the .66 part of the question.

Assume for a moment there are no antes, and the pot consists of only the BB and SB. Most of the time the BB is 2x the SB, making the pot 3 SB's in size. You as BB have invested .66666666667% of the pot.

On a per hand basis, I can see some value to using ABB's, but since we don't play tourney's one hand at a time, for the most part M suffices.

HoH2 does get into effective M's which are always lower than pure M's. In the latter stages of tourneys it is the effective M that takes sway.

What does that mean? Makes no sense to me lol.

A tourney is, hopefully, a series of hands, not a single hand. At the end of tourneys, granted, everything changes. It may be that ABB's are more valuable then.....I'm looking into that.

Okay - don't see how that impacts the importance of adjusted bb's though. It might be a series of hands but you still only play one at a time and your stack size in relation to the blinds is important in every hand you play.

Agreed. But perhaps you can tells us why the EBB's or ABB's differ from tradition 'M' thinking. We could each do to have a microprocessor in our heads, but we don't, and the 'M' theory gives us an easily calculable way to figure out our situation. Yet you suggest you have a different (better?) way. Are you holding out on us Deb?

Please share......

　　
　　
So the terms "effective bbs" and "adjusted bbs" technically mean the same thing and are calculated the same way?
　　
I think there's a lot of confusion floating around about these terms, especially "effective bbs". For instance, I have often heard the terms "effective big blinds" and "effective stack sizes" used interchangeably. What's up with that?
　　
Regarding M, I've also found that to be rather vague. The ABB, to me, works as a sort of bridge between base BB count and M and, as such, is more accurate. Another way to calulate the ABB is to multiple the M (in my example 6.6) by 1.5 (which would equal 9.9 in my example).
　　
　
That's not been my experience at all. Matter of fact, in Bwammo's DTB vids he mentions the ABB more than once. I know Katie Dozier uses the concept too..isn't she with Team Moshman?

HoHv@ pg 277 defines his effective 'M' as
(pure 'M') x(players remaining/10)

so Larks original scenario was;
8 seated players
Stack of 3300
Pot 500

Pure M here is 6.6 **
effective M here is about 5.3

How does this differ from the ABB's alluded to?

**To be fair 'M' typically (and most accurately) is figure at 10 seat tables, which seldom happens online, but is more common live. Effective 'M' also is based on the 10 seated players formula and is thus, even though it deals with short handed situations, based on ten players. Without going into any math whatsoever, my gut tells me the actual accurate effective 'M' would be still lower at online shorter (9 seats) tables and the followup to short handed tables. But any discrepancy is for nits.

The beauty of 'M' theory is that it is easy to keep track of, and since few of us are math whiz's gross ballpark numbers work fine. We are not James Bond foe's (le' Chief{?}).......nor do we need to be.

I think you're onto something here, dj. Yay! Thing is, from what I understand, the ABB is most useful after the antes kick in. the ABB is technically an "ante-adjusted big blind".

If you look back at my example, the ABB is 10.

Yes we do, it's called effective bb's, lol.

tbh dj I don't really know what your point is, M and effective bb do the exact same thing, they're just calculated slightly differently. For me, I prefer effective bb's because it's a little more clear what your action should be based on what the number is. If you read Harrington, PearlJammer, Gus Hansen, etc., they all say something different about what your action should be based on your M.

@dmorris (I'm not gonna quote your post, it's too long lmao) - there's nothing wrong with doing what you do imo, just sort of figuring it intuitively, as long as that is accurate for you. I don't think that it's something that pros avoid though.

No - didn't say it was better than M. It is better for me though. With M I had a little piece of paper with how to calculate it and what the zones were. For me it was a pita to keep handy and I was never disciplined with using it.

I can't remember how I came across adjusted bb stuff but read it somewhere so was always trying to mentally add in the antes - but my estimates were not close. Bwammo finally told me to take the pot size- divide it by 3 then multiply that by 2. For whatever reason that is easy for me - when I can't calculate it easily in my head I use a calculator.

It might not sound like the easiest way but for me it is - and since doing it this way I am ALWAYS aware of my effective bb.

I can't be bothered with also trying to keep up with M so just don't deal with that at all.

Edit - see my last post below.

And yea both Bwammo and HotJenny314 use ABB. (she is with TM and now also a coach at DTB)

Entirely possible -- I've yet to watch either of their videos. But those I have watched, and the books I've read, make little to no reference to M as I recall.

^ I can't find any literature at all, except for the briefest of mentions when I've googled. Maybe we're creating the seminal lit regarding ABB here.

this also works out to .66666666667

ofc it does lol.

So Deb, since you seem to be our official ABB/EBB expert, how do you adjust for shorter tables?


Otherwise, I think maybe we got to Larks original Q of why and what .66.......

It is not an issue until the last few tables. Leading up to that in tournaments the tables are always full except for a hand once in a while after a player gets moved.

Once it is down to 1-2 tables the strategy is so different anyway. I still pay attention to my adjusted bb's - but there are so many chips in play and so much money at stake - being slightly off because the table is not full is the least of my concerns.

Duh..sorry - but I was just reading another thread and it hit me that we are incorrectly using effective and adjusted bb terms in this thread to mean the same thing - I knew better than that but my dumb brain just didn't catch it.

This thread is about adjusted bb's - taking the ante into account when determining the number of bb's you have in your stack.

Effective bb's is the max number of bb's in your stack or that you would have to commit to the pot based on other stack sizes in the hand or left to act in the hand.

For example if you have 2000 chips and the blinds are 50/100 then you have 20 bb's. However if you are first to act in the sb and the bb has 1000 chips the effective bb is 10 because that is the most chips you will be playing with in that pot.

Sorry that didn't click for me earlier - it is used a lot more in sng's than in mtt's and I don't play those much anymore. (I play double and deep stack tournaments - sng's start with 1500 chips and the blind levels are shorter so it is a constant factor in them).

LOL, I was wondering if "effective bb's" meant the same as effective stacks for you folks. OBVIOUSLY effective stack is absolutely critical to decision making, no argument from me there.

ABB is a close cousin to M, i.e. taking antes into account to more accurately assess the health of your stack, and that's what I just don't see a lot of coaches pushing -- at least not the coaches I've been listening to lately. I still hear then talking about decisions around #bb's, especially for SNGs.

At this point, we now know we are confused.

From what I can tell:

-EBB is dynamic to a situation at this very moment in this particular hand. Do you have your villain covered or not?...boils down to F.E.,

-Both ABB and M describe assessing your general situation between hands.

Online calculating M looks easier to do than ABB. There is a moment when the cards are dealt where every table shows the pot which includes blinds and ante's. That is the same value as me posting blinds and ante's per orbit. Doesn't matter how many players remain. If there are only 4 players remaining, then that pot size will reflect my anties 4 times along with 1 BB, and 1 SB per orbit. So how many of those orbit costs do I have = effective M.

After reading through this post this is what I was about to say ^. I don't see how anyone thinks the others are easier to calculate then M. The calculation is pretty much done for you, all you have left is dividing your stack by it. And even then just round the numbers off to get a quick estimate, but I was always good at math.