Concerning early game all-ins for tournament life

Lheticus

Lheticus

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Total posts
1,198
Chips
0
I've made a thread before that talked about this, but this time I intended to. In that prior thread, someone raised very good points that if you can't feasibly expect to build your stack to the point you would if you won the toss/2 to 1/whatever it is by NOT taking the bet a percentage of times that match those odds, it's rather dumb to decline. With this in mind, I've come up with a new guideline for myself, and I'd like to know what you all think:

I believe that if my M-ratio is greater than 30, say 31 or higher, I should not call for my tournament life or shove under any circumstance save a near lock--say, at least 80% vs. 20% odds. 30 or so or lower, if I do win the all in, I gain enough in Ms to have a massive enough advantage to weather a large tournament drought for a considerable time in the tournament. If I have more than 30 Ms however, I already feel comfortable enough to attempt to weather such droughts with what I already have--say if I have an M value of 35, I can let such opportunities to double-up pass me by with enough confidence that I have a reasonable chance of building my stack the slow, steady way.

As I said, I'd be delighted if any of you would care to share their thoughts on this.
 
O

only_bridge

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 3, 2009
Total posts
1,805
Chips
0
What kind of games do you play?

Why would you want to sit out a chance to get your money in good, be it just marginal?
Or even just bluff big for your tourney life? Provided you have the right equity.
If I was offered 55% vs 45% odds to double up or bust I would jump on it.
 
Lheticus

Lheticus

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Total posts
1,198
Chips
0
What kind of games do you play?

Why would you want to sit out a chance to get your money in good, be it just marginal?

Because if I have a big enough stack to have a legitimately large M ratio, a 55/45 probability split, or even a 60/40 probability split too often results in my winning NO money from the tournament when there is a very legitimate chance that even if I don't double up my chips right there I can still make the money.

Some money is better than no money.
 
soncheebs

soncheebs

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 9, 2009
Total posts
599
Chips
0
Are we talking pre flop all-in's here?
 
BearPlay

BearPlay

Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 15, 2014
Total posts
10,631
Chips
0
I think you're setting yourself up when you adopt a certain strategy and don't adapt to the changing conditions of the players, tables, etc. M ratio is a good baseline for understanding where you stand in regards to the rest of the pack and how you can navigate from there, but I would probably only adopt this kind of strategy for a sattie. I do wish you the best and please update us with your success ;)
 
Lheticus

Lheticus

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Total posts
1,198
Chips
0
Are we talking pre flop all-in's here?

Yes, sorry, forgot to mention that part. Post flop I have much greater confidence in having my opponent beat or them having me beat.

I think you're setting yourself up when you adopt a certain strategy and don't adapt to the changing conditions of the players, tables, etc. M ratio is a good baseline for understanding where you stand in regards to the rest of the pack and how you can navigate from there, but I would probably only adopt this kind of strategy for a sattie. I do wish you the best and please update us with your success ;)

I think I didn't get across well enough that this strategy applies to instances, usually early in tournaments where the blinds are not very punishing, where there are people at the table shoving for all their chips before the flop. sometimes even on the very first hand--and many times in freerolls, and sometimes even in very low micro-stakes (especially turbos) this is not a once in a while thing--often it happens once every 2-3 hands. My point of view on such scenarios is that unless you have few enough chips that building a large safety margin on a gamble is useful, you should stay the heck out of such hands unless you have premium.

To accentuate this scenario, at the very table I'm playing at WITH cardschat members in the freeroll, people are doing that! It's the second blind level people, do you have ANY incentive to try to at least stick around a while?
 
Last edited:
BearPlay

BearPlay

Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 15, 2014
Total posts
10,631
Chips
0
Yes, sorry, forgot to mention that part. Post flop I have much greater confidence in having my opponent beat or them having me beat.



I think I didn't get across well enough that this strategy applies to instances, usually early in tournaments where the blinds are not very punishing, where there are people at the table shoving for all their chips before the flop. sometimes even on the very first hand--and many times in freerolls, and sometimes even in very low micro-stakes (especially turbos) this is not a once in a while thing--often it happens once every 2-3 hands. My point of view on such scenarios is that unless you have few enough chips that building a large safety margin on a gamble is useful, you should stay the heck out of such hands unless you have premium.

To accentuate this scenario, at the very table I'm playing at WITH cardschat members in the freeroll, people are doing that! It's the second blind level people, do you have ANY incentive to try to at least stick around a while?


Ok, gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. Yes, that's pretty much how I play any FR where the first few blinds are suspected to be donkshoves, as there were tonight. I had one guy on the left going allin every other hand, and finally it caught up to him. Oops.

Once we passed the first break tonight, there was some good poker tonight. So yeah I like your strategy. It's what I call T/A :) :p
 
S

Scrover

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 26, 2014
Total posts
198
Chips
0
Well, depends. Almost everything depends here, but if you understand that if you get your M to 60, what does it do compared to your chances of winning? Many MTT experts say to never miss out an opportunity to double up that's more than 60% e.g. AKs against 32o or AK against AQ. You will almost have the same flexibility in an M 30 stack compared to an M 60 stack.

If you have a TAG opponent with 50BB that three bet a raiser that has 20BB and you're with 60BB with QQ, I would think about getting it in against opponents that have TT+, AJ+ as a range for getting it all in late in a tournament.

My strategy is in microstakes is to chip slowly up and when the average is double my stack, I will be looking for places to double up. Later in the tournament, I tend to decide to abandon the strategy and try to get my money in good so I can get in the final table as a top three stack. Then I go back to slowly chipping up and getting my way to short handed so I can use my good skills at short handed to outplay others and hopefully take it down.

Of course, thinking about having some money than no money is a good idea, but if you have a tournament that only pays the final table and it's the final table bubble with you having the chip lead with 100BB and the next person having 70BB with the rest of the field having 30BB and having to take a flip to be a runaway chipleader knowing that you can't outplay the player, then be glad to take it. It's incredibly likely that you're going to play the player heads up, so if you have 170BB and 8 others have 30BB, you have the chips to almost win the whole thing. And even if you lose the flip and you have 30BB, you can still muscle your way to fifth or higher by playing smart.

This might be about early in a tournament, but most of the same rules apply to the following.
 
Lheticus

Lheticus

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Total posts
1,198
Chips
0
Well, depends. Almost everything depends here, but if you understand that if you get your M to 60, what does it do compared to your chances of winning? Many MTT experts say to never miss out an opportunity to double up that's more than 60% e.g. AKs against 32o or AK against AQ. You will almost have the same flexibility in an M 30 stack compared to an M 60 stack.

If you have a TAG opponent with 50BB that three bet a raiser that has 20BB and you're with 60BB with QQ, I would think about getting it in against opponents that have TT+, AJ+ as a range for getting it all in late in a tournament.

My strategy is in microstakes is to chip slowly up and when the average is double my stack, I will be looking for places to double up. Later in the tournament, I tend to decide to abandon the strategy and try to get my money in good so I can get in the final table as a top three stack. Then I go back to slowly chipping up and getting my way to short handed so I can use my good skills at short handed to outplay others and hopefully take it down.

Of course, thinking about having some money than no money is a good idea, but if you have a tournament that only pays the final table and it's the final table bubble with you having the chip lead with 100BB and the next person having 70BB with the rest of the field having 30BB and having to take a flip to be a runaway chipleader knowing that you can't outplay the player, then be glad to take it. It's incredibly likely that you're going to play the player heads up, so if you have 170BB and 8 others have 30BB, you have the chips to almost win the whole thing. And even if you lose the flip and you have 30BB, you can still muscle your way to fifth or higher by playing smart.

This might be about early in a tournament, but most of the same rules apply to the following.

Using the average as a "when do I call a donk shove" metric is a good idea, and I'll probably use it at least some of the time, but if I can get significantly above 30 M, that gives me a very nice buttress against a cold streak--which is especially handy in online tournaments where the blind levels increase around every 10 minutes or less--more hands are played, blinds go up faster, and this increases the value of such a buttress immensely as opposed to a live tournament where the blinds only go up every hour or even 30 minutes, even if fewer hands are played. When I'm in any tournament, and I feel that such a buttress isn't worth it, though, then I agree that the average rising to double my current chip stack is an excellent metric.
 
R

Ronoh

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Total posts
94
Chips
0
If you are calculating your M and basing decisions on such in the first couple levels of a tournament... you are doing it wrong. These statistics are utterly meaningless/worthless at that point of the game.
 
Lheticus

Lheticus

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Total posts
1,198
Chips
0
If you are calculating your M and basing decisions on such in the first couple levels of a tournament... you are doing it wrong. These statistics are utterly meaningless/worthless at that point of the game.

Well...here's the problem. I know calling an all in for all your chips in the first few blind levels of a game is stupid unless you can be reasonably sure you have them beat by more than 60-40, because why would you want to have any possibility of going out so early when you can feasibly keep playing for quite a lot more time? I know shoving in the first place in those first few blind levels is even stupider because, again, why would you want to have any possibility of going out so early when you can feasibly keep playing for quite a lot more time?

Then I bring this up, and I get all these people telling me that it's not, in fact, stupid because of stuff like the "long run", which I've already explained in another thread, has much less relevance in tournament play because in a tournament, when you're out, you're out, and unless you made the money, you lose your entry. A couple people made good counterpoints to my first argument, and I accordingly revised my position from "NEVER okay" to "not okay unless you're sure you're better than 60-40.

The whole point of my citing the M-Ratio stuff is a second argument, to refute some points people have been making that calling an all in where you will be all in yourself at that stage is still not stupid. For all I know, it genuinely is not stupid somehow, but I'm going to need a lot more debate before I manage to see how it is not stupid, and my M-Ratio argument is an attempt to delve deeper. Either every point I can think of becomes refuted and I'm convinced, or I come up with a point that the people of this forum cannot refute and I confirm that calling an all in shove very early in a tournament is indeed stupid.

Now, to direct more concrete attention to your actual statement--I have a semantical issue with it. I don't base decisionS on the M-Ratio...I base one solitary decision, whether or not it is viable to go for an advantageous flip all in, on that ratio. I trust your next input to this discussion will be more meaningful...and I'd prefer you not betray that trust, please.
 
Jacki Burkhart

Jacki Burkhart

long winded rambler...
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 12, 2013
Total posts
2,960
Awards
6
Chips
0
I like the theory. at what exact M to place your threshold, I don't know but around 30 seems about right.

In general I try to avoid being all in preflop with anything except aces in the early part of a tourney. Post flop is a whole different story.

if you're faced with some new player open shoving and you have, let's say AK, JJ or QQ I'd generally decline the opportunity with everything except possibly the QQ....the exception being if I don't think I have a very large skill edge. Even if I do have a skill edge, but at this table it's just not very large...then I might elect to take the gamble
 
Arjonius

Arjonius

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Total posts
3,167
Chips
0
Then I bring this up, and I get all these people telling me that it's not, in fact, stupid because of stuff like the "long run", which I've already explained in another thread, has much less relevance in tournament play because in a tournament, when you're out, you're out, and unless you made the money, you lose your entry. A couple people made good counterpoints to my first argument, and I accordingly revised my position from "NEVER okay" to "not okay unless you're sure you're better than 60-40.
If you set a hard rule for yourself, you neglect situations that aren't good fits by treating them as if they do fit. For instance, should this apply when you're by far the best player at your table, and also by far the worst?

You may be interested in the book Kill Phil, which is basically about how to adapt against superior opponents in order to reduce the effect of your skill disadvantage.
 
Lheticus

Lheticus

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Total posts
1,198
Chips
0
If you set a hard rule for yourself, you neglect situations that aren't good fits by treating them as if they do fit. For instance, should this apply when you're by far the best player at your table, and also by far the worst?

You may be interested in the book Kill Phil, which is basically about how to adapt against superior opponents in order to reduce the effect of your skill disadvantage.

I'm not interested in reducing the effect of my skill disadvantage...I'm only interested in reducing that disadvantage by becoming more skilled. If I win money because I got lucky, that's all well and good but I want to be truly legit at this game more than I want to simply win money--and besides, if I do become truly legit, the money will pretty much come naturally provided I don't overextend myself in who I go up against. And another thing--would I really EVER be obviously the worst player at a table in a freeroll where at least 1-2 people at virtually every table are willing to go all in at the drop of a hat from the very first blind level, which, by the way, is the only situation where the thought processes I've outlined are even relevant? Almost no genuinely legitimate poker players even PLAY public freerolls--they don't need to. If I had an actual freaking income right now, I wouldn't WANT to. I place myself in situations like I've described above because for me, it's either that or don't play poker--or play in play money games, which in many ways is worse than not playing at all to me because it's COMPLETELY POINTLESS. Don't try to tell me it's good practice--people who play play money are far too often outlandishly wild, even more so than in public freerolls.

I don't want to play poker for a living--I want to play poker because I'm a gamer, and poker is a wonderful game with marvelous potential for real world consequences. But if you play a game, you don't play like you don't care--you play like you genuinely want to win--doesn't matter if it's poker, fighting game video games, physical sports, whatever. You don't play like those ASSHOLES who are willing to possibly throw away their stake in a tournament extremely early on because of I don't even know. You do NOT mess around like that...EVER, or you're a freaking idiot. There is no conceivable possibility that I would be the worst player at a table that includes people like that.

Even in a game like poker, where luck plays an enormously significant role, I would rather lose via skill than win via luck. I recognize that many times, I will not have a choice in such matters when it comes to poker, but that does nothing to change my core gaming values.

In closing...please, anyone who would join or continue this discussion...PLEASE keep in mind in your arguments that my position on calling preflop all ins only applies to a very specific situation that virtually always forms only under very specific conditions. Do not bring up things like "if you think like this, you'll ignore what would happen if you do it in a situation like this"--from now on, I will completely ignore you. For the last bloody time...I do not apply the strategy I've outlined to all preflop all in scenarios, I apply them to a scenario with a very specific set of conditions that I have outlined at least twice now, and if you somehow still aren't getting that, I will ignore your irrelevant positions from this moment forward.

tl;dr, Arjonius: This is NOT a hard rule. It never WAS.
 
Last edited:
Jacki Burkhart

Jacki Burkhart

long winded rambler...
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 12, 2013
Total posts
2,960
Awards
6
Chips
0
Jesus... Settle down OP. We're all friends here! :)

By the way, I totally resonate with your philosophy on why you play poker. My situation is about exactly the same as yours...so I get it.

For instance, when people recommend potential money making strategies that don't improve my skills or understanding of the game...I politely ignore them (ex. buying in late and blinding into the min cash will show a slight profit... But I'm not interested in that. Multi tabling DoNs and playing like a robot to eek out a tiny profit does not fulfill my poker goals...even if it is +EV)
 
teepack

teepack

Legend
Bronze Level
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Total posts
2,317
Awards
1
Chips
14
It depends on the situation, but if it is early in a tournament and you are at or above the chip average, I don't really see any reason to risk your tournament life on a toss-up or even a hand where you might be slightly ahead. Unlike in cash games, you can't buy back your seat at the table if you get knocked out (assuming it's not a re-entry).
 
Jacki Burkhart

Jacki Burkhart

long winded rambler...
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 12, 2013
Total posts
2,960
Awards
6
Chips
0
I suppose I am coming from mostly a live tourney perspective where the consequences to busting out are generally greater... If I bust out of a live freezeout tourney.... I may have to wait a week or more to play another equivalent tourney. I may have hired a babysitter all night, drove an hour or more, rented a hotel etc. I can't just take my shot, bust out and start another tourney 5 minutes later.

I suppose the dynamics of online tourneys in the early stages are slightly closer to cash games because you literally can buy a seat in another tourney right away... So you get to repeat the scenario many times and eventually get the desired result...
 
teepack

teepack

Legend
Bronze Level
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Total posts
2,317
Awards
1
Chips
14
Amen

You are right. I was looking at it from the perspective of a live tourney at a casino with a significant buy-in vs. playing a $2 tourney online where you can just join the next tourney in 10 minutes. If I put $80 or $100 or more into a live tourney, I am going to do all that I can to increase my chances of getting into the money.
 
Lheticus

Lheticus

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Total posts
1,198
Chips
0
It depends on the situation, but if it is early in a tournament and you are at or above the chip average, I don't really see any reason to risk your tournament life on a toss-up or even a hand where you might be slightly ahead. Unlike in cash games, you can't buy back your seat at the table if you get knocked out (assuming it's not a re-entry).

THIS. This is THE EXACT THING I've been trying to tell EVERYONE who has been trying to tell me that doing that exact thing is NOT okay this whole time! If I could give medals, I'd give you one! Finally someone who agrees with me! *does happy dance*
 
Arjonius

Arjonius

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Total posts
3,167
Chips
0
THIS. This is THE EXACT THING I've been trying to tell EVERYONE who has been trying to tell me that doing that exact thing is NOT okay this whole time! If I could give medals, I'd give you one! Finally someone who agrees with me! *does happy dance*
While there's something a tendency in forums (and not just poker ones) for posts to draw more replies that disagree than agree, when there's substantially more disagreement, the most likely reason is that whatever is being disagreed with is sub-optimal.
 
Arjonius

Arjonius

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Total posts
3,167
Chips
0
I'm not interested in reducing the effect of my skill disadvantage...I'm only interested in reducing that disadvantage by becoming more skilled.
These aren't necessarily contradictory. Of course you should be aiming to improve. But in a single tournament, if you're at a skill disadvantage, the likelihood that you'll experience a nirvana moment that negates or meaningfully reduces the disadvantage during that tournament is effectively zero.
 
Lheticus

Lheticus

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Total posts
1,198
Chips
0
These aren't necessarily contradictory. Of course you should be aiming to improve. But in a single tournament, if you're at a skill disadvantage, the likelihood that you'll experience a nirvana moment that negates or meaningfully reduces the disadvantage during that tournament is effectively zero.

The results of a single tournament are meaningless to me--I only care about the totality of profitable results and whether or not I can play this game worth a damn under circumstances other than getting lucky. If the only way I'm going to be able to win in a tournament is by taking at least one stupid risk, I don't even want to win, because in my view, that's not even actually winning. I care about the money, but I care about winning, truly, legitimately winning, a lot more. (Not "winning" a tournament by coming in first, but by getting profitable results overall and being a "winning player".)
 
Poker Orifice

Poker Orifice

Fully Tilted
Platinum Level
Joined
Jan 19, 2008
Total posts
25,602
Awards
6
CA
Chips
968
Dude! Do NOT 4-bet in that spot with your 'KK' because you have an M of '31' & villain is likely to 5-bet us & we will need to fold.
 
Jblocher1

Jblocher1

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Total posts
2,645
Chips
0
Dude! Do NOT 4-bet in that spot with your 'KK' because you have an M of '31' & villain is likely to 5-bet us & we will need to fold.

Can't tell if very sarcastic..... Or serious ;) lol
 
teepack

teepack

Legend
Bronze Level
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Total posts
2,317
Awards
1
Chips
14
THIS. This is THE EXACT THING I've been trying to tell EVERYONE who has been trying to tell me that doing that exact thing is NOT okay this whole time! If I could give medals, I'd give you one! Finally someone who agrees with me! *does happy dance*
Glad I could help out. I'll give you an example. I was playing in an $80 buy-in MTT at a casino. It had about 150 runners, and you had to finish in the top 15 to make the money. When it got down to about the final 25 players, I had A-10 in the BB. I had worked my way up to about 35,000 chips (starting stack was 8,000) A guy in early position raised 3x BB (the BB was 2,000). I was going to shove over the top of him, but then the SB called. The original raiser had a smaller stack than I did, and the other guy had a slightly larger stack than me. I was reasonably confident they would call if I shoved. Not wanting to get in a three-way with A-10o, I just called. The flop came up A-8-6 with 2 spades. The SB and I checked, but the other guy shoved all-in. I was considering calling, but when the SB called, I decided to get out. It turns out the first guy was betting an A-7, and the SB had two spades and was chasing a flush. He didn't hit his flush, and my A-10 would have held up. I could have won about 50,000 chips and wiped out 1 player. Instead, I played it safe. I wound up finishing up in a six-way chop for first. I don't think making the call there would have ultimately improved my finish and I would have risked my tourney life.
 
Top 10 Games
Top