Adjusted Big Blind

[dmorris68]

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?

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.

 

[LarkMarlow]

^ 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.

 

[dj11]

take the pot size- divide it by 3 then multiply that by 2.

this also works out to .66666666667

 

[Debi]

this also works out to .66666666667

ofc it does lol.

 

[dj11]

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.......

 

[Debi]

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.

 

[Debi]

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).

 

[dmorris68]

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.

 

[dj11]

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.

 

[suit2please]

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.

 

[dmorris68]

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.

Totally agree that M is an easier calculation to make on-the-fly than ABB, so if I'm going to use an ante-adjusted calculation, then that's it for me. However nothing is easier (for me) than strictly looking at #bb and mentally tweaking decisions based on antes, position, when the blinds increase, etc.

 

[LarkMarlow]

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.

This is an example of Bwammo's use of the AAB, from the "Short Stack Survival" series in our Instructional Videos section. Incidentally, what he's offered here are excerpts from his two part series on DTB titled "You were How Small? in the SNG section.

Note to dj: in this video, Bwammo makes no changes in his calculation of the ABB when the table gets short handed.

 

[dmorris68]

Thanks Lark, will check out the full series on DTB. Maybe he'll convince me to start using it.

 

[dj11]

With the pot at 3700ish he says the ABB is 5000, now that doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[Debi]

With the pot at 3700ish he says the ABB is 5000, now that doesn't make any sense to me.

The pot couldn't be 3700ish - the blinds are more than that. He clearly says it is 7700 - so with that he was correct about the ABB.

He was probably in HEM re-playing it - and the blinds are never right in the re-play. If that is not it then he just got the pot size wrong for whatever reason.

I will get him in this thread later and he can look at it.

 

[LarkMarlow]

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

Yes, I think so...much appreciation, dj!

 

[Riemannian man]

M and adjusted big blind when referring to our stack sizes is the same as referring to temperature as Celsius and Fahrenheit. They ultimately mean the same thing only using a different system. They are easily convertible, though there is no need to do so.

ABB is 2/3*Pot because that's what the BB would be in an ante free pot.
M is stack/Pot. #ABB is stack/(2/3*Pot). So if you know your M
#ABB=3/2*M and similarly if you know your #ABB, then M=2/3*#ABB.

At shorter tables, our M changes, and our conversion uses the Effective M, instead of M, since their is no parallel for an "effective adjusted big blind" (it doesn't even make sense to say).

Just my two cents, I couldn't really follow what this topic is exactly about.

 

[LarkMarlow]

The pot couldn't be 3700ish - the blinds are more than that. He clearly says it is 7700 - so with that he was correct about the ABB.

He was probably in HEM re-playing it - and the blinds are never right in the re-play. If that is not it then he just got the pot size wrong for whatever reason.

I will get him in this thread later and he can look at it.

If he could look at not only this, but the whole thread that would be wonderful! I'm sure he'll be able to clear up much of the confusion that seems to be abounding here.

 

[Bwammo]

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).

The comparison between standard BBs and adjusted BBs/M is nothing like the metric vs imperial situation. Both metric and imperial will lead you to the same end result, while a calculation of standard BBs will never result in the same calculation of adjusted BBs/M if there is any antes involved. At the best you can do a relative guess because usually the ante is 1/8 to 1/10th of the BB. Because of this many players can "ignore" the antes and still be relatively successful...however they have simply increased their BB requirements before they get crazy (which is essentially the same thing as taking adjusted BBs...except it's less accurate).

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.

Hm, mentally deducing the information w/o putting a name on it doesn't mean it's irrelevant Just means they haven't figured out how to put a name on it or have figured how to calculate the figures in another manner.

　So the terms "effective bbs" and "adjusted bbs" technically mean the same thing and are calculated the same way?

Technically, yes. The word "effective" is used as a synonym for "adjusted" in this instance. If we were talking about effective stack size however, that is a completely different number and is what Debi describes in her post.

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 surely hope taking 2/3 of a number doesn't require math wizardry for someone taking the steps to become a better poker player There is far more complex math involved in the game than a simple fractional breakdown of the situation. Pot odds, implied odds, odds of success with steals, and many more situations are all more difficult to calculate than taking 2/3 of the pot size. Really you don't even need to be exact about the 2/3...just guess and get close.

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.

ABB isn't a close cousin to M, it's the same thing with a different name/application. It's literally the exact same piece of information though. It comes down to personal preference on exactly how you want to process and breakdown the information provided...but for me instead of changing the entire way I view stack sizes and figuring out how I should respond to each situation based on M instead of BBs is more taxing than simply taking 2/3 of the M and playing exactly the same way I've been learning for years upon years.

 

[Bwammo]

With the pot at 3700ish he says the ABB is 5000, now that doesn't make any sense to me.

3000 + 1500 + 3200 = 7700

7700 x (2/3) = 5133

Guestimating a 5k adjusted BB is close enough, the extra 133 chips in the adjusted BB really won't make any difference.

 

[Debi]

Technically, yes. The word "effective" is used as a synonym for "adjusted" in this instance. If we were talking about effective stack size however, that is a completely different number and is what Debi describes in her post.

but for me instead of changing the entire way I view stack sizes and figuring out how I should respond to each situation based on M instead of BBs is more taxing than simply taking 2/3 of the M and playing exactly the same way I've been learning for years upon years.

Thanks for clarifying that 1st point - I was totally confused as to why I could so easily mix those 2 up - but I guess we do interchange the words effective and adjusted when talking about bb's - and yes the effective stack size was what I was describing.

And you put into words what I couldn't - as to why I use adjusted bb instead of M!

 

[dmorris68]

Thanks for the feedback, Bwammo. While I am certainly in no position to make a qualified argument with you, I obviously approach this from a different direction but nonetheless feel that we're pretty close to being on the same page here.

The comparison between standard BBs and adjusted BBs/M is nothing like the metric vs imperial situation. Both metric and imperial will lead you to the same end result, while a calculation of standard BBs will never result in the same calculation of adjusted BBs/M if there is any antes involved. At the best you can do a relative guess because usually the ante is 1/8 to 1/10th of the BB. Because of this many players can "ignore" the antes and still be relatively successful...however they have simply increased their BB requirements before they get crazy (which is essentially the same thing as taking adjusted BBs...except it's less accurate).

Fair enough, bad comparison on my part. I was just looking for some kind of analogy to describe the fact that the (arguably) better and more accurate system isn't always the conventional or most popular one, and that was the first comparison that came to mind.

Hm, mentally deducing the information w/o putting a name on it doesn't mean it's irrelevant Just means they haven't figured out how to put a name on it or have figured how to calculate the figures in another manner.

Hey now, I never said it was irrelevant!

In fact, I said I absolutely do adjust based on the factors you're calculating. I simply said, speaking for myself and thinking back on the books/videos I've learned from (HoH being an exception, and apparently your videos which I've not yet studied) that there doesn't seem to be much emphasis on communicating M/ABB as opposed to just #bb's. I rarely see "I have an M of X here so I'm doing this." It's usually "I have X bb's here so I'm doing this" or "I have X bb's with ante Y and the blinds are hitting me in one more hand, so I'm doing this." From that experience I just said it seem that pro's speak in terms of #bb's while intuiting the other factors. I certainly didn't mean to imply that I (or they) think it's irrelevant.

So the point I was trying to make was that I do attempt to take everything into consideration -- antes, when the blinds hit me again, then the level is increasing, etc. Don't get me wrong: I absolutely agree that poker (well, good poker) is a game of math, and that if people are afraid of math it's going to be a block to their poker advancement. If I'm attempting to calculate pot odds, equity against a range, or fold equity, then I'll be applying concrete calculations to that. However in this case it's just quicker and more natural for me to "feel" this information than to arrive at a hard number. I start with #bb and then tweak my decision from there based on the other factors mentioned. It may not be an exact science, but like you point out the idea is to get close enough, not be exact, right?

ABB isn't a close cousin to M, it's the same thing with a different name/application. It's literally the exact same piece of information though.

Again, I apparently fail at analogy and metaphor. Heck, maybe poker as well.

Of course my point was that ABB and M are two ways of arriving at the same information, but as pointed out they do not calculate to the same specific number, hence my cousin reference.

I don't play a lot of MTTs these days, but I'm going to start trying to think in terms of ABB more, and see if it helps me clarify situations and make better decisions. I'm always looking to improve! And I guess it wouldn't hurt to watch those DTB videos of yours that I've downloaded but not yet watched.

 

[suit2please]

I had seen different places people saying you shouldn't be using M for SnGs you should be using ABB and from what I could figure they were pretty much the same thing. Is there any advantage to using ABB instead of M in SNGs?

 

[Bwammo]

@ dmorris: hehe didn't mean to pick on you here But yeah if you're using a system to estimate the situation you're doing the right thing for sure. Adjusted bbs is merely a more basic way to do exactly that (estimate). Since it's in terms that, like you say, are ready to understand because everyone is taught from day one how to play based on bb size, it's a more natural adjustment to make than converting to M.

@suit2please: there really isn't much difference between either so long as you are applying the information correctly.

 

[dj11]

ABB isn't a close cousin to M, it's the same thing with a different name/application. It's literally the exact same piece of information though. It comes down to personal preference on exactly how you want to process and breakdown the information provided...but for me instead of changing the entire way I view stack sizes and figuring out how I should respond to each situation based on M instead of BBs is more taxing than simply taking 2/3 of the M and playing exactly the same way I've been learning for years upon years.

This is what we needed to understand. Some of us have figured out how to do the M calc real easy, and apparently the ABB calc is easier for others.

Variance has a positive side too!

Thnx.