aliengenius
Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Seemed like you were implying that, yeah. Why else would you want to move it out of the regularly viewed "general population"?
Apologies if I miss interpreted
.
F Paulsson
euro love
Silver Level
"Please do not misunderstand what I am saying here. My point is that that, if you are one of the best players in the tournament, you should usually not risk significant money on very close decisions. But those decisions must be close. [...] If it's close, fold hands where calls might be very slightly positive EV"
p22 2nd edition, and he follows up with:
"Only the very best players should avoid slightly positive gambles"
and
"The typical tournament player should not ever turn down any situation with the smallest of edges."
on p25.
This is not a "very close decision" or "very slightly positive EV" - we're 2:1. And I have no illusions about being one of the best players at the wsop main event either - or even, given the description of this thread, at this table. But, and I think this is important, even if I were one of the best players, I should only be giving up TINY edges. This edge, by virtually any use of the word, is not tiny.
J
joeeagles
Legend
Silver Level
Four Dogs
Legend
Silver Level
Thanks AG, this is what I was looking for. I haven't read this one yet.
J
joeeagles
Legend
Silver Level
Lol, I corrected that for you, I'm sure its what you meant.
J
joeeagles
Legend
Silver Level
I don't have Sklansky's tourney book, but I did read most of it and I do remember the parts AG and FP are speaking about, and I'm sure that in this case, on that table, he suggests the call.
It is true that he advices to not get involved in marginal decisions, but that is for those players who are very skilled. I even recall there is an exception to that too, and that is the case there is a juicy side game you can get in. In that situation more marginal plays are justifiable even for pros (if 1 of you wants to add that citation feel free).
Even from the citations in FP's thread it is clear to me that, if correctly interpreted, this situation is a call. By "typical tournament player" he certainly intends us (or at least me, I can only speak for myself), and this certainly isn't a small edge either, its 2 to 1.
Or this quote:
"Only the very best players should avoid slightly positive gambles".
The meaning of that is pretty clear, and again the "only" is not directed to me and this is not a "slightly positive" gamble.
I don't remember him defining slighly positive gamble or putting numbers to it, but I'm quite sure he refers to situations such as 44vsAK or any 53/47 type of risk, which is not our case. I don't think he would call a 2 to 1 "slightly positive gamble".
I insist this is a must call and I won't change my idea, actually the more you read the more I realize it. That said I would fold, but its not the correct play.
It is true that he advices to not get involved in marginal decisions, but that is for those players who are very skilled. I even recall there is an exception to that too, and that is the case there is a juicy side game you can get in. In that situation more marginal plays are justifiable even for pros (if 1 of you wants to add that citation feel free).
Even from the citations in FP's thread it is clear to me that, if correctly interpreted, this situation is a call. By "typical tournament player" he certainly intends us (or at least me, I can only speak for myself), and this certainly isn't a small edge either, its 2 to 1.
Or this quote:
"Only the very best players should avoid slightly positive gambles".
The meaning of that is pretty clear, and again the "only" is not directed to me and this is not a "slightly positive" gamble.
I don't remember him defining slighly positive gamble or putting numbers to it, but I'm quite sure he refers to situations such as 44vsAK or any 53/47 type of risk, which is not our case. I don't think he would call a 2 to 1 "slightly positive gamble".
I insist this is a must call and I won't change my idea, actually the more you read the more I realize it. That said I would fold, but its not the correct play.
heatfan03
Visionary
Silver Level
if it was Aces i would Call. AK ohh boy if i satellited into the tourney lets think. Call and Win? CHIP LEADER BABY LOL. Call and lose. No one blames you for it. Fold = no one at the table will no so no one know what u did till later.
aliengenius
Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
I still disagree. And I'm not convinced that DS calls here either. THERE IS A 35% CHANCE THAT WE WILL GO BROKE !! On the first hand of the tournament!! This reduces our equity to ZERO.
How much of an increase in overall edge are you getting if you double up?? It's not like we auto win the tournament if we win this hand, or even auto make the money, or even jump up to a much higher percentage than we started with.
You are not going to actually double your chances to win just because you double your starting chip count on the first hand.
If you take a little bit longer view here I think you might agree that this IS a situation where it is only a slightly positive overall +EV long term.
How much of an increase in overall edge are you getting if you double up?? It's not like we auto win the tournament if we win this hand, or even auto make the money, or even jump up to a much higher percentage than we started with.
You are not going to actually double your chances to win just because you double your starting chip count on the first hand.
If you take a little bit longer view here I think you might agree that this IS a situation where it is only a slightly positive overall +EV long term.
F Paulsson
euro love
Silver Level
I'll do some more appealing to authority:
"TONS of big name players busted out on day 1 of the WSOP this year (well, day 1 and 2, because of the split field, but you know what I mean). And if you knowingly pass up a 60:40 opportunity, you're not a top player.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)"
From this thread. Although some of the situations they discuss are not the same as ours, some of the responses are very applicable. And the opening question touches on exactly the same thing. Good discussion in that thread; Paul Phillips's posts in particular.
"TONS of big name players busted out on day 1 of the WSOP this year (well, day 1 and 2, because of the split field, but you know what I mean). And if you knowingly pass up a 60:40 opportunity, you're not a top player.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)"
From this thread. Although some of the situations they discuss are not the same as ours, some of the responses are very applicable. And the opening question touches on exactly the same thing. Good discussion in that thread; Paul Phillips's posts in particular.
edge-t
Rock Star
Silver Level
This is interesting:
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
As Ah 1315168 76.81 391637 22.87 5499 0.32 0.770
7d 6d 391637 22.87 1315168 76.81 5499 0.32 0.230
Even AA against 76s is a 76% favorite only. You still have a 24% of going busto the first hand.
The way I'm looking at it, I'd only fold AK near the bubble. Not so far from it.
65% is too much of an edge to pass up. Granted that we have about 200BB, But you have a chance to double that.
I'm taking it.
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
As Ah 1315168 76.81 391637 22.87 5499 0.32 0.770
7d 6d 391637 22.87 1315168 76.81 5499 0.32 0.230
Even AA against 76s is a 76% favorite only. You still have a 24% of going busto the first hand.
The way I'm looking at it, I'd only fold AK near the bubble. Not so far from it.
65% is too much of an edge to pass up. Granted that we have about 200BB, But you have a chance to double that.
I'm taking it.
edge-t
Rock Star
Silver Level
"It’s about $/hour, not $/tourney, and you still have to get lots of chips to make big $ yet." greg from 2+2
I don't think you're making a right decision if you fold this hand to a player who has not even looked at his cards.
I don't think you're making a right decision if you fold this hand to a player who has not even looked at his cards.
J
joeeagles
Legend
Silver Level
I quite sure you're right on that, DS wouldn't call this. But he is a much more skilled player. The point remains if he thinks we should call this, having that kind of an edge (65/35) on a table that is so strong. Guess we'll never know unless we ask him. I feel though he would suggest for us (or me at least) to call
I can't argue the rest, by winning this hand we don't gain a huge overall edge and we're not at all garanteed to be ITM, you're certainly right on that.
I'm not sure though why you consider this scenario just a slightly positive overall +EV, for me to agree to that you need to explain why, because any 2 to 1 doesn't sound slightly positive +EV long term to me, but I might be missing something. Is it because occasionally in this scenario opponent wakes up with a hand that is ahead of ours such as 88? That's all I can think of.
You need to explain this, why is it only slightly positive?
Ronaldadio
Legend
Silver Level
Easy call for me guys.
The fact it`s the WSOP should mean nothing, IMO.
The guy has said he will push all-in with anything.
If u r against AA/KK well, so be it, but I can`t think of a better chance to double up early in a tourny than this one.
If I had won the package and I go out I will just enjoy the rest of the week!!!
The fact it`s the WSOP should mean nothing, IMO.
The guy has said he will push all-in with anything.
If u r against AA/KK well, so be it, but I can`t think of a better chance to double up early in a tourny than this one.
If I had won the package and I go out I will just enjoy the rest of the week!!!
aliengenius
Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Consider the following points:
1. The chance to double you stack via "small ball poker" being greater than 65%. Pass up the +EV situation here in order to obtain a greater +EV situation later. In other words if there is a 66% chance that you can double your stack (say, by the end of the first level), by playing "normally", then you should decline the 65% edge you have here.
2. Consider that this guy who pushed in blind is an idiot and will either do so again, or otherwise give his chips to you. Again, waiting for a MORE +EV situation because we can NOT risk the variance of 35-40% chance of busting.
3. Doubling your stack is not worth much at this point in the tournament. It's not. Really. 20K vs 10K when there are 80 million chips in play is nothing. The edge you get by having this stack double stack is OVERALL in the tournament is the edge that is the small one, not the 65/35 edge you have in the given situation. (emphasis to answer Joeeagles).
If we bust out there is no more chance to make +EV plays. The call here is for all you chips. Please don't think that you are going to be passing up 60/40 confrontations all the time. That is not the case at all. If farmer guy had only 1,000 instead we would make the call instantly.
Sklansky gives an example in TPfAP:
"For instance, suppose I knew that tomorrow someone would offer me $200 to $100 on a coin flip. Meanwhile, today someone offers me $120 to $100 on a coin flip. The problem is that I only have $100 to my name, and will not be able to play tomorrow if I lose today. If I take the first bet, I will miss out on the opportunity for the second bet..." (p. 20). He goes on to give the math that shows you should pass on the first flip.
Our friend will offer us a better spot, or we have a better chance to 2x up via normal play, or both.
*(Please keep in mind that for the above arguments our deep stack is a consideration here (high 'M'), and that these decisions are not necessarily going to be the same later in the tournament.)
1. The chance to double you stack via "small ball poker" being greater than 65%. Pass up the +EV situation here in order to obtain a greater +EV situation later. In other words if there is a 66% chance that you can double your stack (say, by the end of the first level), by playing "normally", then you should decline the 65% edge you have here.
2. Consider that this guy who pushed in blind is an idiot and will either do so again, or otherwise give his chips to you. Again, waiting for a MORE +EV situation because we can NOT risk the variance of 35-40% chance of busting.
3. Doubling your stack is not worth much at this point in the tournament. It's not. Really. 20K vs 10K when there are 80 million chips in play is nothing. The edge you get by having this stack double stack is OVERALL in the tournament is the edge that is the small one, not the 65/35 edge you have in the given situation. (emphasis to answer Joeeagles).
If we bust out there is no more chance to make +EV plays. The call here is for all you chips. Please don't think that you are going to be passing up 60/40 confrontations all the time. That is not the case at all. If farmer guy had only 1,000 instead we would make the call instantly.
Sklansky gives an example in TPfAP:
"For instance, suppose I knew that tomorrow someone would offer me $200 to $100 on a coin flip. Meanwhile, today someone offers me $120 to $100 on a coin flip. The problem is that I only have $100 to my name, and will not be able to play tomorrow if I lose today. If I take the first bet, I will miss out on the opportunity for the second bet..." (p. 20). He goes on to give the math that shows you should pass on the first flip.
Our friend will offer us a better spot, or we have a better chance to 2x up via normal play, or both.
*(Please keep in mind that for the above arguments our deep stack is a consideration here (high 'M'), and that these decisions are not necessarily going to be the same later in the tournament.)
Last edited:
J
joeeagles
Legend
Silver Level
Answers in bold.
I'm still not sure what DS would say about this though, right now I'm not convinced either way. I really thought this was easy but now I'm not that sure anymore.
edge-t
Rock Star
Silver Level
I understand the high M concept, but I feel that passing up on a +EV situation such as this; is focusing too much on results and the short term. It's like playing scared poker...
I hope I didn't offend anyone, just stating my views. It's pretty subjective actually, there's no right or wrong guess... just two different ways on playing a tourney.
Last edited:
aliengenius
Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
True, but there is a chance that you'll get sucked out on every hand, don't say it never happens, 66%, 65%, what's the difference? Over how many hands? How many hands do you see per tourney? Like I said AG, I respect you and your opinions, but poker is thought of in long term. As we know, long term is a long time. To pass up on your edge, I feel is -EV in my mind.
Yes, it IS -EV. That's really really really missing all the points. You are passing up +EV here beacuse of better +EV later. WHY? Because you can not risk the variance here: if you bust out you can't rebuy, you are out, gone, zero equity, zero chances. This is a tournament, not a cash game.
The difference reason I said 66% is because it represents a longer view of "edge". If we can accomplish the same result over numerous hands with lower per hand risk of busting, why would we subject out selves to a single trial with relatively high chance of busting. To get 10k in chips? Please.
AG, what are the chances you'll get dealt AA,KK or QQ, AK, AQ in the next 20-50 hands? Impossible to predict? well, you have the AK with you now, what are you waiting for? Go for the kill. Or some others gonna take him down... what's your share in it? 0%... sure... no loss... no gain either.
Look, I understand that there is a risk that this guy will get chopped up by others, and that you will get no part of his stack. To me this is really not the interesting part of the argument. I just wanted to put it out there as added reason to avoid a single trial of chance for out tournament life when there is no real need to do so.
The 65/35 edge refers to the current hand, not the entire tournament. Agreed that 20K is nothing, but at some point you're gonna start accumulating chips. If you're gonna shy from every All-in encounter till you're short, I'm afriad it's gonna be a little hard to manuveur with 15BBs? And then, what are your chances of winning the tournament? again, greatly reduced.
No, I am not suggesting you get blinded out, play passively, or any else like that; nor am I saying you should let yourself get down to 15bbs. Just because I am recommending a fold here I don't want you to infer that I am recommending some kind of weak play throughout the tournament. Nothing could be farther from the truth. We are not going to shy away from every all in encounter. We are shying away from an all in encounter on the first hand, when out stack is deep.
Yes, 65/35 refers to the current hand, that's the point. You have to balance you 2:1 edge here with the overall edge having 2x the chips gives you.
On that, it's taken that he knew... in this WSOP instance, we don't know if we're getting a better hand before the idiot bust out on the next hand. The chances of him having any pocket pairs: 5.46%
Um, I pretty much "know" that a better situation than 65/35 is going to come along. I'm not worried about him having a pocket pair. We can only make our decision based on his range of hands, which in this case is the rest of the deck (i.e, a random hand). That's how we come up with the 65/35. I'm not seeing monsters under the bed in the form of a pair here and therefore am scared that he has us beat. Again, if that's what you are reading then I am not being clear (or maybe you are not reading closely enough? ) enough.
Yes, it IS -EV. That's really really really missing all the points. You are passing up +EV here beacuse of better +EV later. WHY? Because you can not risk the variance here: if you bust out you can't rebuy, you are out, gone, zero equity, zero chances. This is a tournament, not a cash game.
The difference reason I said 66% is because it represents a longer view of "edge". If we can accomplish the same result over numerous hands with lower per hand risk of busting, why would we subject out selves to a single trial with relatively high chance of busting. To get 10k in chips? Please.
AG, what are the chances you'll get dealt AA,KK or QQ, AK, AQ in the next 20-50 hands? Impossible to predict? well, you have the AK with you now, what are you waiting for? Go for the kill. Or some others gonna take him down... what's your share in it? 0%... sure... no loss... no gain either.
Look, I understand that there is a risk that this guy will get chopped up by others, and that you will get no part of his stack. To me this is really not the interesting part of the argument. I just wanted to put it out there as added reason to avoid a single trial of chance for out tournament life when there is no real need to do so.
The 65/35 edge refers to the current hand, not the entire tournament. Agreed that 20K is nothing, but at some point you're gonna start accumulating chips. If you're gonna shy from every All-in encounter till you're short, I'm afriad it's gonna be a little hard to manuveur with 15BBs? And then, what are your chances of winning the tournament? again, greatly reduced.
No, I am not suggesting you get blinded out, play passively, or any else like that; nor am I saying you should let yourself get down to 15bbs. Just because I am recommending a fold here I don't want you to infer that I am recommending some kind of weak play throughout the tournament. Nothing could be farther from the truth. We are not going to shy away from every all in encounter. We are shying away from an all in encounter on the first hand, when out stack is deep.
Yes, 65/35 refers to the current hand, that's the point. You have to balance you 2:1 edge here with the overall edge having 2x the chips gives you.
On that, it's taken that he knew... in this WSOP instance, we don't know if we're getting a better hand before the idiot bust out on the next hand. The chances of him having any pocket pairs: 5.46%
Um, I pretty much "know" that a better situation than 65/35 is going to come along. I'm not worried about him having a pocket pair. We can only make our decision based on his range of hands, which in this case is the rest of the deck (i.e, a random hand). That's how we come up with the 65/35. I'm not seeing monsters under the bed in the form of a pair here and therefore am scared that he has us beat. Again, if that's what you are reading then I am not being clear (or maybe you are not reading closely enough?
) enough.
Last edited:
F Paulsson
euro love
Silver Level
But there are blinds. So, if you have to wait even one round before getting the 66% gamble, you've actually cost yourself money - unless your M is over 100.
Part of the scenario is that we know that we won't be playing with him for very long.
Your claim that it's not worth much is something that goes against what most experts seem to agree on. You say that Sklansky agrees with you, but that requires two things:
1. That when Sklansky, in TPfAP, refers to EV in the quotes above, he stopped meaning the immediate EV of tournament chips and started meaning the expected value of the tournament as a whole. At every other place in the book, he seems to mean immediate chip value.
2. That your assertion that it's only a "slightly positive" change in EV is actually true. I'm not convinced that it is.
However, and this is the real problem:
You seem to agree that the gamble itself - for tournament chips - is not just "slightly positive" (2:1 is usually not considered "slightly", etc.) and you also seem to argue that it's the long term expected value that is only slightly positive. But then you're arguing to knowingly pass up a long term positive expected value situation. Now, presumably you argue this because you think passing up this situation will create a more profitable one later on, but how soon do we expect to find a >65% gamble for all our chips? Passing this up to wait for a 90% gamble for 1000 chips is hardly worth it.
Paul Philips made some really good points in that thread that I linked, and if I continue, I'll just be rehashing what he already said, so...
aliengenius
Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
I think it is a very narrow reading of TPfAP to say that this is a clear call. Think about it: you are advocating putting your entire "bankroll" on one single trial of chance. You are essentially advocating maximum variance for minimal overall gain. I just don't think Skansky is contemplating an all in on the first hand when he says "slightly positive" gambles. This isn't a situation where we are going to lose 30% of our stack and are turning down a 2:1 gamble.
Let me make another analogy:
Here is the bet:
Your entire current net worth, plus a vow of poverty for the rest of your life vs. twice your current net worth. One coin flip. Deal?
I think you would be foolish to take the bet for several reasons:
1. You are precluded from ever gaining anything ever again. You can't lose, then go out and make a fortune again from scratch.
2. There are other ways to double your current net worth that are both fairly reliable and much safer, it will just take longer.
3. Your current net worth may be low in relation to what it might be in the future. In other words, over the course of your life it may be possible for your MORE than double your net worth. But if you lose this coin flip you lose all that potential future gain. Yes, I understand that it's just "potential" gain, and that you might lose all you worth in a terrible disaster the next day whether you take the bet or not. You might also lose everything in a terrible disaster after you win the bet too.
This is the exact situation we are in, except our "life" here is out tournament life. We are getting 2:1 on our money, one trial. But no one can argue that this is a good gamble, can they?
Let me make another analogy:
Here is the bet:
Your entire current net worth, plus a vow of poverty for the rest of your life vs. twice your current net worth. One coin flip. Deal?
I think you would be foolish to take the bet for several reasons:
1. You are precluded from ever gaining anything ever again. You can't lose, then go out and make a fortune again from scratch.
2. There are other ways to double your current net worth that are both fairly reliable and much safer, it will just take longer.
3. Your current net worth may be low in relation to what it might be in the future. In other words, over the course of your life it may be possible for your MORE than double your net worth. But if you lose this coin flip you lose all that potential future gain. Yes, I understand that it's just "potential" gain, and that you might lose all you worth in a terrible disaster the next day whether you take the bet or not. You might also lose everything in a terrible disaster after you win the bet too.
This is the exact situation we are in, except our "life" here is out tournament life. We are getting 2:1 on our money, one trial. But no one can argue that this is a good gamble, can they?
aliengenius
Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
All valid points. Your logic as usual is impeccable. But my main point still stands: on the first hand of the tournament, with deep stacks/high M and long blind levels, chip accumulation must take a backseat to survival: if you survive you can find ways to accumulate chips, but if you can't accumulate chips then survive.
edge-t
Rock Star
Silver Level
I think this isn't a valid analogy. If you're not well-rolled for a tournament, you shouldn't be playing in it. We are talking about long term here. Again, you seem to be missing the point. Poker is about making the right short term decision, in view of the long term.
If you view your 'life' as a single tournament, you're too results-oriented.
aliengenius
Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
I seem to be missing the point
? I've got no response. How you could possibly construe this a some kind of bankroll issue is beyond me....