cEV and EV in MTT tournaments

[pat3392]

You are wrong on so many levels here.

It's not a cash game like I siad. ANd yes cev= $EV. THe problem is effective stacks in a cash game are always possible to get to the cap (lets say 100bb+) while in a freezeout if you lose chips you have a reduced effective stack, which can't be topped up. With a reduced stack you lose lots of your spots. So while you might make a cEV move (one that is in fact $ev as well since it is so far from teh money) you do risk reducing your future options by doing so.

And as to lags getting paid off, sure lags can chip up somewhat just by being laggy. But i said the BIG payoff for lagginess is showing you are lag and then playing for stacks when you have the goods and they don't believe you. That is the primary benefit of playing LAG. (In fact negreanu says the same thing essentially in a spam-mail I got today from cardshark media... if you really need me to I'll cut and paste it later...)

You are right that you only have to be better than your opponents, but you cant bluff an idiot or a calling station as they say. And fish get real stationy and flat behind 3bets all the time on deeper stacks. WHich makes it a losing proposition if you are just trying to play position and 3bet with crap - unless you know what flops you need to give up on etc. and excel at reading the mind of a fish.

Lag vs fish works best on shallower stacks when they start to get afraid / in the money. Then they start to fold more easily to pressure or give up on pots.

I'm not saying don't pick your spots, but if you are winning then either you aren't as lag as you think you are, or we are working on different definitions of what LAG is.

sure it won't be like standard 100bb cash, but I play cash at my local casino a bit, which is very, very annoyingly 50bb deep. so it'll be like that to some minor extent

wait a second, I thought ICM considered future stack sizes and what we can do with each stack? No? What does it actually calculate then?

I'd like to read that, please copy/paste

sure we can't bluff them, but I can value bet weak holdings to death, a different form of out-playing. So I can't go nuts with 94o but J9o for sure

That imho is so untrue. Most players play very straight forwardly in 3-bet pots; if they flat pre and fold when they miss that is a winning proposition to me

meh it depends on your idea of lag. I see TAG internet guys play cash surrounded by a bunch of fish. They think I'm being super laggy raising stuff like QT/A8 MP but in reality I'm not bluffing, I'm doing it for value

I think we're working on different definitions for sure. But I'm aspiring to find as many value spots, slowly opening up my game. It's utterly amazing people's fold to 3-bet stat in the 45, just we're shorter there for the most part so I got to do some adjustments. Like I did a squeeze play, not paying enough attention to the stack sizes, I put a little under 1/3 effective stack in by doing my standard raise, huge mistake as I raised over 4 players......

 

[Antilyzer]

Hey guys I have another question:
If cEV=$EV (respectively almost) in the first hand of a tournament.
Is it correct to take a coinflip? (I think it's not since one misses further options).
But I need some sort of proof to believe it...

The hand in my#1: would it be profitbale to wait for better spots even if I'm +cEV(=$EV)?
Would it be profitbale to fold if the blinds were 10/20(and wait for better spots)?
and when would it be profitable to fold?

Antilyzer

 

[Lofwyr]

wait a second, I thought ICM considered future stack sizes and what we can do with each stack? No? What does it actually calculate then?

ICM calculates $EV for a hand in a vacuum and picks the most +$EV move. Doesn't look at future possibilities, where the blinds are, how folding/calling/shoving affects future FE, etc. Just purely a mathematical model of $EV for your actions in that hand.

@antilyzer - Whether you take a flip or not is a huge "it depends". Like...if you're playing in a 180 person turbo SnG it's probably a decent idea to take a slightly +cEV flip on the first hand. On the other hand, in a deep-stack tournament with a nice, slow structure would probably not be the best environment to take a flip.

 

[pat3392]

Hey guys I have another question:
If cEV=$EV (respectively almost) in the first hand of a tournament.
Is it correct to take a coinflip? (I think it's not since one misses further options).
But I need some sort of proof to believe it...

The hand in my#1: would it be profitbale to wait for better spots even if I'm +cEV(=$EV)?
Would it be profitbale to fold if the blinds were 10/20(and wait for better spots)?
and when would it be profitable to fold?

Antilyzer

What lofwyr said

The thing is, looking at it in terms of cEV is flawed for a tournament. If you've got a skill edge than you're going to want to take better spots, if you've got more room to play than better spots are preferred, how the different stack size will influence the moves you can make

Also, there's never really such thing as a coin flip. imo, If you're thinking like that when in game you're going about it all wrong. That coin flip might actually be a 46%/54%, toppled with the small dead money that's a good spot

ICM calculates $EV for a hand in a vacuum and picks the most +$EV move. Doesn't look at future possibilities, where the blinds are, how folding/calling/shoving affects future FE, etc. Just purely a mathematical model of $EV for your actions in that hand.

hmmm ok. But doesn't it consider that since we're in a worse position we have less equity? Or is that consideration wholly based on the fact that when in a worse position we can take less moves and hence, we have less equity?

 

[Antilyzer]

That are some nice rudiments..but
Do you have some mathematical proof for me?
and any thoughts about the other questions?

 

[pat3392]

That are some nice rudiments..but
Do you have some mathematical proof for me?
and any thoughts about the other questions?

If you read above, we basically say that we know one here knows for sure, we're going on what is most likely. There's a bunch of links with ICM fomulas above, check them out

What other questions?

 

[Antilyzer]

If you read above, we basically say that we know one here knows for sure, we're going on what is most likely. There's a bunch of links with ICM fomulas above, check them out

What other questions?

other questions: The hand in my#1: would it be profitbale to wait for better spots even if I'm +cEV(=$EV)?
Would it be profitbale to fold if the blinds were 10/20(and wait for better spots)?
and when would it be profitable to fold?


and this doesnt seem like normal icm calculations since were not at the final table and even if it would be +$EV in the first hand to take a coin ...would it be proftiable? (is there a way to roughly calculate the edge i have after folding the +$EV in the first hand?)

 

[Lofwyr]

Any changes in equity are based on position are due to players left to act pretty much. UTG is worse than UTG+1 because you have one more person that could have a hand to call you. ICM doesn't adjust for the fact that next hand you pay blinds and might not be able to get someone to fold suddenly.

@antilyzer - no proofs on what I said, it's just knowing your tournament and how fast you'll have to play if you want to win. Turbo tournaments are so much faster that you must gamble more often and basically never miss a spot that is +EV. Slower tournaments you can allow tournament considerations to somewhat outweigh EV calculations, like the fact you can't reload every hand might be bigger than the fact you have a +EV spot.

 

[pat3392]

other questions: The hand in my#1: would it be profitbale to wait for better spots even if I'm +cEV(=$EV)?
Would it be profitbale to fold if the blinds were 10/20(and wait for better spots)?
and when would it be profitable to fold?


and this doesnt seem like normal icm calculations since were not at the final table and even if it would be +$EV in the first hand to take a coin ...would it be proftiable? (is there a way to roughly calculate the edge i have after folding the +$EV in the first hand?)

I answered all those questions, reread my post. If I'm not clear I'll rewrite it

Any changes in equity are based on position are due to players left to act pretty much. UTG is worse than UTG+1 because you have one more person that could have a hand to call you. ICM doesn't adjust for the fact that next hand you pay blinds and might not be able to get someone to fold suddenly.

@antilyzer - no proofs on what I said, it's just knowing your tournament and how fast you'll have to play if you want to win. Turbo tournaments are so much faster that you must gamble more often and basically never miss a spot that is +EV. Slower tournaments you can allow tournament considerations to somewhat outweigh EV calculations, like the fact you can't reload every hand might be bigger than the fact you have a +EV spot.

Hmm ok that's interesting to know

 

[bonflizubi]

Hey guys I have another question:
If cEV=$EV (respectively almost) in the first hand of a tournament.
Is it correct to take a coinflip? (I think it's not since one misses further options).
But I need some sort of proof to believe it...

The hand in my#1: would it be profitbale to wait for better spots even if I'm +cEV(=$EV)?
Would it be profitbale to fold if the blinds were 10/20(and wait for better spots)?
and when would it be profitable to fold?

Antilyzer

If you have the pocket pair and the other guy has 2 overs (lets say the hands are face up) then yes, noone is too good to pass up that opportunity.

You need to double up X number of times in a tny anyway, so you cannot pass the spot.

The problem is that you usually don't know if it's a coinflip (say QQ vs AK) or you are ahead or behind.. (villain has KK or JJ)

I wouldn't take a coinflip on the first hand of a tournament with a non-paired hand (the proverbial AK) most of the time. However if someone does something dumb like open shoved their start stack in a low buyin (it wont happen in a high buyin) Personally I'll often call there with AK as it's a flip 95% of the time and although it is -cEV I consider it +$EV for me as I know I can do a LOT of damage by starting at a double stack. People may argue vehemently with me on this one, but if you are playing a slews of tourneys I don't see that as a negative move.

 

[bonflizubi]

ICM calculates $EV for a hand in a vacuum and picks the most +$EV move. Doesn't look at future possibilities, where the blinds are, how folding/calling/shoving affects future FE, etc. Just purely a mathematical model of $EV for your actions in that hand.

@antilyzer - Whether you take a flip or not is a huge "it depends". Like...if you're playing in a 180 person turbo SnG it's probably a decent idea to take a slightly +cEV flip on the first hand. On the other hand, in a deep-stack tournament with a nice, slow structure would probably not be the best environment to take a flip.

even if it is the wsop MAIN - if you could know for sure that you had say TT vs AK, you MUST call this everytime. Noone is good enough to pass that up. I've linked the article (I forget the Live pro that wrote it) somewhere else on this forum in the past.)

Like I said in the prior post, it all depends on your certainty. You need all the chips to win. you can't pass on a 55/45 even if it is the first hand

p.s. to whoever wanted that proof. THe article does a non mathematical proof based on teh idea that you cost yourself in the future by not doubling at the beginning. It premises that you need to double up something like 10 times to win teh ME. if you pass you have a start stack of 30k chips. if you double you have 60k. so what happens an orbit later when you get AA in vs KK against a 60k stack? if you had already doubled you have 120k chips, which is 2 of your double ups already. if you passed earlier you are only at 60k post the AA KK hand and have only doubled once.

 

[Lofwyr]

even if it is the WSOP MAIN - if you could know for sure that you had say TT vs AK, you MUST call this everytime. Noone is good enough to pass that up. I've linked the article (I forget the Live pro that wrote it) somewhere else on this forum in the past.)

Like I said in the prior post, it all depends on your certainty. You need all the chips to win. you can't pass on a 55/45 even if it is the first hand

p.s. to whoever wanted that proof. THe article does a non mathematical proof based on teh idea that you cost yourself in the future by not doubling at the beginning. It premises that you need to double up something like 10 times to win teh ME. if you pass you have a start stack of 30k chips. if you double you have 60k. so what happens an orbit later when you get AA in vs KK against a 60k stack? if you had already doubled you have 120k chips, which is 2 of your double ups already. if you passed earlier you are only at 60k post the AA KK hand and have only doubled once.

Was it the series by Bond18? "Things it took me a while to learn"?

I agree that if you knew, straight out, that you had 55% equity minimum then you have to play. It's almost never that certain though, which is why I said other things have to weigh in. With something like AKo I'm only marginally comfortable getting all the chips in if I'm making the last bet and have some amount of fold equity.

 

[PurgatoryD]

Sorry, I just have to interject here that I love this site. This is the first I'm hearing of ICM and cEV vs $EV. The theory makes sense. Applying it in practice might be another thing, but it makes sense. Maybe I'm already applying it since I play so differently when I'm short-stacked. Perhaps this is the underlying reason why.

I've got to give this some more thought, but I just wanted to say, What a great discussion!

-Dave

 

[TheKAAHK]

I don't have anything constructive to add, as I am still trying to process all that is ITT, but thank you guys for the exhaustive discussion on this topic. I am learning alot. I have read some about cEv and $EV in tourneys, but never really put it together. This thread is helping me alot with this. Thank you. I look forward to more.

 

[Pokerstudent]

Sorry, I just have to interject here that I love this site. This is the first I'm hearing of ICM and cEV vs $EV. The theory makes sense. Applying it in practice might be another thing, but it makes sense. Maybe I'm already applying it since I play so differently when I'm short-stacked. Perhaps this is the underlying reason why.

I've got to give this some more thought, but I just wanted to say, What a great discussion!

-Dave

Interesting and intellectual poker conversation???

CC members are the COOLEST!!!!

 

[PurgatoryD]

CC members are the COOLEST!!!!

LOL! Indeed!

 

[zingbust]

Re AK attempting to flip early in a tourney...I'm not sure what's right but I would say if they're suited, it's closer to 48 - 49% against the pp, so go for it if you can because there's a minimal yet predictable chance the opponent has a weaker ace, that would maybe up your average EV to slightly better for you. You could even find yourself up against AK off so you have a slight edge over that if yours is suited. It's true that you could find yourself dominated against KK or AA, but the times your opponent has a weaker ace or some other holdings other than pp, should make up for those occasions, but again, I'm not sure.

 

[zingbust]

Is that right, that someone needs about 10 double-ups to win the WSOP main event? Is it true of Phil Ivey/Phil Hellmuth? I would say it's not true for those Phils because their reputation is so great that they win chips in other ways, perhaps intimidation.

 

[tree88]

you all sound like your to smart for your own good.why over analyze the hell out of every hand.none of that ev crap means anything for the hand you are playing right now.its all on average and for long term speculation.but it doesnt solve the present situation any better than the knowledge and instincts you have while being in that moment.why make it any harder on yourself.use the force Luke.