THE FORUMS


German ForumsGeneral DiscussionStrategyFrench Forum

Go Back   PokerTips.org Forums > Strategy > Beginners' Corner

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Jan 12, 2008, 10:48pm   #11
TJTay89
I am a wolf
 
TJTay89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,935
Reputation: 1993
TJTay89 has a brilliant futureTJTay89 has a brilliant futureTJTay89 has a brilliant futureTJTay89 has a brilliant futureTJTay89 has a brilliant futureTJTay89 has a brilliant futureTJTay89 has a brilliant futureTJTay89 has a brilliant futureTJTay89 has a brilliant futureTJTay89 has a brilliant futureTJTay89 has a brilliant future
This member received this PokerTips Exclamation Mark for one of a number of reasons: blogging, winning a contest, contributing great content, etc. Keep an eye out for chances to receive one of these by your profile!
Default

Sorry I missed this thread earlier. I have tried playing both ways early in a tournament; where I push all my +EV situations to the max (getting all in with any reasonable situation where I was 51% or more to win), and where I try to keep things small until I have the nuts and get out of coin flip situations to live and pick a better spot to get it in.

My personal feelings are that if you try to get it in with a coin flip situation, you are going to lose a lot more often, but when you get past the first couple of hours you will be in a much stronger chip position. This can prevent you from having to make some moves later on with less then 45/55 situations because your stack is short. However if you do not temper your willingness to get all your money in with marginally +EV situations after the second hour, you are putting yourself in too many situations that can end in your tournament life being snuffed when it didn't need to be (obviously if you start getting short you can't get your money in fast enough when you are a favorite to win). If you think you are evenly matched or out matched, then this strategy will in the end get you to more final tables with relevancy (big stack) then the other way, but you will have to be lucky to get there (since every time you take a %45 to get knocked out you are putting yourself at a major risk and eventually the odds will fall the other way).

Picking your spots carefully early on will insure that you get to see more cards in the tourny more often, which in theory should give you a higher chance of finding situations where you can try and double up as an 80%+ favorite instead of 55%. You don't mind throwing away decent hands pre-flop if the action gets too big, and you take advantage of every chance you get to make your opponents make mistakes. When you make it deep, you will usually be 15-25BB unless you were in a high number of great situations early in which case you might be one of the chip leaders.

Both styles are good. I have managed to go far in tourney's using both. It really depends on how you like to play. If you are really good at being the chip leader, then pushing the 45/55 situations early is probably the best since you will be able to get the big stack early and hopefully be able to abuse the table and go far (barring any bad luck). Otherwise I think that being more cautious early and waiting for later stages will work out better. The reason why is you are able to make it to the mid stages of the tourny a lot more often, and I feel that it is the mid stages/ late stages of the tourny where you can take the most advantage of your good situations, and with just slightly better then average cards you can often go very deep.
TJTay89 est déconnecté   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Don't like this ad? Register to make it go away!

Old Jan 13, 2008, 1:03am   #12
deuce65
Brunson
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 221
Reputation: 10
deuce65 is on a distinguished road
Default

"Chips in cash equate directly to $ - MTT chips don't."

I don't see how this changes things. Losing say 1/3 of your stack in a cash game means you lost real money; losing the same in a MTT means you are still in the TM and haven't lost any actual money yet. You lose your buy in when you, well, actually buy in.

"
It gives you an advantage doubling up but not as huge as you make out- but always going for it with <5% change is not a great idea IMO"

I never meant to imply that it is a huge advantage. The fact is though, you are going to have to play a 55/45 situation at some point in this event. Why not make it against a (more likely) weak player then against a strong player? Why not make it when you have not invested a large amount of time? Why not make it when, if it is successful, you can avoid having to make that decision for another orbit or two?

"
Depends if that second hour is ITM"

The profit comes from winning, or placing in about the top 3, not from simply being in the money.

"
Yes poor players make more mistakes - but you should be able to adapt to the better players later - when the game itself is different."

But if you can't adapt to the weak players early on, where you have a clear advantage, what makes you think you will be able to adapt to the better players later on?

"
Keeping out of the red zone is important - but you can as easily end up in the red with a marginal gambol early"

Well yea, of course you can. This is gambling we are talking about. We could have a 90% chance to win and still end in the red, that doesn't make it a bad play.

"
Changing gears and adapting to conditions makes a good MTT play - a small EV+ shove doesn't."

I am not suggesting pushing for the sake of pushing. Rather, I am suggesting that on average most seem to play these situations far too tightly. I am suggesting that there is a lot of easy chips to be had in the begining of events, while later on in the event you will be forced to either play against strong players, or rely on luck to get them.

"
If we are playing hands with higher EV then your lower EV calls are known as suckouts if they win."

That is the whole point though! Based on what I am reading, you simply *won't* make those calls, and so it never becomes a suckout type situation for me, as I know you are going to fold.

"
My comments are not saying play like a nit - they are saying small EV moves have less value than being aware of circumstances."

Well, if you had just said this from the get go you would have saved me a lot of time commenting as with that, I agree. Everything is situation dependent. All I am saying though is that I wonder if sometimes people play too tight early is these matches? To that, I think yes.
deuce65 est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2008, 1:04am   #13
deuce65
Brunson
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 221
Reputation: 10
deuce65 is on a distinguished road
Default

Actually, ignore everything I said. TJ summed up my ideas perfectly.
deuce65 est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2008, 2:08am   #14
Lord Mushroom
The Dark Knight
 
Lord Mushroom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Norway
Posts: 3,568
Reputation: 42
Lord Mushroom is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deuce65 View Post
What I am saying though is that I think there is a lot of easy money to be had early on and I think it is poor play to not try and take advantage of that.
So your solution when facing a very marginal situation is to risk not getting to take advantage of that in favour of a practically neutral $EV move? It doesn´t make sense. While moves usually have to be very marginal for it to be profitable to turn them down, they exist.

Quote:
As you get further in, the players are only going to get better (or rather, be better) so why avoid hands against weak opponents when you will have to face stronger ones later on?
The fact that the players are poor is exactly why you may turn down a +$EV move. If all players were as good as you, you would have no edge, and THEN it would be optimal to take every +$EV move.

Just look at my heads-up STT example. Say the opponent instead was as good as you, meaning before the tournament started you had a 50% chance of winning. When he presents you with an opportunity to increase that to 55% in the first hand, you will naturally take it. But if he was a bad player (as in the original example), a fold would have been correct.

Quote:
"Yes, less time spent per tournament is an advantage of taking all +$EV moves. But if your aim is to maximize ROI, and you thus turn down some +$EV moves, your most profitable buy-in is likely to be a level higher than if you take all +$EV moves. And it is more profitable to make 2X every two hours than X every hour and a half."

I suppose this depends on the level one is playing at.
No, 2X/2 is bigger than X/1,5 no matter what X is.

Quote:
For instance, if you only have enough money to buy in once, then it makes sense to turn down marginal advantages (no one would bet their life savings on a 55/45 chance, for instance).
If bankroll limitations is keeping you from moving up, the number of +$EV moves you can turn down decreases a little bit (because your goal should ideally be to maximize hourly rate and not to reach an ROI sufficient to move up). But some +$EV moves will still be so small that the increased ROI from dropping them outweighes the extra time the tournament is likely to take.
__________________
(00:42-03:27)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TibA0sQQZw8

The bot has spoken.
Lord Mushroom est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2008, 2:56am   #15
deuce65
Brunson
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 221
Reputation: 10
deuce65 is on a distinguished road
Default

"So your solution when facing a very marginal situation is to risk not getting to take advantage of that in favour of a practically neutral $EV move? It doesn´t make sense. While moves usually have to be very marginal for it to be profitable to turn them down, they exist."

No, my solution is to not have some sort of rule where I refuse to play with only a slight advantage.

"The fact that the players are poor is exactly why you may turn down a +$EV move. If all players were as good as you, you would have no edge, and THEN it would be optimal to take every +$EV move."

No, in that situation it would be best not to play at all.

"Just look at my heads-up STT example. Say the opponent instead was as good as you, meaning before the tournament started you had a 50% chance of winning. When he presents you with an opportunity to increase that to 55% in the first hand, you will naturally take it. But if he was a bad player (as in the original example), a fold would have been correct."

I sort of see the logic in this. Why take only a 55 chance when you might have a 85 chance later on. The problem though is that you don't know you will have a better chance later on, and in fact will most likely have a worse chance later on.

"No, 2X/2 is bigger than X/1,5 no matter what X is."

I meant my response more in terms of " your most profitable buy-in is likely to be a level higher than if you take all +$EV moves." Obviously, it is better to make 2xx2 then 1x 1.5.


"If bankroll limitations is keeping you from moving up, the number of +$EV moves you can turn down decreases a little bit (because your goal should ideally be to maximize hourly rate and not to reach an ROI sufficient to move up). But some +$EV moves will still be so small that the increased ROI from dropping them outweighes the extra time the tournament is likely to take."

A move is either +ev or is not. If it is, then it should be taken, if it isn't, then it shouldn't. Why would we intentionaly let +ev moves pass us? Keep in mind that if we are intentionally letting +ev moves pass us, it is probably because we don't consider them to be +ev.
deuce65 est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2008, 3:49am   #16
Lord Mushroom
The Dark Knight
 
Lord Mushroom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Norway
Posts: 3,568
Reputation: 42
Lord Mushroom is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deuce65 View Post
"So your solution when facing a very marginal situation is to risk not getting to take advantage of that in favour of a practically neutral $EV move? It doesn´t make sense. While moves usually have to be very marginal for it to be profitable to turn them down, they exist."

No, my solution is to not have some sort of rule where I refuse to play with only a slight advantage.
Then your solution IS to risk not getting to take advantage of your edge in favour of a practically neutral $EV move.

Quote:
"The fact that the players are poor is exactly why you may turn down a +$EV move. If all players were as good as you, you would have no edge, and THEN it would be optimal to take every +$EV move."

No, in that situation it would be best not to play at all.
Perhaps not the best strategy to choose on a final table.

Quote:
Why take only a 55 chance when you might have a 85 chance later on.
Because you probably won´t. You may get a 70% chance later, a 52% or a 62% etc.. But you may also never get better than 45%, 37% or 39 etc.. The 50% chance you estimated you had of winning before the tournament is the expected sum of all that.

Quote:
The problem though is that you don't know you will have a better chance later on, and in fact will most likely have a worse chance later on.
If you find yourself in a marginal situation against a poor player, and you estimate you are unlikely to get a better chance later, that means you consider yourself an almost equally poor player (unless the stacks relative to blinds are super-small, and sometimes even then).

Quote:
I meant my response more in terms of " your most profitable buy-in is likely to be a level higher than if you take all +$EV moves."
There can be no doubt that if your aim is to maximize ROI (and not hourly rate), turning down the correct number of +$EV moves (in regards to the goal) will result in a higher ROI.

When moving up, the ROI will suffer. The optimal level is where the ROI times the buy-in is the highest. The higher your ROI is on your current level, the more ROI you have available to "sacrifice" when moving up. And the higher will your most profitable level be.

Quote:
A move is either +ev or is not. If it is, then it should be taken, if it isn't, then it shouldn't.
True and false. It depends how you define +$EV. If you define it as "profitable when having considered the expected value of future hands", then you should take all of them. But in this thread (and normally) it is defined as "profitable if this was the last hand and the rest of the tournament would be a lottery with chips as tickets".

Quote:
Why would we intentionaly let +ev moves pass us?
Because we expect bigger +$EV moves later, and we are afraid to drop out of the tournament and miss them.
__________________
(00:42-03:27)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TibA0sQQZw8

The bot has spoken.

Last edited by Lord Mushroom; Jan 14, 2008 at 2:44am.
Lord Mushroom est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2008, 3:09pm   #17
deuce65
Brunson
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 221
Reputation: 10
deuce65 is on a distinguished road
Default

"Then your solution IS to risk not getting to take advantage of your edge in favour of a practically neutral $EV move."

No, my solution is to consider all my options, and in some cases, that includes taking a bit of a risk early on. I'm not saying one should do this all the time, what I do think though is that one shouldn't exclude certain things just because they are afraid of a risk. The fact is, if I am 55 and you are 45, I am going to win more, and more often. And in a TM, we can't sit around and wait for a 90/10 type situation.

"Perhaps not the best strategy to choose on a final table."

Yes, but we are talking about early game strategy, not final table.

"If you find yourself in a marginal situation against a poor player, and you estimate you are unlikely to get a better chance later, that means you consider yourself an almost equally poor player (unless the stacks relative to blinds are super-low, and sometimes even then)."

Not true at all. Most likely, that poor player will lose relatively early on, and so if we don't get his chips someone else will. And then when we have that same hand later on, it is more likely to be against a better player. Someone who we are less likely to be able to outplay.

"True and false. It depends how you define +$EV. If you define it as "profitable when having considered the expected value of future hands", then you should take all of them. But in this thread (and normally) it is defined as "profitable if this was the last hand and the rest of the tournament would be a lottery with chips as tickets"."

But that is never the case. There are always going to be future hands.

"Because we expect bigger +$EV moves later, and we are afraid to drop out of the tournament and miss them."

But we don't know that this is going to happen. What we do know for a fact is that as the TM goes on, the skill of our opponents will increase. And so, +EV moves will become harder to come by, not easier. Plus, when we spot them, we might be being tricked. That is less likely to happen against a weaker opponent. Why are we afraid to drop out of the TM anyway? I don't see that aspect as being any different then a cash game. We know we might lose our buyin in a cash game, but we can always buyin again. Same thing in a TM.
deuce65 est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2008, 3:38pm   #18
TJTay89
I am a wolf
 
TJTay89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,935
Reputation: 1993
TJTay89 has a brilliant futureTJTay89 has a brilliant futureTJTay89 has a brilliant futureTJTay89 has a brilliant futureTJTay89 has a brilliant futureTJTay89 has a brilliant futureTJTay89 has a brilliant futureTJTay89 has a brilliant futureTJTay89 has a brilliant futureTJTay89 has a brilliant futureTJTay89 has a brilliant future
This member received this PokerTips Exclamation Mark for one of a number of reasons: blogging, winning a contest, contributing great content, etc. Keep an eye out for chances to receive one of these by your profile!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deuce65 View Post

But we don't know that this is going to happen. What we do know for a fact is that as the TM goes on, the skill of our opponents will increase. And so, +EV moves will become harder to come by, not easier. Plus, when we spot them, we might be being tricked. That is less likely to happen against a weaker opponent. Why are we afraid to drop out of the TM anyway? I don't see that aspect as being any different then a cash game. We know we might lose our buyin in a cash game, but we can always buyin again. Same thing in a TM.
This point isn't as concrete as you might think. It is true that a lot of bad players are going to be leaving early on. However, just because someone makes it deep into a tourny doesn't make them a good player. They might have been extremely lucky or really good at the early stages of a tournament. Dan Harrington said that no matter what level of a tournament you get to, you will find players that seem to not understand the implications of the changing tourny situation or those who are just out of there comfort zone. Those are the players you try to isolate and take all there chips (either because they are playing to timid and you are stealing their blinds or because they are playing too loose and you wait for a hand that is most likely better then theirs and make them pay for their overly looseness).

It is amazing how many people make ITM and then just try and move up to the next couple pay scales (making a couple bucks more), I have seen several people let stacks get down to 3xBB and then just fade away. These people either don't understand that you have to be building up a stack at this point if you want any chance of getting to the FT, or they need that extra dollar that comes with the next pay scale so much that they are giving up any chance of going deep just to get it. Either way these guys are your money makers, and with any luck you will get a couple to your left and one to your right.
TJTay89 est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 14, 2008, 2:33am   #19
Lord Mushroom
The Dark Knight
 
Lord Mushroom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Norway
Posts: 3,568
Reputation: 42
Lord Mushroom is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deuce65 View Post
"If you find yourself in a marginal situation against a poor player, and you estimate you are unlikely to get a better chance later, that means you consider yourself an almost equally poor player (unless the stacks relative to blinds are super-low, and sometimes even then)."

Not true at all.
Of course it is true. If you think you have a tiny edge, you think have a tiny edge.

Quote:
Most likely, that poor player will lose relatively early on, and so if we don't get his chips someone else will.
But you won´t (expect to) get it in a practically neutral $EV hand. If the guy behind you ends up taking all his chips in this hand, then tough luck. It was not meant to be. But that doesn´t mean your decision to fold was wrong.

Quote:
But that is never the case. There are always going to be future hands.
Exactly.

Quote:
"Because we expect bigger +$EV moves later, and we are afraid to drop out of the tournament and miss them."

But we don't know that this is going to happen.
But we have an expectation of what will happen. When someone goes all-in preflop, and you have AA, you don´t know that it will end up profitable to call, but you expect it to be. That is what EV is. Expected Value.

Quote:
What we do know for a fact is that as the TM goes on, the skill of our opponents will increase. And so, +EV moves will become harder to come by, not easier. Plus, when we spot them, we might be being tricked. That is less likely to happen against a weaker opponent. Why are we afraid to drop out of the TM anyway? I don't see that aspect as being any different then a cash game. We know we might lose our buyin in a cash game, but we can always buyin again. Same thing in a TM.
All this has been dealt with in my posts earlier in the thread. Just read those posts again.
__________________
(00:42-03:27)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TibA0sQQZw8

The bot has spoken.

Last edited by Lord Mushroom; Jan 14, 2008 at 2:43am.
Lord Mushroom est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 14, 2008, 7:28am   #20
Joes28
Grinder
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 879
Reputation: 10
Joes28 is on a distinguished road
Default

basically, +tourney money ev doesnt necessarily mean +real money ev... its possible that the decision with negative (or less +ev) tourney money ev is more +ev real money than the +ev tourney money decision

which is why there are certain times when folding aces pre is correct etc.. (though this is disgusting and id probably never do it).
Joes28 est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 12:18pm. vBulletin 3.7.4 Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.