Gigabet Dilemma

The C Kid

The man himself has tried to answer some of those questions that you couldn't stop thinking about since the infamous "Gigabet Dilemma Post".

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=4423239&an=0&page=0#Post4423239

Ste05

Thanks for posting that link, I hadn't seen it. I love reading Gigabet posts.

The C Kid

I had planned on doing some study for exams today but I've been trying to get my head around this instead!

Amaru

The first time i read the original post on The Gigabet Dilemma, it clicked with me immediately. I find it strange then that I can only understand bits and pieces of his explanation!

Also good by Gigabet this week, the "As If" theory thread

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=4275684&page=1

Hectorjelly

Amaru wrote:

The first time i read the original post on The Gigabet Dilemma, it clicked with me immediately. I find it strange then that I can understand bits and pieces of his explanation!

Also good by Gigabet this week, the "As If" theory thread

Similar to what I said to you last night - betting for information sucks

The C Kid

Is HectorJelly Boards answer to Gigabet?

ntlbell

The C Kid wrote:

Is HectorJelly Boards answer to Gigabet?

There's a huge difference between the two, hector talks sense, and gigabet for the most part talks through his arse using a forum where he knows alot of people who play against him are going to read, so for the most parth leads them down the garden path and it works well for him so good luck to him!

but as far as talking poker, hector has thought me alot and made me alot of money, gigabet, well...he has made me laugh a few times i'll give him that!

Amaru

The C Kid wrote:

Is HectorJelly Boards answer to Gigabet?

Horrible, horrible comparison for so many reasons.

ntlbell wrote:

There's a huge difference between the two, hector talks sense, and gigabet for the most part talks through his arse using a forum where he knows alot of people who play against him are going to read, so for the most parth leads them down the garden path and it works well for him so good luck to him!

And that is the very difference right there. Everything HJ says is standard, abc poker. It can be found repeated verbatim by players, generally winning ones, all over the world. There's nothing new about it, its just static information. Gigabet has invented a completely new approach to the game, an approach so unique that it is lost on the vast majority of people. It's why he's world class, and so many abc'ers are just good.

Marq

You're a fúcking idiot Amaru.

Marq

Am I banned yet?

ntlbell

Amaru wrote:

Horrible, horrible comparison for so many reasons.



And that is the very difference right there. Everything HJ says is standard, abc poker. It can be found repeated verbatim by players, generally winning ones, all over the world. There's nothing new about it, its just static information. Gigabet has invented a completely new approach to the game, an approach so unique that it is lost on the vast majority of people. It's why he's world class, and so many abc'ers are just good.

I've avoided getting involved in most of the threads your involved in amaru for lots of reasons, the biggest one is i'm a nice guy.

Please don't try and preach to be on gigabet I never for one second doubted his ability as a poker player, that's not in question, how dare you for a moment assume I can't understand the dribble that comes from gigabet's keyboard because that also is not in question.

If you think hj's ability as a poker player is ABC then well I've no time for you or the nonsense you type it's nonsense like that why i've avoided getting into debates on threads with you.

Amaru

Marq wrote:

You're a fúcking idiot Amaru.

I love you too Marq. Just so my point isn't misunderstood, there's probably easily 50 players over on 2+2 who could tell you the exact same thing Hector does. There is only one person in the whole world that i know of that is thinking like Gigabet.

It's not a slight against Hector, it's just a terrible comparison.

ntlbell

Marq wrote:

You're a fúcking idiot Amaru.

If I agree with Marq wholeheartedly on this will I get banned also?

De Deraco

(there's probably easily 50 players over on 2+2 who could tell you the exact same thing Hector does. There is only one person in the whole world that i know of that is thinking like Gigabet.)


thats a very naive statement amaru. for a player who is so clued in are you honestly even a winning player.

me three, time for thunderdrome

DapperGent

The only thing I know for certain about Gigabet is that he's clearly fu cking nuts. The only thing he's proved to me is that a nutcase can talk a good poker game.

Well, he's also proved that florid dense unnecessarily impentrable prose gains you the undying devotion of plankspanners everywhere, but then he's not the first to prove that.

The C Kid

The C Kid wrote:

Is HectorJelly Boards answer to Gigabet?

It was a joke post, I thought this was fairly obvious. Or do you have to post an emoticon to denote humour?

Didn't mean to start WW3.

ntlbell

The C Kid wrote:

It was a joke post, I thought this was fairly obvious.

Didn't mean to start WW3.

It was a valid question, looks like you're going to get lots of answers tho joke or not

Marq

Amaru wrote:

It's not a slight against Hector, it's just a terrible comparison.

What makes you think I was defending Hector? I don't give a shít if people think he's the boards equivalent of the Dalai Lama. I just happen to think you're an idiot.

The C Kid

You started it NTL, with your reply!:D

ntlbell

The C Kid wrote:

You started it NTL, with your reply!:D

That I did, Marq's point was much more valid tho.

Marq

ntlbell wrote:

That I did, Marq's point was much more valid tho.

I disagree. Personal insults have no real validity in serious discussion.
Also, all personal opinions are "valid", in that people have the right to hold and voice them, but that doesn't mean that they are relevant or appropriate.

ArmaniJeanss

I think the phrase 'attack the post but not the poster' is worth bearing in mind.
If you think Amaru or Ntlbell or HJ or me are writing 'f**king idiot' posts then deconstruct and destroy their argument (or ignore it).
Personal insults are not the way to go.
AJs.

Marq

ArmaniJeanss wrote:

I think the phrase 'attack the post but not the poster' is worth bearing in mind.
If you think Amaru or Ntlbell or HJ or me are writing 'f**king idiot' posts then deconstruct and destroy their argument (or ignore it).
Personal insults are not the way to go.
AJs.

I haven't said that I thought anyone was writing idiotic posts...

mewso

I won't ban anyone yet but any more personal insults and I will. Marq you know better and it's not fair testing the limits of the mods on this when you know how to conduct yourself properly.
If anyone wants to declare Gigabet a genius then fine but less of the Emperors new clothes factor - "you must be stupid if you dont get it" and more discussion please.

Lafortezza

Amaru wrote:

And that is the very difference right there. Everything HJ says is standard, abc poker. It can be found repeated verbatim by players, generally winning ones, all over the world. There's nothing new about it, its just static information. Gigabet has invented a completely new approach to the game, an approach so unique that it is lost on the vast majority of people. It's why he's world class, and so many abc'ers are just good.

I doubt very much that Gigabet's approach is totally new to the game. He's just the only one posting it on 2+2.
2+2 is the best poker forum on the net, but it doesn't mean all the best players post there.

Amaru

musician wrote:

If anyone wants to declare Gigabet a genius then fine but less of the Emperors new clothes factor - "you must be stupid if you dont get it" and more discussion please.

For what it's worth, i wasn't referring to ntlbell when i said that the vast majority of people didn't understand the concept. I was referring to the general tone of response on the original gigabet dilemma thread.

Everything else, including people's opinion of me, i could care less about. PM if you feel so strongly about me.

Ste05

lafortezza wrote:

I doubt very much that Gigabet's approach is totally new to the game. He's just the only one posting it on 2+2.
2+2 is the biggest poker forum on the net, but it doesn't mean all the best players post there.

FYP, you forgot about Boards.ie silly boy....

mewso

Man this seems to be happening to me alot. People thinking I have some kind of problem with them. I'm trying to control the abuse here, nothing more.

Amaru

Not at all. I just wanted to clarify something seen as ntlbell seemed to really take exception to what i wrote. There was no offense intended im my post.

Lafortezza

Back on topic, when Gigabet says this:

Gigabet wrote:

The structure is a HU freezeout with starting stacks of 10,000. The blinds start at 10/20, and double every hour. The first hand of the tournament the button(SB) is dealt two black Aces. The BB is dealt two random cards. The button opens the pot for 100, and then accidentally exposes his hand. The BB sees the two Aces and moves to make the call, but accidentally throws an extra chip in. The dealer sees that the extra chip is over half the origanal raise, so declares the raise binding.

Now it is the buttons action, he knows that the BB has seen his hand, and he knows that the BB knows that he knows that the two Aces were seen. So what size of raise should the Button now make?

To simplify the situation, I will assume some things about the two players levels of thinking. First, they both are familiar with true pot odds and implied pot odds. Second, they both know that the other is familiar with both types of odds.

With that knowledge, the button raises the pot to 1800 straight. That raise makes it so that no matter what two cards the BB holds, he will be making a mistake to call.

Now it is the BBs action. Should he call?

Is Gigabet reasoning that the BB should call and take an obviously -EV situation but with a chance that he can bust the known AA.
If he calls, misses and then folds he still has a very playable stack at those blinds so it's worth the gamble to try to crack AA.

Ste05

What I took from his post is that by betting 1800 there are no cards that you can have with which you are getting the correct odds to call. Making it -EV.

However, the AA, by betting this amount is confirming to you that he is committing his entire stack to this AA, he doesn't go all-in because he wants to make something from his AA.

The part I have trouble with, (I haven't read the original thread in a while) is his part about his "lines" but that basically, going by his theory, with these blocks, and all that. He isn't concerned about losing this 1,800 that he has to call. He will still be above his line of 6,500.

Thoughts?? Anyone explain his line theory, or post the original thread, I didn't look very hard, but couldn't find it...

EDIT: To remove an obvious dopey comment... Should prob. remove the rest

The C Kid

lafortezza wrote:

Back on topic, when Gigabet says this:

Is Gigabet reasoning that the BB should call and take an obviously -EV situation but with a chance that he can bust the known AA.
If he calls, misses and then folds he still has a very playable stack at those blinds so it's worth the gamble to try to crack AA.

Yes, if the AA is going to go broke if he is outflopped. Its an extreme example of how sometimes taking a -EV gamble can sometimes be the right play in order to increase your chances of winning. Gigabet feels the value of what he can achieve with the chips we will win if he sucks out, outweighs the loss of the original chips if he has to fold post-flop.

As I say its a very extreme example.

Amaru

Theory of Stack Sizes: Hypothetical Responses to the Gigabet Dilemma

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=2610396&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=1&vc=1

Ste05

TY Amaru, any chance you have the original "Gigabet Dilemna" too?? Just for completeness of this thread.

Amaru

Which? The Q3 push thread that he references at the start? As far as i know, what i just posted is the first mention of the gigabet dilemma.

Ste05

Yep, I think it's called "Gigabet Dilemna", not too worry just thought you might have had it in your favourites..

EDIT: Instead of cluttering this thread with nonsense posts about links, I was referring to the original thread that actually lead to these two posts, the one he refers to in his second paragraph of the thread in Post 33 above. The one in their MTT forum. Maybe I'm dumb but I couldn't see it linked in that post, fcuk if I'm going through all the clutter of that thread looking for it though.

Not too worry though I'm sure I'll survive if noone has it...

RE-EDIT: Just for my own benefit I wanted to link this thread here. A hand that I like that Gigabet played. Crazy and completely against all my conventional wisdom, but if I look back for Gigabets posts I can find them all together.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=2415418&page=0&fpart=9&vc=1

Amaru

No, i'm almost certain that's the only thread referring to it, until the one posted today. He even makes reference to the new name in the thread. The Q3 push and KJ call threads linked to in it are what inspired that post though.

RoundTower

lafortezza wrote:

Back on topic, when Gigabet says this:

Is Gigabet reasoning that the BB should call and take an obviously -EV situation but with a chance that he can bust the known AA.
If he calls, misses and then folds he still has a very playable stack at those blinds so it's worth the gamble to try to crack AA.

This is complete abuse of the term -EV. Calling is +EV for the big blind because he can outplay the known hand postflop no matter what he has, so he expects to win money by calling. Not only because he can bust the AA, but because he can win the pot by bluffing as well. I haven't read the debate on 2+2, but I'm not surprised to see the answer to the question is about 1800. However this doesn't mean the BB can't call, depending on his cards it might still be right for him to call the 1800.

The C Kid

RoundTower wrote:

This is complete abuse of the term -EV. Calling is +EV for the big blind because he can outplay the known hand postflop no matter what he has, so he expects to win money by calling. Not only because he can bust the AA, but because he can win the pot by bluffing as well.

No he can't win the flop with a bluff, the hypothetical situation stated that the player would jam the flop regardless.

RoundTower

The C Kid wrote:

No he can't win the flop with a bluff, the hypothetical situation stated that the player would jam the flop regardless.

OK, I didn't see this. But it doesn't matter how the AA plays his hand after the flop. The BB will either bust him or bluff him often enough for calling to be profitable.

The C Kid

Also just for the full set as Ste requested these are the two Gigabet threads that started it all.

http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=2601730&an=&page=0&vc=1

and

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=1366229&an=&page=&vc=1

roryc

Amaru wrote:

Horrible, horrible comparison for so many reasons.

And that is the very difference right there. Everything HJ says is standard, abc poker. It can be found repeated verbatim by players, generally winning ones, all over the world. There's nothing new about it, its just static information. Gigabet has invented a completely new approach to the game, an approach so unique that it is lost on the vast majority of people. It's why he's world class, and so many abc'ers are just good.

Jesus how did I miss this thread until now?

I don't want to lower this thread any further by calling you names..... although it is pretty hard not to. How can people not take offense when you criticise their 'abc' poker like you just did? Its one thing voicing your opinion, its another being outright fcuking rude.

Don't forget that most people gave you support in that challenge you did after you 'claimed' to have won 5 STT's in a row. And for the most part no-one came out and badmouthed your play did they? Or called you a liar.


Well, I may as well drop down to your level..... Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire


EDIT: I also find it very funny that someone playing $5 STT's can criticise ANYBODY


I'll join the banned crew too

bohsman

If marq and co are getting banned I wanna be banned too.

I really hate these discussions, its like the if 9 people go allin ahead of you first hand of the world series and you have aces what do you do? Its not going to happen so Im not going to waste energy thinking about it.

We had another stupid one in citywest where I believe shortstack claimed he would eat **** for $500.

roryc

I'll do it for $200

careca

roryc wrote:

I'll do it for $200

very brave considering you can't possibly know what **** is ????:D

ntlbell

careca wrote:

very brave considering you can't possibly know what **** is ????:D

pubichair on dry crackers...............obviously, can you not count the *'s ?

ionapaul

RoundTower wrote:

OK, I didn't see this. But it doesn't matter how the AA plays his hand after the flop. The BB will either bust him or bluff him often enough for calling to be profitable.

So do I have this correct?

Headsup, both players have a stack of 10,000. Blinds are 10/20. SB has AA and bets 100, BB sees the SB's cards and decides to call, but accidentally raises, the SB re-raises to 1800. After posing the question, what should the BB do, the consensus is (or Gigabet says) he should call the 1800 with any two cards, knowing that the SB will commit himself no matter what the flop is (the flop comes down JJJ, the SB will jam it, etc)? So the BB will be unable to bluff the SB off the pot post-flop - only a favourable board will win it for the BB, right?

marius

Not too sure if I am getting this.
If we are going with the logic that the best move is for BB to call SB's raise to 1800 and that both players know why this call is being made, then surely SB's raise to 1800 was idiocy in the first place, if he knows that his Aces have been seen and he knows that the best move for his opponent is to call his raise - then he has to go all in, not raise - thus ensuring he wins the pot before the flop.
No?

Ste05

No he shouldn't go all-in, I had thought the same thing, but then he wins nothing with his AA, by betting 1800 the BB can make a mistake. He's not getting the correct odds to outdraw him but he may want to gamble and lose this 1800 and so normally he'll win this 1800.

marius

O.K. If that is the case then calling 1800 is the wrong move no?

What I am trying to say is that gigabet cant have it both ways.....it cant be the correct move for AA to raise to 1800 and for BB to call it....

or is it only the right move when BB is trying to to protect the accidental raise?

nicryan

marius wrote:

O.K. If that is the case then calling 1800 is the wrong move no?

What I am trying to say is that gigabet cant have it both ways.....it cant be the correct move for AA to raise to 1800 and for BB to call it....

or is it only the right move when BB is trying to to protect the accidental raise?

well his thoery is that the line is 6500...any chips over that can be used in no-loose gamble gamble situations...the reason why the line is at 6500 and not 10000 (ave stack) is because the blinds are at 10/20 and the difference between a stack of 10000 and 6500 when the blinds are that low is not very much.

So he reckons that he can call the 1800 in an attempt to outflop the aces and get the whole lot because the aces are gonna make a move on the flop, any flop (they act before you). Its ok that he will mostly loose the 1800 because that block of chips has a negligable effect on his stack in relation to the blinds, where as, if he does flop 2 pair or trips or something that can beat the aces, he's gonna be able to knock his opponent down below the all important line of 6500.

Nic - I'm surprised I understood all of what giga was saying with only 1 reading