Tournament Life Syndrome - Part 1 (IF) AND 2 (when, where, how etc)

jimbling

Ste05 wrote:

I think it's just the need to get rid of the tag line "Tournament Life". Because it's not relevant.

What you should really be trying to find out about, is things like CEV, $EV calculations.

In your example above of the 45/55 edge and possibility of passing it up, the factors to consider would be things like the structure of the HU battle, i.e. is there room for maneouvre (sp?) is it deep enough that you can guarantee to engineer better spots in the near future, is it deep enough that you can get away from a move gone bad, etc.

Just to say you can read him and can outplay him or that you're a better player is not enough, there may not be any more opportunities to exercise this increased skill level other then to have the balls to take this 10% edge now? (55-45).

I'm not sure how well I'm explaining this, I always have trouble articulating these points, but if you know what I'm getting at, basically the thought that doesn't/ shouldn't come into your mind here is: "well if I lose this I'm out".

I have a feeling Lenny will have a better explanation soon, as he seems to be pwning this thread.

Thanks for the response......
I don't see why the name should be changed though... that is what you are considering. and I don't see selecting a coinflip as exercising increased skill level.

The point in the example above
You have a 55% chance of winning the HU battle right now? (The one single hand right now)

What do you believe your chances of winning the HU battle are if you fold? (the rest of the battle) I believe there would be plenty of situations where that would be more than 55%.

- I realise you can't answer for my example, but when it's you are in the situation you SHOULD be able to answer that question. And if you can, then you should work out which is the more EV situation... calling for current edge, or taking the long term edge over your opponent.

Perhaps the point is that that calculation is too difficult, so the easiest thing to do is just take any edge that comes along. It without a doubt simplifies things, and makes poker a much less guilt ridden game. Perhaps that is a strong argument against it. But not - he is a fish if he considers TL.



Do you know where I'm coming from? Does it make sense?

ntlbell

marius wrote:

Do you play the early rounds of a rebuy tourney the exact same way you play a freeze out?

I play the same in a FO as I do in the re-buy against a player who plays a FO like a re-buy.

Hows that!?

tekkit!

cardshark202

I can't wait for part 2.

jimbling

cardshark202 wrote:

I can't wait for part 2.

actually, part 1 turned into part 2. so sorry to disappoint.

marius

ntlbell wrote:

I play the same in a FO as I do in the re-buy against a player who plays a FO like a re-buy.

Hows that!?

tekkit!

Is that a yes then or are you avoiding the question?...i'll try and make it simpler for you...:p (and me hopefully:) )

Are your rebuy and freezout games the exact same? Is the range of cards you play in both the exact same?

ntlbell

marius wrote:

Is that a yes then or are you avoiding the question?...i'll try and make it simpler for you...:p (and me hopefully:) )

Are your rebuy and freezout games the exact same? Is the range of cards you play in both the exact same?

I actually did answer the question if you read it again.

The fact that it's a re-buy doesn't change the range of cards I play.

The situation around me does.

But this has nothing to do with TLS.

So if that's where you were going with this.

Get back in the box


It's a rebuy tournament and you noticed one guy hasn't as much as limped into a pot for the last 30 mins, he pushes all-in UTG what range of hands do you call him with? The guy directly to your right pushes every hand what range do you call him with? are ranges identical here because it's a rebuy?

califano

You worried about saving your own skin?

Yeah, I am. It covers my body.

Ste05

jimbling wrote:

Thanks for the response......
I don't see why the name should be changed though... that is what you are considering. and I don't see selecting a coinflip as exercising increased skill level.

The point in the example above
You have a 55% chance of winning the HU battle right now? (The one single hand right now)

What do you believe your chances of winning the HU battle are if you fold? (the rest of the battle) I believe there would be plenty of situations where that would be more than 55%.

- I realise you can't answer for my example, but when it's you are in the situation you SHOULD be able to answer that question. And if you can, then you should work out which is the more EV situation... calling for current edge, or taking the long term edge over your opponent.

Perhaps the point is that that calculation is too difficult, so the easiest thing to do is just take any edge that comes along. It without a doubt simplifies things, and makes poker a much less guilt ridden game. Perhaps that is a strong argument against it. But not - he is a fish if he considers TL.



Do you know where I'm coming from? Does it make sense?

Ye I get where you're coming from, but it simply isn't the point that we worry about getting knocked out of the tournament.

e,g, if we are 10 - 15 BB's deep, then we cannot GUARANTEE a better edge in the NEAR future, so passing this 55/45 edge is a mistake.

If we are 150-200 BB's deep and somehow we're presented with this edge, then it's pretty obvious we'll get a better opportunity soon enough, and in any event we are deep enough to play Post flop poker where our edge is greater, so there might be an argument in that situation for passing up this edge now, but honestly I know you are having trouble with the whole tournament life thing, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about passing up a marginal +EV situation now, IF and only IF we are GUARANTEED to be presented with a higher EV spot in the NEAR future.

It's nothing to do with worrying about getting knocked out, it's about waiting for a better spot. I could go on with this point, but I got sidetracked with something else, so I assume it'll have been answered already.

jimbling

ntlbell wrote:

I actually did answer the question if you read it again.

The fact that it's a re-buy doesn't change the range of cards I play.

The situation around me does.

But this has nothing to do with TLS.

So if that's where you were going with this.

Get back in the box


It's a rebuy tournament and you noticed one guy hasn't as much as limped into a pot for the last 30 mins, he pushes all-in UTG what range of hands do you call him with? The guy directly to your right pushes every hand what range do you call him with? are ranges identical here because it's a rebuy?

This is correct.

Either way, the rebuy is in the early stages of a tournament. TL should not be coming into the equation then (in a freezout) anyway. - or at least it is soooo small that it has no effect on the equation

marius

ntlbell wrote:

I actually did answer the question if you read it again.

Yeah - I thought you said yes but I wasn't sure...(which you will see if you read my post again:p )

The fact that it's a re-buy doesn't change the range of cards I play.

The situation around me does.

But this has nothing to do with TLS.

So if that's where you were going with this.

Get back in the box

The fact that the situation around you changes has everything to do with TLS. People are not afraid of going out at this stage so they tend to play much looser (these are the people you would presumably describe as fish...and i'd agree)...but this is not the point...I was just wondering if you are willing to take more risks in situations that you are not sure about in order to build a stack for later on?

It's a rebuy tournament and you noticed one guy hasn't as much as limped into a pot for the last 30 mins, he pushes all-in UTG what range of hands do you call him with? The guy directly to your right pushes every hand what range do you call him with? are ranges identical here because it's a rebuy?

No

ntlbell

rounders123 wrote:

You worried about saving your own skin?

Yeah, I am. It covers my body.

LOL, I love this film.

I]discussing interrogation techniques[/I
Larry: How did they finally get to you?
Sam: They gave me a grasshopper.
Larry: What's a grasshopper?
Sam: Lessee, two parts gin, one part brandy, one part Creme de Menthe...

ntlbell

marius wrote:

Yeah - I thought you said yes but I wasn't sure...(which you will see if you read my post again:p )


The fact that the situation around you changes has everything to do with TLS. People are not afraid of going out at this stage so they tend to play much looser (these are the people you would presumably describe as fish...and i'd agree)...but this is not the point...I was just wondering if you are willing to take more risks in situations that you are not sure about in order to build a stack for later on?
No

If I think I'm ahead I call/push whatever the case maybe.
If I think I'm behind I fold/bluf whatever the case maybe
MY TLS is never a factor in any hand I play.

If other people play differently based on TLS that's their choice.

I'm not saying TLS doesn't exist. It does, and pretty glad it does as people who worry about TLS are very easy to play against.

My point is, it SHOULD NOT.

So I'm not sure what your point is.

My point. *I* do not take *MY* TL into consideration in the play of a hand.

Your point. Other people do.

That's great we know this.

Now back to the topic.

Hitman Actual

jimbling wrote:

The point in the example above
You have a 55% chance of winning the HU battle right now? (The one single hand right now)

What do you believe your chances of winning the HU battle are if you fold? (the rest of the battle) I believe there would be plenty of situations where that would be more than 55%.

I assume we're talking deep-deep stacks, low blinds and long levels? I think for simplicity just call it a coin-flip, and payouts where 1st is 2 x 2nd (reasonable, I think). So maths-wise, taking the coin-flip now is payout-neutral (we make the same money in the long run by making the call). But if you're playing against a really poor player in this scenario, wouldn't everyone here expect to beat that player more than 1 in 2? I reckon most players would say they'd win at least 7 out of 10. By taking the coin-flip you're playing right into the bad players hands, and presenting him with the most profitable situation he can get, so this is bad for you. You're losing money. There's nothing wrong with folding here, I think.

But again it's just an expected-value consideration, or at least that's how I see it. But you've brought your own skill level v the opponent into the equation, so maybe this is the point jimbling is trying to get across? But I think this is all covered in TPFAP by Sklansky.

Another thing, I think it's a mistake to just dismiss any topic without really thinking about it. For example a few months ago everyone was laughing at the old 'betting for information' myth, but Sklansky has a very good take on it in his NL book with Miller, which I think has changed peoples thinking on the matter. He also gives a very good discussion on buying in short into cash games, whereas the general belief previously was that you should always buy in deep.

jimbling

Ste05 wrote:

Ye I get where you're coming from, but it simply isn't the point that we worry about getting knocked out of the tournament.

e,g, if we are 10 - 15 BB's deep, then we cannot GUARANTEE a better edge in the NEAR future, so passing this 55/45 edge is a mistake.

If we are 150-200 BB's deep and somehow we're presented with this edge, then it's pretty obvious we'll get a better opportunity soon enough, and in any event we are deep enough to play Post flop poker where our edge is greater, so there might be an argument in that situation for passing up this edge now, but honestly I know you are having trouble with the whole tournament life thing, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about passing up a marginal +EV situation now, IF and only IF we are GUARANTEED to be presented with a higher EV spot in the NEAR future.

It's nothing to do with worrying about getting knocked out, it's about waiting for a better spot. I could go on with this point, but I got sidetracked with something else, so I assume it'll have been answered already.

okay, we're getting somewhere.
When I talk of tournament life I am talking about your ability to continue in, and do will in the tournament and which decision has the best outcome on that. I am not just talking about getting knocked out at all. If the other factors (like your own M etc etc) mean that not taking the edge will hamper those chances then you take the edge.

That is why in Gholi's post, my point wasn't at all that he was risking his "life" as such, but was hampering his chances of winning. I felt with the edge been offered was so narrow, risking 1/4 your stack on that edge was not a necessary risk.

You are perfectly right about the *BBs. Obv the bigger the multiple then the bigger the edge you might pass up. And the opposite end of the scale works similarly.... i.e. that is, with a low multiple e.g. 8*BB, you're chance of staying alive in the tournament is very slim, therefore you should take any edge. In fact as your tournament life becomes more at risk you must take smaller and smaller edges... very often going into the negative side of an edge.


But this doesnt change the debate really. The fact of the matter is, a lot of people believe that in a tournament a player should NEVER pass any edge.

jimbling

lenny_leonard wrote:

I assume we're talking deep-deep stacks, low blinds and long levels? I think for simplicity just call it a coin-flip, and payouts where 1st is 2 x 2nd (reasonable, I think). So maths-wise, taking the coin-flip now is payout-neutral (we make the same money in the long run by making the call). But if you're playing against a really poor player in this scenario, wouldn't everyone here expect to beat that player more than 1 in 2? I reckon most players would say they'd win at least 7 out of 10. By taking the coin-flip you're playing right into the bad players hands, and presenting him with the most profitable situation he can get, so this is bad for you. You're losing money. There's nothing wrong with folding here, I think.

But again it's just an expected-value consideration, or at least that's how I see it. But you've brought your own skill level v the opponent into the equation, so maybe this is the point jimbling is trying to get across? But I think this is all covered in TPFAP by Sklansky.

Thank you lenny.... that is exactly my point. You have a better chance of beating your opponent if you don't take this immediate edge.
Oh how I wish i could portray it so simply.
I have not read TPFAP SKlansky... perhaps I should

lenny_leonard wrote:

Another thing, I think it's a mistake to just dismiss any topic without really thinking about it. For example a few months ago everyone was laughing at the old 'betting for information' myth, but Sklansky has a very good take on it in his NL book with Miller, which I think has changed peoples thinking on the matter. He also gives a very good discussion on buying in short into cash games, whereas the general belief previously was that you should always buy in deep.

This is something I think this forum is drastically missing. I've learned loads from here, but it's always from hand analysis etc etc. Whats the best way to play this and that. sometimes these do get very interesting, but generally it's the same old thing. There is not enough theory discussions here. I think people are very capable of having them (not including me:rolleyes: ), but sometimes, just sometimes, people seem a bit closed off to discussing anything new/different.

marius

ntlbell wrote:

If I think I'm ahead I call/push whatever the case maybe.
If I think I'm behind I fold/bluf whatever the case maybe
MY TLS is never a factor in any hand I play.

If other people play differently based on TLS that's their choice.

I'm not saying TLS doesn't exist. It does, and pretty glad it does as people who worry about TLS are very easy to play against.

My point is, it SHOULD NOT.

So I'm not sure what your point is.

My point. *I* do not take *MY* TL into consideration in the play of a hand.

Your point. Other people do.

That's great we know this.

Now back to the topic.

I was asking you a question - not making a point (see original post...)

ntlbell

marius wrote:

I was asking you a question - not making a point (see original post...)

What are you wearing?

marius

ntlbell wrote:

What are you wearing?

You gonna buy me dinner?

ntlbell

marius wrote:

You gonna buy me dinner?

If you play your cards right.


har har har

Solksjaer

ntlbell wrote:

If you play your cards right.


har har har

Mods lock this thread before these boys do something they will regret.

I vote A by the way Jibbles. (and I'm not a fish)

ntlbell

Solksjaer wrote:

Mods lock this thread before these boys do something they will regret.

I vote A by the way Jibbles. (and I'm not a fish)

[SIZE=-1]our only solskjaer you make us happy when skies are grey ... so please, dont take our solskjaer away You are our solskjaer our only solskjaer[/SIZE]

Solksjaer

ntlbell wrote:

[SIZE=-1]our only solskjaer you make us happy when skies are grey ... so please, dont take our solskjaer away You are our solskjaer our only solskjaer[/SIZE]

SING IT , SING IT, he is back on the bench tonight.....Hope he get's a run.

ocallagh

Ok - I'm just going to throw this one out here. I have no idea if someone else mentioned this before.

In tournament, individual chips in players stacks are not all worth the same. This makes calculating EV difficult. eg: If I have 4k and my opponent has 10k, then a $100 chip in my 4k stack is worth more in money terms than a $100 chip in his 10k stack.

In determining how to calculate how much a stack is worth, the actuary lunatics came up with a very simple rule which all the major online sites employ.

It is called the 50:50 rule and it determines how much somebodys stack is worth in a tournament. It comes in handy when a site has to cancel a tournament mid-way or something... so for the purpose of this experiment I will use this rule.

The formula is gvery simple and is as follows:

1) 50% of the award pool is distributed evenly among all remaining players
2) 50% of the award pool is distributed proportionally according to the chip

Lets say you are nearing the end of a small MTT. The prize pool is 20k, 5 players get paid, and the stacks are as follows:

4,000k
10,000k
20,000k
20,000k
25,000k (opponent)
15,000k (you)
6,000k

---

Total chips in play: 100k
Prize pool: 20k

Is it profitable to gamble your entir 15k stack in a 50:50 situation for a double up?

Using the 50:50 we need to work out how much our stack of 15k is worth. Then we need to work out how much we will be worth if we double up to 30k.

Using the 50:50 rule, our stack of 15k is currently worth:
(((20/2)/7) + (20/2)*(15/100) = 1.428k + 1.5k = 2.928k)
$2.928k

If we lose our stack will be worth:
$0k

If we double up to 30k our stack will be worth:
(((20/2)/7) + (20/2)*(30/100) = 1.428k + 3k = 4.428k)
$4.428k

So by taking a 50:50 for your stack in this situation, you are risking $2.928k to win a further $1.5k.
So in this instance taking a 50:50 is definitely -EV because your tournament life is on the line.

---

Lets do this again, but lets assume the position of CL, and you are going up against a smaller stack.

04000k
10000k
20000k
20000k
25000k (you)
15000k
06000k (opponent)

---

Total chips: 100k


Is it profitable to gamble some of our chips in a pefect 50:50 situation when our tournament life is not on the line?

Using 50:50 rule our stack of 25k is currently worth:
((20/2)/7) + (20/2)*(25/100) = 1.428k + 2.5k = $3.928k
$3.928k

If you take on the opponent and win, our stack will be worth:
((20/2)/6) + (20/2)*(31/100) = 1.67k + 3.1k = 4.77k
$4.77k

If you take on the opponent and lose, our stack will be worth:
((20/2)/7) + (20/2)*(19/100) = 1.428k + 1.9k = 3.328k
$3.328k

So by taking on the shortstack, you are risking $600 to win $842.
So in this instance taking a 50:50 is definitely +ev.

This is an eye opener for me. Maybe the 50:50 rule gives too much emphasis on tournament life which might prove this experiment wrong, but all the major sites use it (Stars Part Tribeca etc). Can someone spot any reason not to use it in terms of calculating EV etc?




So, IMO tournament life should always be considered.

jimbling

okay so, lets stop talking about tournament life so. lets talk about cEV Vs $EV.
To me, tournament life is the same thing, but seemingly not to others... not sure why - I would really like an explanation on this as I think it's my misinterpretation that has caused all the friction.
As well as this I am not sure why some people couldn't see passed the word tournament life and grab the concept though... I couldn't be describing it that badly could I?


so.... as this is a topic I have not really seen much on boards... and hence why i know little about it, can we have a discussion on it?

Lenny made a comment in the gholi post that the people here do know and use it, but that most hands just don't require it in there analyses.

This may be the case (although I do believe most people here talk about cEV and EV as if synonymous). But even if they do, it is obvious from the gholi post and part 1 of TLS, that some players do believe that cEV is the penultimate factor, and $EV should never be considered.

And obviously this is a discussion, so I completely welcome people who do not agree with the $EV and want to put forward an argument for not using it etc etc..... but please refrain from arguments like if you do your a fish... or any such silly nonsense.

so, my opinion on this stands as the same when describing the tournament life in my previous posts. that $EV is a consideration in every single EV equation, but it is just so minor in early stages of tournament etc that it is non consequential. This means most people ignore it... and rightly so, it would only confuse matters for no reason.
But the consequence of this is that some people tend to not consider it until it hits them smack in the face like the extreme examples given.







very very interesting ocallagh, I hadn't thought about the mechanism used by sites to work that out. I certainly hadn't realised there was an actual calculated equation for it.
Obviously, it does not take into account your ability/skill level against the other players (as well as a few other outside impacting factors)... I know people seem to think that that makes no difference, but it absolutely has to be a factor... how could it not be? No matter how small a difference it makes... ..it's still a factor.

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

jimbling

Ocallaghs formula on its own is valuable and I am very glad it has been introduced to the discussion
It would probably be the easiest to ignore things like skill level.

but..... I was thinking
The first part of OCallaghs formula is to pass out an even amount of $ to all players in the tournament. As I said in the previous post, this should not be exactly even. It should favour some players more than others. The reason it can't is pretty obvious, because it has absolutely no knowledge of every ones current situation.
It assumes every single person in the tournament is of equal skill level. It assumes every person is as awake and focused as each other. etc etc etc.

But we know differently. We know what our own current state is. We, generally, will know our skill level vs the rest. We will know if we are very tired and not focusing... or if we are fully alert and are 100% in the game. These factors obviously increase and decrease your value in the tournament.

So how can we use this?
When WE work out that equation with ourselves in the situation we include a favourable conditions variable into the equation somewhere. This could either be positive range, e.g. 1-10, or could go from -5 to +5... or .1 to 1. I am not sure what would make the equation easier to run... ill leave that to the maths folk.

What does this mean:

1)if we are in a field where we feel strong. We feel that we can outplay given the chance and it is still deep enough to do so. Our confidence is high. We feel focused and alert, ready to make the tough decisions. This would mean the value of our current chips would be higher. It would also mean
2)if we are in a field where we feel outclassed. The blinds are shallow so our skill won't come into play so much. We feel out of focus, that we are not up to the tough decisions that could come our way. This would mean the value of our current chips would lesson

So, when we work out the formula above, then everyone else gets an even number, but our initial value is effected by our variable. The larger the field the less impact this will have on the value of our chips, but the smaller the field the more impact this will have.

Does this all make sense?? Looks to me like it does, could one of the maths folks consider it??
As mentioned, it may be easier to just ignore all this completely - but it is a real world impact.

kincsem

I take tournament life into consideration when making decisions. I may not be correct as I don't cash often.

IMO it does not make much sense to risk it early, or when you are cruising into the cash and there are several small stacks.

I hope LuckyLloyd doesn't mind me using him as an example of a player who is willing to take risks to accumulate chips. I played three tourneys recently that he played (the 1st SE boards; the €1000 Green Joker; and the most recent SE boards). In the 1st SE boards he went out 1st with AsAc on a spade flop, where Cardshark202 flopped a spade flush, then he won the €1000 Green Joker; then he went out early in the recent SE boards with 45o when a 5 flopped, and the other player had AK, and rivered an ace. I was on his table in both SE events.

Lucklloyd is well up over those tourneys, I'm down €1,515.

My last bad outcome was in the Fitz 270 about three months ago. Eamonn O'Reilly raised enough to put me all-in. Two clubs on board. I had flopped trip fours. I called and lost to a club on the river. In that situation its an easy call.

If you are taking tournament life into the decision that suggests you are unsure of your hand. If I think I am ahead, and think the other hand is drawing slim, I'll call or raise.

ocallagh

jimbling wrote:

but..... I was thinking
The first part of OCallaghs formula is to pass out an even amount of $ to all players in the tournament. As I said in the previous post, this should not be exactly even. It should favour some players more than others. The reason it can't is pretty obvious, because it has absolutely no knowledge of every ones current situation.
It assumes every single person in the tournament is of equal skill level. It assumes every person is as awake and focused as each other. etc etc etc..

Ok, i see the point you are making.. basically if you and another player are on equal chip stacks, according to the formula above you are both worth exactly the same in $. You say this does not hold true, because you may be a far superior player than the other guy so you should be rewarded with extra $ when calculating your stacks exact $ worth.

However, if you are a far superior player surely you'd have a bigger chip stack!!! And if you did have a bigger chip stack you would be rewarded by the second half of the formula. The formula above takes into account an instance in one tournament, and not the results of previous hand or previous tournaments. I can hear you saying "But what if I just got uncluky in one hand to leave me short stacked... surely I deserve some compensation for that in the formula above". I disagree with that. Luck evens out in the long run, there may be some times when you will get lucky. Should the formula deduct $'s from you if you got lucky in a previous hand? In the long run if you are a superior player then your stack will generally be bigger and you will be rewarded for it in the formula. For that reason I don't think skill, focus or previous tournament results should be taken into account in the formula.

DeVore

Isnt this one of the inherent difference between tournaments and cash games? I take tournament life into account but it varies as the tournament progresses and as I get a feel for my table.
It should also be taken into account whether you are pushing all in for your tournament life (and his) or calling all in for it.

DeV.

Lazare

I think Niall hit the nail on the head.
Every decision you make in poker is based on the expected value of that decision, it's just in tournaments there's a whole lot more variables to consider than a ring game.

In a cash game it's always +EV to pass a bad wager and always +EV to take a good one.
In a tournament however there are situations when it's +EV to take a bad wager and pass a good one.
Bear in mind these situations usually only occur at the business end of a tournament.

This "Tournament Life" nonsense is a red herring tbh. I read the original thread with Gholi and Jimbling, and the point that Jimbling was trying to make originally was that there are more things to consider when making a decision in a tourney than in a cash game, and that people on here when discussing EV tend to be referring to cash games when the two are not the same.
Gholimoli (as far as I can make out) was saying there's no difference.

There clearly is a difference, Ste05's thread about that satellite hand proved this.

It's all about making +EV decisions, and people who pass +EV decisions in order to survive in the early to middle stages of a tournament are fish, but by "tournament life", I don't think Jimbling meant this in any way.