last 4 - tournie situation, another sanity check?

El Stuntman

17.5k guaranteed on iPoker tonight

I am down to last 4

payouts as follows:

1st $6,345
2nd $4,230
3rd $2,115
4th $1,645

I have ~80k and am on the BB
SB has similar

other two have largeish stacks (250k and and 170k).

blinds are 5k/10k (10 mins left in the level) and it has degenerated into a total push-fest

two big stacks fold and SB shoves. I look down at 22. Auto-call???

lol donkaments with ~60BBs left on the table!

phantom_lord

are you on the bb?

I'd fold.

insafehands

Well if you bide by the 10bb rule here, it's an easy push.

His range should include all aces, good kings, as well as any pair, sc's etc.

I'd say you're prob ahead.

DeadParrot

nasty spot.
Whats the villain like?
All in fest, but what has been shown down if anything?
How long till next level?
Wait, you're on the button? Did you complete? Why didnt you push?

Jaden

500 Eurons prize difference between 3rd and 4th, with a 2K jump to 2nd. I'm looking to double up or bust out. On the button, I'd push with 22, and HOPE to be called.

El Stuntman

phantom_lord wrote:

are you on the bb?

I'd fold.

sorry, yes I am on the BB. Fixed OP

insafehands wrote:

Well if you bide by the 10bb rule here, it's an easy push.

His range should include all aces, good kings, as well as any pair, sc's etc.

I'd say you're prob ahead.

that was my thinking too, he had A5 and hit an ace on the flop.

then he typed 'ty' in the chat :mad:

the purpose of this post is not the result but to see what the more experienced donkamentarians would do.

eoghan104

I would just fold here to be honest. The best you can possibly be is 52% and thers a good chance you are fooked! Id just fold and hope to steal some blinds with muck or pick up something a bit better!

Well done on getting to the top 4 though! good result!

El Stuntman

eoghan104 wrote:

I would just fold here to be honest. The best you can possibly be is 52% and thers a good chance you are fooked! Id just fold and hope to steal some blinds with muck or pick up something a bit better!

seriously? I have 7BBs left after this hand (4-handed) and as insafehands said, I am probably ahead....

surely as a marginal favourite, and with 10k already invested, I have to call this?

would you call the push with A7?

Jesus Wept

insafehands wrote:

Well if you bide by the 10bb rule here, it's an easy push.

His range should include all aces, good kings, as well as any pair, sc's etc.

I'd say you're prob ahead.

ahead? :eek:

He has 22, its a race, or possibly he is crushed.

He is only ahead if the other guy has a deuce in his hand, what are the odds of that? Not so good!

sumoward

insafehands wrote:

Well if you bide by the 10bb rule here, it's an easy push.

In general I tend to stick to this, waiting for a decent oppurtunity then go for it.

Last 2 times I did it though I got AA versus My JJ, and AJ V 77 where I got My Jack on The flop and he hit a straight. Still more times than most I have doubled up and have buggered someones Aces with AQ or some such.

Whats the general consensus?

Jesus Wept

I think there is a big difference between a 'push' and calling allin, you have zero fold equity. I don't consider calling allin a 'push'.

eoghan104

El Stuntman wrote:

seriously? I have 7BBs left after this hand (4-handed) and as insafehands said, I am probably ahead....

surely as a marginal favourite, and with 10k already invested, I have to call this?

would you call the push with A7?

Thought you were on the button for some reason sorry! yeh I suppose its a call in the BB but I dont like it.

El Stuntman

eoghan104 wrote:

yeh I suppose its a call in the BB but I dont like it.

It is a nasty spot (I didn't really like it myself ) but it seemed like my best shot of doubling up and taking a real shot at 1st

let's face it, I'm happy to see him turn over anything bar an overpair here. I thought taking this race was +EV

eoghan104

El Stuntman wrote:

It is a nasty spot (I didn't really like it myself ) but it seemed like my best shot of doubling up and taking a real shot at 1st

let's face it, I'm happy to see him turn over anything bar an overpair here. I thought taking this race was +EV

Yeh it is and I push aswell but if you fold you still have some fold equity and have 3 hands to make a stand with. Its very tight but I suppose you have to call.

kebabfest

You're 50/50 at best , so FOLD. (You still have 70K) The whole first in vigour is important . On the next hand I would feel more comfortable going All-in on 2 random cards.

BigCityBanker

This is a fold.

By all means open push with it if you want but i dont like calling.

El Stuntman

BigCityBanker wrote:

This is a fold.

By all means open push with it if you want but i dont like calling.

can you expand on your reasons BCB?

jem

I agree with bcb.
i would push without any thought but there is a big difference between a push and a call.

BigCityBanker

El Stuntman wrote:

can you expand on your reasons BCB?

I can - they make sense in my head, unfortunately that doesnt mean they will make sense to everybody else....

Whilst you only have 8bbs or so and are shortstacked there isnt enough chips in play to make this an automatic call. Especially since we consider that we have 10mins left at this level.

I think for playing 22 shorthanded in a game like this you need to do everything possible to increase your equity in the hand. The only way you have of increasing your equity is to open raise/shove and add copious amounts of fold equity to your c.50% natural equity.

Calling off like this i dont actually think you have enough of equity in the pot through your BB being in the pot already to justify a call against his range. At the very best your 50% and your actually a slight dog to suited broadways etc (prob . 4% i think). When you add in overpairs here i think (although im very open to correction) you are making a slightly - CEV call and i deffo think you are making a -$EV call.

The payout structure is is quite steep here and with the relative chip stacks any of those guys can tango over the next 10mins and you move up a place - I really think this should be a consideration of your play. Aside from opening or calling with a *good* hand I would be willing to watch the others play and hope that they can damage each other.

Its 2.20 in the morning over here and ive just woken up so the above is quite likely to be rubbish.

gosplan

a hate-filled push

Ste05

I would have folded here, as has been said above at the very best it's a 50:50. We can never be more than 52% ahead and could easily be an 80% dog. I know we already have 10k invested, but I would still fold. You'll be short from here on in, but I'd rather push with basically ATC next time it's folded around to me then call now. (That includes when we're UTG in 2 hands time, as the Blinds simply can't go through us again)

Having said that, I would think the call would probably be razor thin +CEV based on the 10k already invested, I'm not sure about $EV but maybe Sikes or Lenny can work that one out.

El Stuntman

Ste05 wrote:

Having said that, I would think the call would probably be razor thin +CEV based on the 10k already invested, I'm not sure about $EV but maybe Sikes or Lenny can work that one out.

That was my gut feel also and I'd like to see this too (mainly to make myself feel better about the call but also I think it would be genuinely interesting)

my left hand was saying fold, unfortunately the one that was holding the mouse said 'call'!

Tar.Aldarion

I would push with this hand, I would not call with it.

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

Blip

I'd call here too, my thinking equals above pro callers. Including paying SB we only get to see 3 more hands before the BB comes round again, I rather call with made hand and not have to push with Q4o or such rubbish.

BCB, In this exact spot if you are to make the call, what small pair would you consider?

ozpoker

OK - I ran the numbers on this one:

Assuming the SB pushes with a random hand (as he should), according to PokerStove, 22 has .503 equity. There are 3 possible outcomes and the $EV results according to the ICM calculator at http://www.chillin411.com/icmcalc.php:

Action                Stack    $EV
-----------------------------------------------
Hero Folds            70K      $2756.78
Hero Calls and loses  0        $1645.00
Hero Calls and wins   160K     $3965.82

$EV(call) = (p(win) * EV(win)) + (p(lose) * EV(lose))
= .503($3965.82) + (1-0.503)($1645)
= $1994.81 + $817.57
= $2812.38

For an $EV gain from calling of $2812.38 – $2756.78 = $55.60

If your opponent has to have some standards for the jam, say 22+, Ax, Kx, QT, JT (37.3% of hands), 22’s equity against this range drops to .473. Doing the same calculations gives a $EV of calling of $2742.75 for a loss of $14.04.

So the bottom line here is that it’s so close that it’s nearly EV neutral and it doesn’t really matter what you do!


-Oz-

Jesus Wept

It's not a cash game so I don't think any Ev calculation should/can be taken at 100% face value. There are other factors that aren't really quantifiable, imo.

ozpoker

The-Rigger wrote:

It's not a cash game so I don't think any Ev calculation should/can be taken at 100% face value. There are other factors that aren't really quantifiable, imo.

That's why we make a distinction between cEV (chip EV) and $EV (dollar EV). The whole point of the ICM $EV calculations is to make the difficult to quantify quantifiable. While there are issues with the ICM model (it's certainly far from perfect) it's the best tool we have at the moment to make these sort of analyses.

If a player doesn't understand these concepts, he is likely making large monetary errors in tourneys, especially sit-n-gos.

-Oz-

Jesus Wept

It still doesn't take/can't take into account the possibilty of winning the next pot uncontested, or the next 3 pots, or the skill level of the player in question, or the possiblity of them finishing higher than the next paying spot.

I'm not saying it's not a useful tool for some people, I'm saying I would disagree if anyone used it to prove/state that they were right or wrong about a given decision.

El Stuntman

Blip wrote:

I'd call here too, my thinking equals above pro callers. Including paying SB we only get to see 3 more hands before the BB comes round again, I rather call with made hand and not have to push with Q4o or such rubbish.

BCB, In this exact spot if you are to make the call, what small pair would you consider?

this is a good point

do you call with 66 here? A9? QJs?

El Stuntman

ozpoker wrote:

For an $EV gain from calling of $2812.38 – $2756.78 = $55.60

If your opponent has to have some standards for the jam, say 22+, Ax, Kx, QT, JT (37.3% of hands), 22’s equity against this range drops to .473. Doing the same calculations gives a $EV of calling of $2742.75 for a loss of $14.04.

So the bottom line here is that it’s so close that it’s nearly EV neutral and it doesn’t really matter what you do!

-Oz-

cheers Oz, one of the dudes on 2+2 came up with almost the same:

Base numbers:

Payouts
1st: $6345 = 0.44 ICM value
2nd: $4230 = 0.30 ICM value
3rd: $2115 = 0.15 ICM value
4th: $1645 = 0.11 ICM value

Total prize pool: $14.335

Villain pushes top 50%, meaning 22 = 47.3% vs this range

ICM value of folding for hero: 0.1913

ICM value of calling for hero: 0.527*0.11 + 0,473*0,3128 = 0.206

Where 0.11 and 0.2785 represents Hero's ICM values after losing and winning respectively.

$ value of folding = 0.11 * $14,335 = $2,742
$ value of calling = 0.189 * $14,335 = $2,719


In other words, there's basically no noticeable difference in the ICM value of folding and calling here.

However, since the big stacks will be calling very loosely, I think you need to take some risks here. By calling and winning, you regain both steal and resteal FE. By folding, you barely have any steal FE since the big stacks call liberally. ICM doesn't take these factors into the equation. By folding, you also might end up with purely -EV situations on average.


All in all, with the ICM values of a call and fold being so close, I prefer calling for the reasons mentioned above.

ozpoker

The-Rigger wrote:

It still doesn't take/can't take into account the possibilty of winning the next pot uncontested, or the next 3 pots, or the skill level of the player in question, or the possiblity of them finishing higher than the next paying spot.

I'm not saying it's not a useful tool for some people, I'm saying I would disagree if anyone used it to prove/state that they were right or wrong about a given decision.

There are an infinite number of things any model doesn't take into account. The whole point of modeling anything is to make an attempt at distilling the major variables affecting a reality, quantify them, and look for insight from the results.

I'll be the first to agree that the results of modeling never really "prove" anything*. Understanding the assumptions and limitations of a model are key in understanding how to interpret the results. In the case of ICM, the results have been worth literally millions to people that have applied the knowledge to sit-n-gos (with specific, repeatable payouts) prior to it being available to the general poker population. IMO, it isn't too far of a stretch to find insight into more complex tournament payouts from applying the same approach.

-Oz-

*human caused global warming anyone?

Ste05

El Stuntman wrote:

All in all, with the ICM values of a call and fold being so close, I prefer calling for the reasons mentioned above.

As would I, I'm not upto date on the whole ICM stuff because I never play MTT's or STT's and so didn't know the $EV value of this, but I would call if I had known the $EV was this tight. I thought it could have been heavier -$EV hence why my first thought was to fold, but now I think this was a call.

El Stuntman

Ste05 wrote:

As would I, I'm not upto date on the whole ICM stuff because I never play MTT's or STT's and so didn't know the $EV value of this, but I would call if I had known the $EV was this tight. I thought it could have been heavier -$EV hence why my first thought was to fold, but now I think this was a call.

who would have thought that donkaments could be so complicated?!

I reckon the donkamentarians just made up ICM in order to make it seem less like a luck-fest....:D

NickyOD

Yeah with that big jump between 3rd and 2nd I call too. I mean the diference between 3rd and 4th is pretty insignifficant.

ozpoker

Ste05 wrote:

As would I, I'm not upto date on the whole ICM stuff because I never play MTT's or STT's and so didn't know the $EV value of this, but I would call if I had known the $EV was this tight. I thought it could have been heavier -$EV hence why my first thought was to fold, but now I think this was a call.

As an aside, prior to using tools like ICM and the jam or fold tables for head's up situations, I consistently under estimated the value of calling in lots of tourney decisions. I would say realigning my judgment in this way has had the greatest single impact on my tourney results (even if it's just a "model" that doesn't take everything into account ).

-Oz-

smilingatyou

bloody ridiculous you have to call ATC as SB was pushing ATC, also you lose the power of your push when you on the SB and Button cause you will be so short stacked,
the 2 big stacks behind might play "mean" and both flat call.
could you push if button calls ATC.

definite call

El Stuntman

ozpoker wrote:

As an aside, prior to using tools like ICM and the jam or fold tables for head's up situations, I consistently under estimated the value of calling in lots of tourney decisions. I would say realigning my judgment in this way has had the greatest single impact on my tourney results (even if it's just a "model" that doesn't take everything into account ).

-Oz-

any good links Oz?

Jesus Wept

smilingatyou wrote:

bloody ridiculous you have to call ATC as SB was pushing ATC

ridonkulous logic there for me.

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

Ste05

ozpoker wrote:

the jam or fold tables for head's up situations,

OK, educate a donkacash player as to WTF this is?? I was just watching some of the CR MTT video's for fun while bored in work and it kinda peaked my interest in playing tournaments again, they seem like fun, although I'd say it'll last for about 1 tournament when after 4 hours of grinding my AA gets cracked by AQ and I bubble for no money :mad:...

ozpoker

Ste05 wrote:

OK, educate a donkacash player as to WTF this is?? I was just watching some of the CR MTT video's for fun while bored in work and it kinda peaked my interest in playing tournaments again, they seem like fun, although I'd say it'll last for about 1 tournament when after 4 hours of grinding my AA gets cracked by AQ and I bubble for no money :mad:...

{full on thread hijacking in progress}

For those that may not be aware, the short stack (10 BB or less), head's up NLH game has been "solved", and the strategy consists of 2 tables: at what stack size and hand value the SB on the button should jam (fold otherwise), and what stack sizes and hand values the BB should call.

There are two references to this in the poker literature. Chen and Ankenman discuss it in (excruciating ) detail in The Mathematics of Poker, and Sklansky and Miller refer to the solution as the Sklansky-Chubukov Rankings in No Limit Hold'em Theory and Practice. I find C&A's tables more usable and I have a copy of them in an excel sheet if I can find a place to upload it. I should caution you though, it's really important to know how to use this information correctly, and you should read these resources before using it at the tables.

I know a lot of people will naturally rebel against the idea that our beloved game could be "solved" in any sense, but you really need to explore these ideas if you play in tourneys, especially sit-n-gos.


-Oz-

El Stuntman

lol, Oz is clearly making this nonsense up on the spot!

(actually I am secretly impressed, who could have thought there could be anything interesting to a poker situation where you have < 10BBs?)

Jesus Wept

oh its solved??

We can all go home so. :rolleyes:

So this study found that in the given situation, the bb should always call when the best possible situation (barring a miracle) is that they are in a race?

Is there somewhere I can help donate to this study

Oh no need, they have it solved. (I hear the end guy is tough).

DeadParrot

The-Rigger wrote:

oh its solved??

We can all go home so. :rolleyes:

So this study found that in the given situation, the bb should always call when the best possible situation (barring a miracle) is that they are in a race?

Is there somewhere I can help donate to this study

Oh no need, they have it solved. (I hear the end guy is tough).

I bet you had your lips pursed as you wrote that

I'd actually be interested to see what oz has to show

Ste05

It actually doesn't suprise me at all that the end of a SNG can be "solved" as such, but how does it take into account $EV as compared to just comparing Hand Ranges while in SB v BB/ HU situation.

Obviously in the SB/HU with 10BB's you have a range of hands that you think performs well while maximising your fold equity combined with the range that will likely call you. Similarly in the BB when the SB pushes, again it's just assigning ranges and seeing how your hand measures up and basing a decision on that.

It just sounds slightly convaluted, I'm not saying I disagree or anything as I'm shooting in the Dark here, but just interested.

P.S. Loving your work in this thread El Stuntman, wanted to QFT nearly all your quips thus far...

Hitman Actual

The-Rigger wrote:

oh its solved??

We can all go home so. :rolleyes:

So this study found that in the given situation, the bb should always call when the best possible situation (barring a miracle) is that they are in a race?

Is there somewhere I can help donate to this study

Oh no need, they have it solved. (I hear the end guy is tough).

Why the sarcasm? 'Pure' poker theory can get extremely complex. For accurate tournament payout structure/ICM calculation, things like Laplace maths, PDE's, and Brownian Motion maths have been used.

I assume when Ozpoker uses the word 'solved', he means in a purely mathematical sense.

ozpoker

Ste05 wrote:

It actually doesn't suprise me at all that the end of a SNG can be "solved" as such, but how does it take into account $EV as compared to just comparing Hand Ranges while in SB v BB/ HU situation.

At the end of any tournament when head's up, you are only fighting for one prize, so cEV becomes directly proportional to $EV again (just as it is at the beginning of the tourney). That's why you can do these sort of analyses without reference to the amount to be won.

The solution in the jam or fold tables assumes only 2 players left and isn't applicable to SB vs BB when other players have folded (so, no The-Rigger, poker isn't solved yet, just this particular situation). The tables define optimal play using game theory. The way the tables are created is by holding one player's strategy constant and defining an optimal strategy for the other. Then you hold that strategy constant and refine the first player's strategy to do better. Eventually, you converge on the optimal strategy for both players, such that if one diverges, he becomes exploitable.

-Oz-

ozpoker

lenny_leonard wrote:

I assume when Ozpoker uses the word 'solved', he means in a purely mathematical sense.

Heh, no. I mean it in an optimal strategy sense, using game theory concepts. I think we are far from solving any aspect of poker in a mathematical sense, using theorems and proofs and such.

-Oz-

Ste05

ozpoker wrote:

The solution in the jam or fold tables assumes only 2 players left and isn't applicable to SB vs BB when other players have folded (so, no The-Rigger, poker isn't solved yet, just this particular situation). The tables define optimal play using game theory. The way the tables are created is by holding one player's strategy constant and defining an optimal strategy for the other. Then you hold that strategy constant and refine the first player's strategy to do better. Eventually, you converge on the optimal strategy for both players, such that if one diverges, he becomes exploitable.

-Oz-

So basically it's just a fancy way of assigning hand ranges??

sikes

ozpoker wrote:

Heh, no. I mean it in an optimal strategy sense, using game theory concepts. I think we are far from solving any aspect of poker in a mathematical sense, using theorems and proofs and such.

-Oz-

Heads up poker has been solved in a mathematical sense when concerning ourselves with <=10BB stacks. A nash equilibrium exists where one player cannot alter his strategy without giving an edge to his opponent.

Turbo SNGs are a solved game too, certainly late game play.

When you start talking about deepstacked games, the process of solving becomes way too complicated. Poker is different from chess and other games becuase of the incomplete information trait and a random/stochastic element which results in the next "node" in the decision tree not being determined by the current node. So when we look at heads up <10BB play, the game tree has very few nodes in comparison to the 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,....'s of nodes that exist in a deepstack game, i think it was something like 10^25 or something nodes, but cant remember.

To overcome this, there is a technique being employed in the latest AI models called tree abstraction, which reduces the size of the game tree, but this leads defencies in the results. Perhaps quantum computing will allow people to solve deepstack NL.

Back on topic, I would have thought this is close, and you should look at the table dynamics which are not favourable to you atm with the short stack on your right. Removing him and regaining your RSFE are of great value to you.