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

marius · 07-12-2006 11:57AM

ntlbell wrote:

My chips would be in the middle before his.

When are you buying me dinner?

ntlbell · 07-12-2006 12:07PM

marius wrote:

When are you buying me dinner?

Can you not see that you are seriously annoying musician with these silly one liners which have nothing to do with the conversation.

Never mind dinner, you're very lucky you haven't been banned.

what type of food do you fancy?

jimbling · 07-12-2006 12:07PM

Ste05 wrote:

I guess I'm just trying to talk about people's thinking, if during a hand they've thought about it and their only reason for folding is they are afraid to get knocked out, then I'd say a huge % of the time, that is the wrong decision. Hence the whole "Tournament Life Syndrome" in it's own right should have no meaning, it's just the overall name we give to all these extra factors to be taken into consideration and shouldn't be confused with some stand alone item.

okay... so we are completely agreeing with each other then

I guess I posted this thread and called it Tournament Life Syndrome for the wrong reasons really.
To be honest, I hadn't really thought about it in the sense people assumed I was thinking about it.
In the orig post that started all this, I talked about Tournament Life. I was honestly just pulling this phrase out of the air as it seemed like a phrase that could sum up what I was talking about.
i.e. Tournament life is not just the tournament existance Vs Tournament death. (in an immediate sense)
I meant it in terms of.... hmm...... i still don't know how to word it.... maybe the quality of tournament life perhaps.
The help or damage the current decision will have on your chances of winning/cashing in the tournament (I now know this is the $EV) has to be factored into the cEV equation. As you said, I was already doing this sub-consciously, but I wanted to try and get a better handle on it.

It was gholi who took what I was saying and alluded that I had tournament life syndrome (which obviously is meant to be negative) to be arguing these points.
So, that matter is really just down to what someone defines tournament life as.

But Lets not let it take away from the discussion in progress though, which is quite interesting. I think it's healthy for all poker players to be involved in discussion that challenges your ideas. The outcome may be that you remain in your current belief system, but at least challenge it.
It is also good for less experienced players to realise that poker is not a simple matter and its not all rosy at the top. A bunch of top players can completely disagree with each on some matters and still all be top players

cardshark202 · 07-12-2006 12:08PM

ntlbell wrote:

Can you not see that you are seriously annoying Muscian with these silly one liners which have nothing to do with the conversation.

Never mind dinner, you're very lucky you haven't been banned.

what type of food do you fancy?

Who's Muscian?

ntlbell · 07-12-2006 12:09PM

cardshark202 wrote:

Who's Muscian?

My dyslexic friend. Brian Oc

marius · 07-12-2006 12:24PM

ntlbell wrote:

Can you not see that you are seriously annoying musician with these silly one liners which have nothing to do with the conversation.

Never mind dinner, you're very lucky you haven't been banned.

Sure bring him along too......

what type of food do you fancy?

Courgettes.....

This thread has gotten quite long and complex but I think it is pretty interesting, anyone (*cough Jimbling *cough) feel like summing it all up in one post?

jimbling · 07-12-2006 12:42PM

marius wrote:

This thread has gotten quite long and complex but I think it is pretty interesting, anyone (*cough Jimbling *cough) feel like summing it all up in one post?

yes it's long and complex, but I don't think its anywhere near summing up... is it? well I don't have the time at the moment to try and do so anyway...... damn boards and the inevitable distraction from work.

I would be very interested to hear more from some maths people about actually using the formula.
Are people (the subset who do think $EV exists

)in agreement that Nialls formula can be used to work out chip value and go from there?
Do any of ye think there should be a weight in that formula to represent the current situation.... or do the relative stack sizes within it suffice to cover that area. I think that's an interesting one.

You could separate this thread out into about 5 with all the different angles too..... but who wants too?

Fatboydim · 07-12-2006 12:47PM

In the original situation at the start of this thread I call 99% of the time. Only time I don't is if it's a sat where only two places pay tickets.

In the early stages QQ v AK - It depends on other factors. Probably 90% of the time I'm calling. But no one's brought up the fact that all his outs are probably live if everyone has folded to the button. Of course we'd always have to assume his outs were live anyway. But if I felt a few rag aces or kings had been folded it might edge up to 95% in that situation.

Agree with Daitho's example that you'd have to be a loon to call. Those who argue against would probably say that you have a chance to get rid of the only other dangerous player at your table. But against that is the fact that you are already in a very good position and if the player makes this move at this stage with you yet to act... He might not be as good as he thinks he is.

I like Steo5's idea of an Internal ev Calculator... I think he's right and when it comes to tournaments we all will take into account TL. Even if that only happens in a nano second for NTL - In the end we will all fall between two stools - The Hellmuth school of Ubertight. And the Brunson school of uberaggresive [Maybe that should be hansen] In the end you have to ask :

WWID?

ntlbell · 07-12-2006 01:18PM

Fatboydim wrote:

I like Steo5's idea of an Internal ev Calculator... I think he's right and when it comes to tournaments we all will take into account TL. Even if that only happens in a nano second for NTL - In the end we will all fall between two stools - The Hellmuth school of Ubertight. And the Brunson school of uberaggresive [Maybe that should be hansen] In the end you have to ask :

WWID?

I wouldn't say a nano second, I'm a fairly tight conserative tournament player. I can make the call in a nano second here because he's thrown up his hand face up, which never ever happens in reality so I'll never ever have to worry about the situtation.

I take a lot of things into consideration, I don't just stick my chips in without a thought process, But what ever route I take during the play of a hand it's never influenced by the fact I *might* get knocked out.

Once again this whole thread has been forced in all sorts of directions simply because TLS hasn't been properly defined and in my eyes the thread really isn't about TLS it's about +EV and +CEV the biggest problem here seems to be people view what TLS is differently.

The Ace Face · 07-12-2006 02:21PM

ntlbell wrote:

My chips would be in the middle before his.

I would fold the QQ and not risk my whole stack and a great position for a marginal edge in a race. Personally cannot understand why you would gamble here...

Ray

( First post after 6 months away from poker....the hunger is back... All I need is an internet connection in my new house! ):D

jimbling · 07-12-2006 03:00PM

ntlbell wrote:

Once again this whole thread has been forced in all sorts of directions simply because TLS hasn't been properly defined and in my eyes the thread really isn't about TLS it's about +EV and +CEV the biggest problem here seems to be people view what TLS is differently.

You're right here. Tournament Life needs to be defined. But even if we are talking about cEV and $EV (which we are), the fact remains that what is interesting here is the factors that influence the $EV, how we can quantify them and how that variable interacts with the cEV calculation. A lot of people have very different views on that.
Do people think it's not worth discussing? I think it is.

Fatboydim · 07-12-2006 04:29PM

Welcome back Ray. Long time no see. Glad you're back.

The Ace Face · 07-12-2006 05:37PM

Fatboydim wrote:

Welcome back Ray. Long time no see. Glad you're back.

Cheers Len, Took a 6 month break..haven't played once or viewed boards....looking forward to some poker over the Christmas...

Ray

Daithio · 08-12-2006 03:05AM

cardshark202 wrote:

Whoops I think I'm calling here.

This is sheer madness. Why would you call here? The main argument I can see for taking coinflips early on is so that you get a stack together with which you can then bully your table. You already have this stack and so don't need to be taking on any more coinflips. With this sort of chip lead you should be able to outplay almost any table, so the argument that your table may get broken doesn't work either. It's an absolute auto fold.

RoundTower · 08-12-2006 03:21AM

Daithio wrote:

To elaborate.

Another hypothetical situation, sorry NTL. It's the middle of day 1 in the WSOP. The standard so far has been absolutely atrocious and you are savaging your table. The average is 15k, you have 80k, and despite a double up to 20k early on (where the SB pushed for 10k to your BB and accidentally flipped over AK, you had QQ and correctly called) you have used your stack well to move from 20k to 80k with barely a showdown. Now a 90k stack gets moved directly to your right, and holy **** the exact same thing as earlier happens! He pushes for 90k and flips over AK accidentally. You look down at QQ.

Do you call or fold? If you call here you are a complete idiot IMHO.

for most players calling here is correct, you might still be right though.

Hectorjelly · 08-12-2006 08:36AM

why is this even a discussion? Of course you can pass a very small edge under some certain very strict criteria, similarly you can pass AA preflop in some very uncommon circumstances. Still though the most common mistake made by thinking players is passing an edge when they shouldnt, not the other way around.

jimbling · 08-12-2006 09:52AM

Hectorjelly wrote:

why is this even a discussion? Of course you can pass a very small edge under some certain very strict criteria, similarly you can pass AA preflop in some very uncommon circumstances. Still though the most common mistake made by thinking players is passing an edge when they shouldnt, not the other way around.

HJ, the reason it is a discussion is because no body knows HOW to make the decision.... what are the "very strict criteria" for that person etc. How can we prevent the "most common mistake" when it is never discussed by the thinking players in question? Is it based purely on experience? And why?

It is plainly obvious that people here don't fully grasp the process. From the start I have been saying I believed that the majority do consider all these factors, but just don't really think about it, and sometimes don't realise it. What i was trying to achieve is to get people talking about this concept and attempt to come up with some form of a strategy to analyse it.

This may all have been done a thousand times and no one could come up with a decent mechanism, or perhaps people differ so much that no two people will calculate it in the same manner (this is likely to be true, but there should be a lot of commonality to it too) so the discussion always ends in tears.
Do you not agree that something that is a common mistake should be discussed and thought about until it is no longer a common mistake?

cardshark202 · 08-12-2006 09:59AM

Daithio wrote:

This is sheer madness. Why would you call here? The main argument I can see for taking coinflips early on is so that you get a stack together with which you can then bully your table. You already have this stack and so don't need to be taking on any more coinflips. With this sort of chip lead you should be able to outplay almost any table, so the argument that your table may get broken doesn't work either. It's an absolute auto fold.

I gave reasons in a subsequent post. Seriously I can't see how you could fold here. I think thats taking an unnecessary risk.

jimbling · 08-12-2006 12:13PM

I just can't believe I reached, and passed, the giant landmark of 1000 posts and didn't notice a bloody thing. must have been all the bollix I've been talking on these last few days

Daithio · 08-12-2006 01:11PM

cardshark202 wrote:

I gave reasons in a subsequent post. Seriously I can't see how you could fold here. I think thats taking an unnecessary risk.

I don't think you gave clear reasons for a call at all. It's an auto fold for any above average player.

cardshark202 · 08-12-2006 01:17PM

Daithio wrote:

I don't think you gave clear reasons for a call at all. It's an auto fold for any above average player.

Ok you fold and get moved to a tough table with loads of big stacks. That could easily happen.

bops · 08-12-2006 01:28PM

congrats on above

as with many of these poker debates, the simple truth is that there is no right and wrong answer.

the +EV gang wil always scream call! call! ffs etc... on purely maths-based reasoning they are 100% correct - when the hand is viewed in isolation...

while it is impossible to evaluate the correct play in the context of the tournament future - there are too many unknown variables

one can only make assumptions about what may occur if you fold etc...

so what i'm trying (badly) to say is that:
people who view a poker tournament on a hand by hand basis will always call and are right to do so, whilst
people who view the bigger picture:rolleyes: might call and may/may not be right in any given situation - totally dependent on future events.

interesting topic tho!

jimbling · 08-12-2006 02:14PM

bops wrote:

congrats on above

as with many of these poker debates, the simple truth is that there is no right and wrong answer.

the +EV gang wil always scream call! call! ffs etc... on purely maths-based reasoning they are 100% correct - when the hand is viewed in isolation...

while it is impossible to evaluate the correct play in the context of the tournament future - there are too many unknown variables

one can only make assumptions about what may occur if you fold etc...

so what i'm trying (badly) to say is that:
people who view a poker tournament on a hand by hand basis will always call and are right to do so, whilst
people who view the bigger picture:rolleyes: might call and may/may not be right in any given situation - totally dependent on future events.

interesting topic tho!

Think you should read the whole post bops. I know what you're trying to say, but it actually comes across all wrong. (I used to phrase my posts in this manner too, but its not correct)
We are all in the "+EV gang"... and realistically we are all the maths-based reasoning gang too. Its a matter of how you work out the EV and what maths are you using to do so. That is what differs.

Some people use a kind of "Internal Calculator" (to steal Ste's excellent description) which works out the extra variables (the bigger picture as you see it) in the Maths to calculate a different EV than a purely chip based thinker would (i.e. cEV calculation only).

So in the one hand we have a debate between the differences between $EV and cEV (the Daitho/cardshark debate), and on the other we should be having a debate on how we mathematically work out the $EV.

The main problem with $EV lies in the fact that nobody has any real grasp on what there Internal Calculator is up too, and why it does what it does when it does.

EDIT:
Also Bops... you seem to be on both trains. How can you think that the people who only consider the cEV always be right when you believe that thinking about the "bigger picture" is correct?

gosplan · 08-12-2006 02:53PM

I think I understand what Jimbling is trying to say here.

In the case given it's 50/50 either:

Being in first at 160,000-10,000-10,000 over the other two stacks.

Or finishing third.

Depending on the payout I'd probably decline the race and be content to play on with a decent stack.

Does declining a +EV move always make you a fish?

Other situation:

1st hand at the final table of the WSOP, 10 players, all equal stacked.

4 players before you get AA, AA, KK & KK and they all go all-in.

You can see this because you've got a mini-tv in your pocket.

You've got 78h which gives you the amazing +EV situation of putting 20% into a pot with almost a 30% chance at it.

Do you push?

karlh · 08-12-2006 03:09PM

worms, everywhere.

ntlbell · 08-12-2006 03:10PM

gosplan wrote:

I think I understand what Jimbling is trying to say here.

In the case given it's 50/50 either:

Being in first at 160,000-10,000-10,000 over the other two stacks.

Or finishing third.

Depending on the payout I'd probably decline the race and be content to play on with a decent stack.

Does declining a +EV move always make you a fish?

Other situation:

1st hand at the final table of the WSOP, 10 players, all equal stacked.

4 players before you get AA, AA, KK & KK and they all go all-in.

You can see this because you've got a mini-tv in your pocket.

You've got 78h which gives you the amazing +EV situation of putting 20% into a pot with almost a 30% chance at it.

Do you push?

I'll probably get banned for this.

seriously.

**** OFF

Lafortezza · 08-12-2006 03:33PM

lol, calm down Ntl.
gosplan, people get a bit annoyed when the words

"It's the first hand of the WSOP, and all 8000 players go all in and show their cards.

You have the and the 6 of jellybabies, do you call?"

It's just a little bit of an overused example

5starpool · 08-12-2006 03:36PM

lafortezza wrote:

"It's the first hand of the WSOP, and all 8000 players go all in and show their cards.

You have the and the 6 of jellybabies, do you call?"

If I ever get those cards I will make a point of saying 'Ah fkcu it, I'm all in'.

bops · 08-12-2006 03:47PM

jimbling wrote:

Think you should read the whole post bops.

I did

I know what you're trying to say, but it actually comes across all wrong. (I used to phrase my posts in this manner too, but its not correct)

If you know what i'm trying to say - then i think it came accross ok

We are all in the "+EV gang"... and realistically we are all the maths-based reasoning gang too. Its a matter of how you work out the EV and what maths are you using to do so. That is what differs.

The EV gang i refer to are the ones who see a hand in isolation and have a very black/white view of it

Some people use a kind of "Internal Calculator" (to steal Ste's excellent description) which works out the extra variables (the bigger picture as you see it) in the Maths to calculate a different EV than a purely chip based thinker would (i.e. cEV calculation only).

Yep - internal calculator - i like it!

So in the one hand we have a debate between the differences between $EV and cEV (the Daitho/cardshark debate), and on the other we should be having a debate on how we mathematically work out the $EV.

My point is that there is no debate here - just 2 differing views that shall remain differing - i'm right, he's wrong!

The main problem with $EV lies in the fact that nobody has any real grasp on what there Internal Calculator is up too, and why it does what it does when it does.

yep - the fact that the future has to be taken into account...that's why you can't be 100% with your decision

EDIT:
Also Bops... you seem to be on both trains. How can you think that the people who only consider the cEV always be right when you believe that thinking about the "bigger picture" is correct?

Nope - i was saying that the two differing approaches are both right in their plays - although they think that the other ones approach is wrong!!
Can i not say both are correct? or should i rubbish one sides views like everybody else does????

All i'm saying is that i see where each side is comming from but i play on the side of the "internal calculator"

...i think the others haven't got a clue;)

ntlbell · 08-12-2006 03:56PM

Regardless of the internal calculator, TLS EV and CEV I just want to be able to play like bops

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

Comments