Yes, that is one reason why I usually play aggressively on the bubble, as people are playing a little tight but ICM is not as important as later on. Think it is very important to maintain at least a pushbot stack.

As for some other comments, yes I know it is not 2004 and you shouldn't be crazy aggressive, but I would make cEV+ pushes to maintain FE.

I don't think a lot of what you are saying is relevant. You say it would be a problem if they were calling too loose, but OP and others early on said they were calling tighter than Nash.

What? 1/5? How can that be true? You are one of the players in the bottom of the last 16 and you have half the avg stack. How on earth is your equity the part above min cash by 4/5 when you are not even sure you will make that 1/5 by more than 60% probability here. Provide pay structure and you will see how wrong you are here.

I didnt calculate it properly but based on other prior experience it looks like its 50-50. min cash vs the awards above it possibly even 60-40.

Basically to say your equity is 1/5 min cash requires to have some stack that is way above avg which therefore has a deep future written all over it. (the avg stack has equity that is~ the total prizes/16, so thats a start). If your chance to survive the bubble is not even over 65% then min cash is the thing you hope for and if opportunity arises even higher but as it is you will barely make it or double up or get eliminated any hand now. It is a risky situation and as such min cash is a main fraction of its equity and its not even certain.


Its all math by the way. The problem is that most of the time its not complete, well thought math, its full of failing details, its fuzzy and involves hand waving estimates. So ultimately its not about ignoring math. Its about improving it to fit the world better. Its about better math or having the decency to not call it math yet but an approximation towards reality using math in only the better understood parts of the problem. Call it partial math until one gets better at it.

If you have half the average stack, the mincash is 15% of the prizepool, and you are 60% to mincash, then your expected mincash equity is $360. Say the rest of the prize pool is $60K (assuming it is 85% of the pool). Say with half the average stack and 16 players left, your equity in that is 1/30th of that, which would be $2K. So your equity in the mincash would be less than 1/6th of the total equity.

Ull, keep telling yourself your right bro

Explain to me why my math is wrong.

I can't believe people think I am a donk for saying to preserve FE and not get blinded out when you have half the average stack near the bubble.

So everyone including thinks the proper strategy is to try to fold your way to the mincash?

No they just think the optimal shoving range here is different than you by a little bit.

I am not sure about the exact range, but I think most people agree 98s is part of it. A lot of my point is that the mincash is not that significant, and we need to pushbot lighter to keep from getting blinded out. Of course I understand we can't just push ATC thinking people will call some absurdly tight range. However, this is a situation where I would loosen my range.

1) I agree with you that it is a push under most circumstances.
2) The part that doesn't seem relevant is just information to be used in similar circumstances where one might not want to push the bottom of their range, e.g. when people in the blinds have a big stack and/or especially have proven themselves to call recklessly wide, like they're willing to take a +.1 BB cEV call vs your range, which is ICM spew.

If I were on BTN with 16k and saw you push here w/o any history, I'd be folding AJo, ATs 77 etc and maybe stronger, all of which would usually be standard reshoves without the ICM dynamic, or at best, would be neutral to slightly +$EV ICM calls/ In such a case I will concede the game of chicken to you since you pushed first and I don't want to call and take on the variance, or worse, be wrong about your range and make a hugely -$EV call.

Most simulators that give a proper Nash call range will include some =$EV hands as well as borderline +$EV hands, all of which should be folded by most competent players. If you can assume that they're folding the bottom of their Nash call range, then you're no longer playing Nash equilibrium, and therefore the 98s goes from being a marginally profitable shove to a fairly profitable one, because you'll be getting to showdown less often in practice than what the simulator running NashEq computes.

.

OP or anyone that knows, give us a link to the tournament details or provide how many started and maybe what the top 1-2-3 prizes are like if the min is 3buy ins roughly (is it 3 really by the way or was that a guess). Is the top 12 paid 15%-10% of the tolal people who entered or what? (or also how many rebuys , basically what is the total prize pool at this point down to 16 with 12 paid)

Wtf, NSB, it was totally obvious what I meant and I already explained it. The mincash may be less than the average amount each player bought in for, so it isn't that significant. You think it is funny being literal minded or something?

betgo theres 2 possible scenarios here - either these guys are all right and your wrong or these guys are all wrong and your a genius......I'm going to assume its the former but if you truly think you're right you should be grinding away nonstop printing money off all these fish

Come on give us the number of players that started or the prizes by now or the structure of awards above minimum. Then watch how fast i can make betgo agree with me about how significant the min prize is in the overall equity we have as half avg stack.

In any case without any specific structure, using assumed ones, i estimated as posted before we have equity 1/20 of all prizes given. So if i am correct in that 50-50 guess and min is 3buy ins and we have like 75% chance to make it, it implies that ~90 buy ins took place here. That shouldnt be far from the truth as most MTTs typically pay over 10%-15% of people that join but unable to play at Stars anymore (thanks GOP) i am not familiar with this one.

Also Betgo it doesnt matter what you payed or what others payed if they re-bought many times or whatever. EV is based on what you have now as value share, the past is irrelevant. You could have spent 5 buys because you are maniac and have an equity of 4.4 buy ins avg with one strategy now vs a 4buy ins with another and the first is still better choice of strategy even if it anticipates a net loss for the event!

2x means second chance so the maximum you can be in for is 415$

Right 2x 3x etc. (i was exaggerating on the 5 times example to make a point in general not valid necessarily here). But how many had to select that rebuy option. Is it also 12 min per level or faster? That too is important. There is a point that it makes no sense to rebuy and by then you may still have many that didnt bust yet. So how many rebuy really? So we need some idea about the structure and how many typically start it or a guess of that from the number of people payed (12) and the value of the minimum now. Any data would help. How high does first second prize go if min is 2-3 buy ins in theses?

I would say that approximately 50% of the field makes a rebuy, maybe slightly more.

its not rebuy, its re-entry.

it doesn't matter! (other than for psychological reasons like some people playing tighter cause the min cash is more in absolute dollars)

I was until they kicked all the US players off of Stars.

If 1/2 of the players reentered, the mincash is about 20% of the prize pool, which makes OP's equity like $360 in the mincash and $1300 in the rest of the prize pool.

Also, I do not think your chance of mincashing is reduced much is you push the bottom of your range, rather than folding; because if you don't steal, you are going to have to get allin without FE before the bubble.

I may be wrong about ranges, but these are factors I would look for to open my range. Have 7xBB so could odds to steal and pot odds if called. Bubble period, so people are playing a little tight. Will lose FE completely if fold next few hands.

(since nobody that plays them now wants to help lol)



But here it says; http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/tour...TurboandxTurbo

"2x-Turbo and 3x-Turbo
.

A 2x-turbo tournament is a special kind of turbo rebuy tournament (usually a satellite - ok not here) in which the levels increase at turbo speed, but the rebuy time is twice as long as it would be in a normal turbo rebuy. Similarly, a 3x-turbo has three times the normal amount of rebuy time. The available chips – including the starting stack, rebuy, and add-on – are tailored to each event. Be sure to check under the ‘Tournament Info’ button for detailed structure info."


So which is it ?


In any case can anyone confirm min is 20% of total awarded or at least offer a value for first prize vs the minimum? 10 to 1, 15 to 1 what is it?


Here is another web search result;



http://www.thepokerdb.com/results/po...4-17777814.htm


in this example it appears 212 entered and there were 94 rebuys for a total 61200 pool. Now looking at the awards given;


1 [PokerStars] $13,158
2 [PokerStars] $9,486
3 [PokerStars] $7,191
4 [PokerStars] $5,355
5 [PokerStars] $3,672
6 [PokerStars] $3,060
7 [PokerStars] $2,448
8 [PokerStars] $1,836
9 [PokerStars] $1,224
10 [PokerStars] $1,071


These add up to 48500 so there is another 12700 left to be awarded on the remaining players. If they go down to 3buy ins say to 600 imagine another 15 say for paying 25 total (guess) with avg 850.


So there you have adjust to our own using 12 where 25 may be here.

Then the above (cant log in to see more hence the extrapolation).


In any case if its 25 paid 25*600=15000 that represents 25% of the total awards not 20%.

So it looks like 20 to 1 top vs minimum usually? (although maybe that scale doesnt remain the same as the field shrinks to less entries )



This structure if true promotes further the 89s push option unless they are very loose or the BB as said is icm naive in calling.

It might even open up a bit the push range to 25% because the top prizes are significant incentive. They now call you from 8% all the way to 15% depending on position. (originally i had assumed in the absence of more info some 30-35% basic min prize %).


ICM now suggests approximate equity 3.75% for that kind of stack. So if its 120 entries and 60 rebuys say 180b in our case 3.75% of 180 is 6.75b and if we have like 60% chance to cash in (12/16 is 75% but we are in the bottom 25-30% of stacks) i imagine and min prizes of the 12 paid is still 25% of total ie 180*0.25=45b or 3.75b then our min prize expectation is 60%*3.75b=2.25b. So the min prize represents 2.25/6.75=33% so betgo is not generally very off and we were in fact both off by 50% in the guess. Say 28-33% of the equity as a guess (some uncertainty on how many were paid in the linked example remains so if they werent 25 and it was 22 say etc) is the min cash, not huge but significant. I am objective guys no matter what this means for my original guesses. I am not here to win, i am here for the truth to win. And dont pile up on betgo either. Its not right. He was correct in claiming that the min prize is not the most important part of our equity here. It seems 1/3 or less. But i still think he wants to be a bit riskier than he should and its true people have stopped being as tight as they used to be.

Now that still doesnt open the range as much as betgo wants it to call 89s a very easy decision. But 25% vs 20-21% before. 89s is now in but the btn being out still presents an interesting question if it is true for future hands too and how others call is still relevant.

What you can say for sure is that 89s push will never be a mistake unless the BB is total spite call moron. And even then its not that bad of a choice.

I was being a little indirect with the J6o example people were making fun of, but what I was trying to say was that I was pushing a lot wider than Nash with like 5-8xBB in 2-table MTTSNGs and I think that was part of the reason I was crushing.

When everyone has that sort of stack, stealing or doubling up are huge, and they won't and shouldn't call light. Also, you lose FE and become maybe the shortest stack if you don't steal. I am willing to post this, because I can no longer play those, and the the style has changed and they are a lot tougher now.

I understand that apparently everyone thinks I am wrong, but what I said initially was that we shouldn't be playing mainly for the mincash and that we should push lighter to maintain FE. It seems like those statements are obvious, and people who think I am really off base on that seem clueless to me.

Cannot believe this thread is still going strong, haha!!! Going back to my previous post somewhere in this thread, the reason pushing wider in some of these spots was more profitable years ago was because people played a lot worse, folded to much in general, when facing a shove or raise from a >8xBB stack. So your whole argument of maintaining "fold equity" was more so that people just made more mistakes when facing action from certain stack sizes.

People generally made less mistakes when facing a shove from a <5BB stack or shoving into a stack that was in the dead zone during that time so maintaining a larger stack size would often be preferred during that time.

That's not so much the case anymore as people are calling much closer to correct in a lot of these spots now so you really have to look at each example on it's own. Masque and some other posters here have done the time and calculated some hard run numbers and suggested solid reasons as to why we might shove NASH, slightly looser than NASH, or tighter than NASH in some cases here based on game flow, our opponents, and other factors.

I don't think people are claiming you to be wrong as much as they are irritated with the way you post your arguments. It's like you are trying to showcase that you have some form of expertise and have mastered some skillset that is unbeknownst to the rest of us and then you back it up with nothing other than quoting statements about your results from years ago and stressing the importance of maintaining "fold equity".

I am not talking about 2004. I was pushing wide with like 6xBB in MTTSNGs into regs in 2011 who were calling according to software, and it worked. In that situation, however, they had big ICM problems with calling, which does not correspond to an MTT situation where you are pushing into deeper stacks.

I know Harrington on Holdem says just push 80% of your hands real short, and of course it doesn't work now. I am not saying push anything because they won't call you.

However, you still should open your range in this situation because you will lose FE if you don't. There is still value to having a pushbot stack rather than a 3xBB stack. The primary reason I said to push wide is the tournament situation, not that I expect opponents to call too tight.

I am not saying to ignore Nash values and play like you were playing against tight donks 10 years ago. I am saying to adjust those values for future considerations like maintaining FE. There are other situations where you should tighten your range. Formulas are a guide, not an absolute.

me neither but betgo will respond to every post till eternity. the sad thing is he really thinks he is correct.

how many times will he refer to'fold equity' and 'pushbotting' in his response to this post?