Two Plus Two Poker Forums On defending bb as a short stack (tl;dr)
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Video Directory TwoPlusTwo.com

 Notices

 High Stakes MTT Discussion and analysis of high stakes MTT hands and techniques

02-05-2012, 07:56 AM   #46
Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,541
Re: On defending bb as a short stack (tl;dr)

Quote:
 Originally Posted by betgo That's true, but if you had like 1/8th BB, then you could get 1xBB or more, whatever the total ante is.
right, but never more than n-tuple up at an n person table. At a 9 handed table there is no stack you can >9x up with (in one hand)

02-05-2012, 11:45 PM   #47
grinder

Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 591
Re: On defending bb as a short stack (tl;dr)

Quote:
Using PQL you can actually get the average equity in a more precise way.

I was checking the 63o example and I just ran a PQL query on PPT to get the exact % of flops we are folding:

PQL Query:
select count(equity(hero, flop) < 0.21) as perc_flops_folding
from game='holdem', hero='6x3y', villain='A,KK-22,KQ-K9,QJ-Q9,JT-J9,T9,98,Kx8x-Kx2x,Qx8x-Qx6x,Jx8x-Jx7x,Tx8x-Tx7x,9x7x,8x7x-8x6x,7x6x,6x5x'
Results:
Trials PERC_FLOPS_FOLDING
600000 256526 (42.75%)

Then I got the average equity on the flops we are not folding:

PQL Query:
select avg(equity(hero, flop)) as avg_equity
from game='holdem', hero='6x3y', villain='A,KK-22,KQ-K9,QJ-Q9,JT-J9,T9,98,Kx8x-Kx2x,Qx8x-Qx6x,Jx8x-Jx7x,Tx8x-Tx7x,9x7x,8x7x-8x6x,7x6x,6x5x'
where equity(hero, flop) >= 0.21
Results:
Trials AVG_EQUITY
600000 0.48

So EV(call)=.4275*(-1)+(1-.4275)*(.48*9.5-3) ~ 0.46bb which is even better than your approximation!

 02-06-2012, 04:49 AM #48 grinder     Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: ZOOM Posts: 516 Re: On defending bb as a short stack (tl;dr) Jeez, now I have to open to 3x again like back in the days.
 02-06-2012, 04:55 AM #49 Carpal \'Tunnel   Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: @*********** Posts: 7,960 Re: On defending bb as a short stack (tl;dr) I wish there was some way I could claim this is copyrighted work and get it deleted from the internet
02-06-2012, 08:38 AM   #50
Snoopy of MTTs

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 567
Re: On defending bb as a short stack (tl;dr)

Quote:
 Originally Posted by FatalError I wish there was some way I could claim this is copyrighted work and get it deleted from the internet
fwiw, it has completely messed up my game, i used to just fold... im actually starting to think the whole thread is a cleaver level The potential to misapply this is huge for fish like myself.

 02-06-2012, 11:37 AM #51 veteran   Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 2,104 Re: On defending bb as a short stack (tl;dr) tl;dr fail in this post. I conceed defeat. Fact: With 3BB, in the BB, with 32o, the cEV of calling and folding the worst flops is slightly higher than the cEV of simply shoving (and both are higher than folding). What I tried to 'prove': This slight difference in cEV for the two plays does not make calling and folding the worst flops a better play, because we are left with a practically unplayable stack so often by call/folding. More generally: using only cEV to evaluate plays at these stack depths is flawed. What I did 'prove': After the next hand (us in SB), it seems that the difference in cEV between calling + folding some flops and shoving is even bigger, to that degree that I don't think a 'using only cEV is flawed' approach is valid to further defend shoving. Reasoning: calling + folding some flops leads to 1BB 30% of the time, to a 7.5BB stack 26.5% of the time and to elimination 43.5% of the time. Shoving leads to elimination 70% of the time and to 7.5BB 30% of the time. Focusing on the differences in those two result sets, we have to compare 30% 1BB vs 26.5% 0BB and 3.5% 7.5BB. 1BB calculation I have used the following numbers to calculate the numbers below, feel free to give better estimates because I doubt that these frequencies are very realistic. I don't have pokerstove at hand right now, so even the equities of our random hand vs these opening ranges will probably be terribad. Maybe this changes things significantly, dunno. POS - VPIP first in - VPIP facing 1 opener - Equity of random hand vs VPIP first in range UTG 10 5 25 UTG+1 10 5 25 UTG+2 15 5 30 MP 20 5 33 HJ 25 5 36 CO 30 5 39 BTN 40 5 42 BB - 5 25 With 1BB in SB, we have the following possibilities: * Folded to us, we flip vs BB. Expected stack = 1.5BB. This flip will happen 17.35% of the time. * Someone before us opens and we play a HU pot vs the opener. This will happen 68.2% of the time and leads to us winning the pot 23.15% of the time (of the total time, so 23.15% we double up to 4BB and 68.2-23.15 = 45.05% of the time we are eliminated). * We play a 3way pot 14.45% of the time. I'll guesstimate our equity in this 3way pot to be 15%. We can go to 5BB this way, unless the 3rd party in the pot is BB (which is the case in 3.59% of the time), in which case we can win only 4BB. * I have ignored 3way+ pots, don't think it would make a significant difference. (I used a spreadsheet to calculate all this, I can send it if people are interested, maybe there are mistakes in it but I did check most stuff) Total cEV = 17.35%*1.5+23.15%*4+14.45%*15%*(3.59%*4+(1-3.59%)*5) = 1.29BB. Wow. Results after the hand: * eliminated: 17.35%*50%+45.05%+14.45%*75% = 66% of the time * On BTN with 3BB: 17.35%*50% = 8.7% of the time * On BTN with 4BB: 23.15%+14.45%*25%*3.59% = 23.2% of the time * On BTN with 5BB: 14.45%*25%*(1-3.59%) = 2.1% of the time (this means we survive 1/3 of the time, which seems like a lot?) Comparison with shoving For shoving to be better after our hand in SB, the following has to be true: 30%*cEV[call/fold some] < 26.5%*0+3.5%*cEV[shoving] -> 30%*1.29 < 26.5%*0+3.5%*cEV[shoving] -> cEV[shoving] > 11.06BB I don't know the exact number, but I think it's practically impossible for the cEV of a 7.5BB stack in SB to be that big. Even if we think there are errors in the calculation that arrives at a cEV of 1.29BB, the difference is still big. If we take for example 1.1BB, the cEV of our 7.5BB stack has to be 9.4BB, which still seems unrealistic. I could work out the cEV of the 7.5BB stack in more detail, but I don't think the cEV will get close to the required numbers, so it wouldn't be very useful imo. Conclusion stevepa wins.
 08-03-2012, 10:43 AM #52 adept   Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 926 Re: On defending bb as a short stack (tl;dr) I think you messed with the HU vs. opener/s part. Random hands have at least 35% equity in HU and propably 25ish % in 3-way.
 08-03-2012, 11:18 AM #53 banned   Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Silver Spring Posts: 13,998 Re: On defending bb as a short stack (tl;dr) I remember posting a hand where I flat called a 2x with a five bb stack and people were horrified. Good old 2p2
08-03-2012, 01:13 PM   #54
Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,541
Re: On defending bb as a short stack (tl;dr)

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Paklu I think you messed with the HU vs. opener/s part. Random hands have at least 35% equity in HU and propably 25ish % in 3-way.
think you're confusing "random hand" with (insert terrible hand). 32o has much less equity than a random hand. Maybe I'm confused about what you're trying to say though.

 08-05-2012, 11:36 AM #55 grinder   Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 506 Re: On defending bb as a short stack (tl;dr) Interesting read!
 08-06-2012, 08:39 AM #56 Pooh-Bah     Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 5,839 Re: On defending bb as a short stack (tl;dr) You actually need greater equity to call a shove than cEV would indicate because starting the orbit in the SB next hand is a great advantage for a short stack. For example, folding PF would be better than shoving with 32o and 3bbs. I don't think that's close. The EV(call) result in these situations will be close to accurate (When we lose, it's exactly 0. When we win, we've doubled up and can't take advantage of huge pot odds so our position isn't as important when calculating EV.) EV(fold) however, will always be undervalued, whether you're discussing PF or flop folds. This further proves your point that shoving is often incorrect. We should actually be folding at some point in the hand even more than your numbers indicate (maybe quite a bit more, especially on the flop where EV(fold) would be most undervalued due to our tiny stack that can take full benefit of the next hand's pot odds.)
 08-07-2012, 12:17 AM #57 Pooh-Bah     Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Triple double; no assists Posts: 4,183 Re: On defending bb as a short stack (tl;dr) thanks v interesting post
08-15-2012, 04:52 AM   #58
old hand

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Climbing mount SNE
Posts: 1,292
Re: On defending bb as a short stack (tl;dr)

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Sly Caveat You actually need greater equity to call a shove than cEV would indicate because starting the orbit in the SB next hand is a great advantage for a short stack. For example, folding PF would be better than shoving with 32o and 3bbs. I don't think that's close. The EV(call) result in these situations will be close to accurate (When we lose, it's exactly 0. When we win, we've doubled up and can't take advantage of huge pot odds so our position isn't as important when calculating EV.) EV(fold) however, will always be undervalued, whether you're discussing PF or flop folds. This further proves your point that shoving is often incorrect. We should actually be folding at some point in the hand even more than your numbers indicate (maybe quite a bit more, especially on the flop where EV(fold) would be most undervalued due to our tiny stack that can take full benefit of the next hand's pot odds.)
No, quite the opposite imo. If you gamble your remaining stack with exactly needed pot odds, say tripling 1/3 of the time and busting 2/3, you'll have to pay that SB only 1/3 of the time instead of 100% of the time if you fold. So we'd be ready to take slightly -eV gambles, just for the "no SB penatly" when we lose. Admitteldy the "SB penalty" we pay is smaller the smaller our stack is, but that doesn't balance (and by far) not having to pay it 2/3 of the time.

 08-16-2012, 01:45 PM #59 journeyman   Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 256 Re: On defending bb as a short stack (tl;dr) Congrats Steve. Really good post.

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is OffTrackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are Off Forum Rules

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:08 AM.

 Contact Us - Two Plus Two Publishing LLC - Privacy Statement - Top