You might be right that 40bb with 400 people left in the million isn't enough to be thinking ICM/waiting for better spots. Obviously i should be more inclined to take close spots with 400 left rather than 18, and obviously i should be more inclined to take close spots with 4000 left rather than 400. I'm searching for where we draw that line.

Obviously it's nice to get a big stack, but later in a tournament winning chips isn't as *good* as losing them is *bad* (unlike early in a tournament, where it's the reverse).

I'm trying to find the switching point-- at what point in a tourney do winning and losing chips have equal value?

Andrew

Am I the only one who would be betting smaller on flop/turn?

Would barrell fwiw

BET TURN SHOVE SOME RIVERS THEY FOLD ALOT TO ALLIN IN THIS BIG MTTS! NP

when you're thinking about passing/taking small +cEV spots, you should be thinking about stack functionality imo

what are the likely stack size outcomes if you play a hand one way vs another? when you take the high variance route and lose, you limit your available set of options. sometimes the downside is worth the upside - maybe you'll get to a stack size that will let you take advantage of good 3b/f spots or open steal a lot more; sometimes it's not.

an example might be where you have 35 bbs and you are deciding to flip for 15 bbs or not in a marginal spot. if the table is good for open stealing, but not good for 3betting light, you may choose to not flip because over half the time you're going to be a 20 bb stack, and you don't feel a 50 bb stack offers enough advantages relative to a 35 bb stack.

your QQ example is same concept if we're assuming the edge is small. you'd pass unless having a megastack will enable you to steal a bunch more (how much more you need to be able to steal is a judgement call)

You could always bet 1/4 pot

id hope i dont flat instead of 3b/get if i think 3b/get in is more profitable

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't it possible for this to occur:

Taking line (1) in a hand results in EV (A) and expected tournament position (X).

Taking line (2) in a hand results in EV (B) and expected tournament position (Y).

If the relationship between EV and expected position was linear, then always you'd take whichever line had a higher EV. In cash games, where expected tournament position doesn't exist, you'd always just go EV>

But, as far as I know, EV and expected position in tournaments isn't linear (i.e. flipping late in tournaments is inherently worse than flipping early in tournaments).

Is it possible for A>B but for X<Y? If so, how do we know?

Maybe I'm making this wayyyy too complicated but i think its really interesting.

Andrew

I like where this discussion is going, very interesting point that I have thought about before but was not able to word the way you just did

i think it's possible what you're trying to articulate is a reasonable strategy, but to answer your question of how do we know...we simply don't. that's why if i think you have a spot where an edge is clear you go for it. i think what dan alluded to and what you're alluding to would be more relevant in spots where you are unsure you have an edge and therefore don't want to get into a high variance spot where you might actually be losing chips by piling your precious stack and tourney life in

i'm gonna have to disagree with you here chewy. i think it's true that it's difficult to quantify precisely and thus difficult to articulate a complicated mixed strategy based on expected tournament position rather than EV, but I think there are plenty of very obvious examples that illustrate baluga's general point.

for example, imagine a loose hijack opener who opens with a 40BB stack deep in the WSOPME, and he covers by a fair bit. we have 99 in the SB. In many tournaments, depending on dynamics, I'm happy to 3b/get it in, and it's still profitable to do so here. But deep in the WSOPME I may elect to just call since the structure is so good, so many fish still left, and I don't think 3bet/getting it in is so insanely +EV that it's worth it (we're usually flipping at best)

or maybe again another fishy tournament mid stages... i have a Q high flush and I flat call someone's turn bet in a HU pot. River pairs the board and the guy leads half pot into me, and I have about 3/5 pot left behind. It may be +EV to shove here rather than flat call, but often in these spots I will just call since I don't think they're hugely +EV and the value of having chips left when you're beat is so much greater than the value of the additional chips you get when he calls with worse.

i dunno, there are so many examples, i'm surprised you are making the point that you are...

This is becoming similar to the munk v ttfold thread. Some great players take every edge in mtts, other great players pass on small +Cev spots to "wait for a better spot". Either side could be right, its just a matter of what suits your game and your particular skill-set the best. It is also hard to quantify because every hand is so spot dependent but I would say that spots like the one's being discussed are what we call "playing poker".

I think a good example of passing on what is clearly the most +Cev play for a better overall play is Mastap's just call with the nut flush on a non paired non-4stflush board on day 1 of the Main this year. If he shoves and posted it there would have been called standard and ul. Instead he doesnt and wins 8million.

when situations that could be described as not hugely +ev occur to me, i often think that it may be -ev if some of my assumptions aren't as accurate as i'd like them to be and that's the downside to it. 99 in wsop me vs a hj opener may be -ev if the guy is a live player who's just going to be nitty about it and play fit or fold, where as if he's a hyper aggro online guy who is going to ship smaller pairs or 4b/fold a lot then it's a clear 3bet. if he's a live guy who is playing very in line by flat calling you know you are profiting but if a couple of your assumptions about his continuing(4betting) range vs your 3bet are wrong then you could end up making a huge error.

but you would agree that, vs the same opponent/range, 3-betting/getting it in is better on Day 2 of the ME than Day 5, right?

well assuming the chip EV of both plays is identical the $EV will be higher on day 2 and lower on day 5, so yeah. but hard to say if it's so much so that it would sway me from taking an alternate line if i was certain it was more +ev to get in than flat.

Disagree in general with Chewys posts ITT. I think tourney life is underrated and I happily pass on small +ev plays in donkaments.

underrated throughout the entire tourney? I tend to think that its a little over-rated early in tourneys. Am I wrong?

mentioned this thread and the genereal disagreement with my line of thought to bond tonight and after discussing it with him am now convinced that although what i'm saying i still believe to be true, i am also missing part of the point being brought up against me.

i think i got caught up in the wording from the start when it was presented as 'less ev' and viewed it as a way of just guaranteeing a higher chance of staying in the tournament without taking a realistic edge. i now think that if your edge thereafter is so substantial that missing out on those opportunities isn't worth gaining a slight edge in EV a fold can be justified. i believe this to be the reason behind avoiding marginally profitable decisions but would argue that they come up pretty infrequently as they are mostly all in situations that want to be avoided and that they are often a result of not being dead sold on all your assumptions such that if one or a few are wrong you might make a -ev decision for your tourney life.

it seems probable that there is a strong correlation between avoiding marginal all in spots and the $EV associated with such spots as i find a hard way to draw a line in the sand to differentiate close calls and folds when cEV is being slightly ignored.

Usually early in a tourney stacks are deep which is when a good player's edge is greatest. So even though it's when cEV and $EV are closest, it's when better spots will be most abundant.

Depends a lot on your stack relative to the field, specific structure etc. One advantage of gambling is when you win you have a large stack which gives you more profitable opens, 3bets etc.

Wait, I thought we already decided that if cEV and $EV are close, then you should *take* all +EV spots and not wait for better spots?

Andrew

yeah todd can you elaborate on which spots youd be passing on early? it doesn't make much sense to me cause i cant put my finger on any situation where an edge would be apparent but yet not 'worth' it. i also remember reading a thread on here where some math guys(maybe you) determined that in the extreme cliche hypothetical of hand 1 wsop me sb open shoves shows you aks and you have qq you can't justify folding because of the immediate ev gained by taking the flip. obviously math isn't all there is to poker but the point is it's close even in an all in situation and most situations where ev would be apparent but still debatable to get involved in would be all in situations, so i struggle to find other situations where this applies.

Was it this thread?

i don't think so cause i remember djk posting in the one im referencing. regardless that thread has some stuff in it to back me up although it also has lots of random garbage. would be interested to see todd elaborate on some of his thoughts relating to this stuff given the last post in the thread is his and id imagine he has more applicable knowledge(math) on a topic like this than most.

blocks.jpg

DJK makes a glorious shove?