Hornet's Strategy Questions. Part 7

[Marlin]

Re: Hornet's Strategy Questions. Part 7 This example has got me thinking about things that I would never have considered before. I’m certainly no expert, but I would almost certainly have checked in that situation. Your position at the table has meant that you have no choice but to pay at least the BB amount, regardless of whether you actually get to see the flop or not. Your opponents have put no extra charge on you doing that, which in your position both at the table and in stack size is a real positive. Why not take advantage of it, at no extra charge? Once you have the extra information that the flop will give you, then you can react from there. Even if you end up checking and folding to a bet post flop, it has cost you no extra to do that and you are still in there with a chance, however slim.

[Tweetypie05]

Re: Hornet's Strategy Questions. Part 7 Knowing that you were in the BB for this hand makes a BIG difference. I would probably have checked with the AQ looking to either lead out on the flop if the texture looked good or check-raise if an A came. I agree with Marlin that there is extra information to be got on the flop and at this point why risk all your chip when you can have a look at the flop for free? Great thread Hornet and some good advice... Sadly this didn't help me when I when out 13th last night (top ten paid the same) in the 32red Redback giveaway. Saying that I probably lasted longer than normal... :sad

[slapdash]

Re: Hornet's Strategy Questions. Part 7

I would probably have checked with the AQ looking to either lead out on the flop if the texture looked good or check-raise if an A came. I agree with Marlin that there is extra information to be got on the flop and at this point why risk all your chip when you can have a look at the flop for free?

But you're also giving the other player a look at the flop for free. And it's quite likely to be more valuable for him than for you: if he's playing a hand like the one he actually had (66) then the flop is likely either to hit him hard (if there's a 6) or not at all, so it's a huge help in evaluating his chance of winning. But with a hand like AQ there's quite likely to be a flop that's OK but not great for the hand, so on average seeing the flop doesn't help you as much as it does him.

[glceud]

Re: Hornet's Strategy Questions. Part 7

I think it was a good call with 66 at this stage' date=' I would have done it :ok[/quote'] I dont see how you can possibly make that call. The raisers got one of two hands. A mid to high pkt pair or two high cards, about even money each of two. So you want to take even money that your going to get in an even money race- thats 3/1 about your chips? I'd have shoved here too especially with the limpers chips involved and his chipsize and the structure of the tourney. Would have been better if he had slightly less chips mind you. As our Satellite expert Hens veiws would be most appreciated here I think.

[BAM]

Re: Hornet's Strategy Questions. Part 7

I dont see how you can possibly make that call.

I see we have a lot of work to do to get you ready in time :lol

[Tweetypie05]

Re: Hornet's Strategy Questions. Part 7

But you're also giving the other player a look at the flop for free. And it's quite likely to be more valuable for him than for you: if he's playing a hand like the one he actually had (66) then the flop is likely either to hit him hard (if there's a 6) or not at all' date=' so it's a huge help in evaluating his chance of winning. But with a hand like AQ there's quite likely to be a flop that's OK but not great for the hand, so on average seeing the flop doesn't help you as much as it does him.[/quote'] Totally agree Slap but you being the small stack he is more likely to call pre-flop than post-flop if you go all-in UNLESS he hits trips, the flop gives him more draws or he has a very big hand. To be honest the decision would very much depend on my view of him and how he percieves me as in my mind both are very valid options (ALLIN or check).

[slapdash]

Re: Hornet's Strategy Questions. Part 7

I don't know. :unsure It obviously depends on what range you put the short stack on. But, probably even more importantly, it depends on the chip counts, which I don't know. Even if I knew, I wouldn't be able to give an accurate answer, but the general point is: If I have a big enough chip stack that I have a reasonable chance of getting to the last 23 without any heroics, then losing a quarter of my stack (especially if this would take me out of the "comfort zone") will hurt my chances of qualifying a lot more than gaining an extra quarter of my stack will increase my chances (it would just make me a bit more comfortable). So when I play significantly-sized pots, I need much better pot odds than the chip EV suggests. On the other hand, if I'm short-stacked and need to accumulate chips sometime soon to have a chance of qualifying, then doubling my stack will fairly close to double my chance of qualifying. So the pot odds I need are not so much different from the pot odds that the chip EV suggests.

On reflection, I think I'm probably wrong. Here's a much simpler, but analogous, situation. Satellite with three qualifiers. Six players left: two big stacks with 60k, two medium stacks with 30k, two small stacks with 10k. According to ICM (Independent Chip Model ... not perfect, but I don't know anything better), the big stacks have a 78% chance of qualifying, the medium stacks 52%, and the small stacks 20%. Now suppose a small stack gets all-in against a medium stack. I'll ignore the blinds for simplicity, so that the pot odds are exactly evens for both of them. If the medium stack wins, his chance of qualifying (according to ICM) goes up to 66%, and the small stack's (obviously) goes down to 0%. If the medium stack loses, his chance goes down to 37%, and the small stack's goes up to 37%. So the medium stack is risking 15% of his qualifying chance to win an extra 14% chance, which means he needs a 52% chance of winning for it to be a good bet. Th short stack is risking a 20% chance of qualifying to win an extra 17%, which means he needs a 54% chance for it to be a good bet. The ICM calculator I used didn't give decimal places, so these won't be exact, and there are lots of things ICM doesn't take account of (different standards of players, position, when the blinds are going up, ...), but for neither player are the odds he needs hugely different from the raw pot odds. I've thought for a long time that a lot of people overestimate how much raw pot odds need to be adjusted for a tournament payout structure, especially by over-valuing their "tournament life". Maybe I'm not immune from this, either.