Tournament poker is interesting stuff. Many ways to approach it and many ways to be profitable. Some are just more profitable than others. MTT’s are high-variance events and the shorter the format, the higher the variance. Because payout structures are so top-loaded, I think the most successful players accept the risks of busting out in order to reach those top payout tiers. Some “fold to the gold” and are profitable but not as profitable as those who both bust out and win more.
I’ll use myself as an example - I had very high cashing rates for online MTTs but my ROI wasn’t anywhere near where the top players were achieving. Even taking out the best finish to smooth results out, I was lagging behind people I would regularly see bust early while I was grinding to the cash. The problem was that I wasn’t going deep enough often enough to make the big scores while they were. When I cashed, lots of them fell into the “so what” category. When they won, they made 100x their buy-in. Just has to learn to accept busting out more and my results improved. In tournament poker, slow and steady doesn’t seem to win the race as often as you think it should.
I’m still trying to figure out how both decisions are EV+. It has me a bit stumped. However, if that is the most extreme example, when ICM means the least, I think it makes the point that tournament play and cash play are very different beasts. Snap-calls in cash aren’t nearly as clear-cut decisions in tournaments. Thanks for bringing up this topic.
No, because the average skill level is constantly going up in a tournament. Once you get behind the average stack, it keeps getting harder to catch up, and strategies that work early on will stop working later.
I think I once mentioned that I divide a tournament into 7 distinct phases, and play a different baseline strategy for each. If I have good info on a player’s tendencies and frequencies, I modify the baseline strategies to exploit any weakness I see. Of course, playing any exploitative strategy increases variance, but I accept the increased risk.
The only reason that I would call in that situation is because I couldn’t raise. It’s only the first hand, but I would be thinking about it for the rest of the tournament. (which if he flops a set might be pretty short) Remember, the “odds” are that you will lose 1 in 5. The odds reset to 5-1 with every AA you draw. (but you know all this)
I actually had this situation arise in a free roll about a month ago. Two good players had both called an early all-in for more chips than i had. After much cursing, I folded the AA on the button. It was a good thing as both the original all in and one of the callers hit sets and I would’ve lost. The situation. the players, and the price ALWAYS influence the decision.
In my experience in Replay, slow and steady play takes you around the bubble, neither above nor below, unless you get very good cards or slippery cards.
Added:
Bubble may be a tall claim, 30% is probably more realistic.
If I spent 20K(Chips or cash) I want to play awhile. You can throw all the calculators in the
disposal,just think about your own experience. How many times have you had your pocket aces beaten by trip Dueces,a low straight,a flush,a boat (dueces full of sevens) or probably
the worst of all worlds. He stays with a 6,5 off suit and flops 5,6,7. Do whatever you want ,but,As for me and my house ,we is gonna run like Hell.
You could look at this situation as if you’re in a tourney that allows add-ons.
You paid 20k to get 3k in tournament chips. If you call there 5 times, you will lose your 20k buy-in once and win 3k tournament chips 4 times. In effect, you are buying 12k tournament chips for an additional 20k in “regular” chips. I know, this is an odd way of looking at it, but I said this was about odd perspectives at the beginning.
And yes, I would do that if it was offered.
Of course you could also say you are spending 12k in tournament chips to lose 20k in regular chips, which doesn’t sound like such a great deal.
You have lost your 20k once u buy into the tourney, the only way to get it back or more is to place in the money. So u go with the odds and call with ur AA then play out the hands from there, after u double up. If u cant place from there than u need to learn the game more or u had a very bad beat or beats. Its pretty plain and simple, why over complicate every little thing,which all are mostly a hypothesis anyway.
It actually is more complicated than one might think, at least in a tournament setting. The specific example given is close to the “best case” scenario, but there are many other examples one could give.
One could also ask, “Is it ever correct to go allin on the first hand of a tournament?”
And even that might not be the right question. Is a higher risk, higher return investment strategy correct and a no risk, lower reward investment strategy incorrect? If both choices are really +EV, that’s the real question, and it can’t be answered “yes” or “no.”
What’s the relative value of your buyin vs tournament chips in the very early stages of a tournament?
I myself never bet all in pre flop on any hand, especially in a tourney, however i would call an all in with pocket aces if it was heads up and no one else in the hand. the only time i would bet all in with pocket aces is at the end of a tourney with high blinds and short stacked… so as the tourney gets further towards the end of the tourney then the relative value of your chips increases the more each player is knocked out of the tourney and u are closer to placing or have already placed.
There are cases where I would shove before the flop, but they are few and far between and would primarily be, as you mentioned late in a tourney and short stacked… I would very rarely fold AA pre flop either.
If there were 5 tournaments and each had the same entry fee, the same number of entrants and the same payout schedule,
If I call the all in bet in each of the five tourneys, I win the hand in four of them and I am eliminated in the fifth tourney. So, I have increased my chances of cashing in four while losing any chance of cashing in the other.
If I accept the premise that I am certain my opponent has pocket kings I think I prefer to fold. Since I am an optimist and am planning on winning all 5 tournaments, I don’t care to give up 20 percent of my winnings on the first hand. If it were a bounty tournament I would because I could use the double up in the other four to push around some of the short stacks and pick up some cash bounties to offset the 20% loss in the one tourney. So I am considering my loss not just to be the entry fee, but the expected win. But they are not bounty tourneys so there is no gain from knocking any body out except the bankroll gain. Otherwise it makes no difference who knocks that player out. Doubling up on the first hand is nice, but not a tremendous advantage in the overall.
If it were a large tournament, WSOP, etc. I am looking at the first day as survival and trying to maintain the chip average. The tournament really starts on the second day. If it were at Replay Poker then Survival play at least until the first break ( 1 hour ).
If it was at Replay and it was someone I considered to be a bingo player, or at WSOP and a dead money entrant its a no brainer, calling every time.
Now, with all that said, I probably go belly up in all 5 tourneys on the second hand
I ran the numbers for a 9-player SnG for simplicity’s sake and because ICM implications are well understood straight off the bat in these games. I used your numbers from above (3,000 starting chips, blinds at 15/30 with no ante) and the standard 50/30/20 payout structure.
In this situation, everyone’s stack (before posting blinds) is worth 11.11% of the total expected payouts. To calculate the exact value of your chips relative to your buy-in, compare your buy-in to 11.11% of the total prize pool. The same calculation would work in any sized MTT. Instead of the 11.11%, you’d just use total (prize pool / #runners) * 100 and multiply that by your buy-in. You can divide both numbers by #starting-chips to compare what each chip was worth in terms of buy-in vs prize pool equity.
When you as the BB post, your remaining chips are worth 11.01% of the total payouts. If UTG shoves and you know he has KcKs, your expected stack would be 4,945.8 if you called with AcAs. This reflects an 82.64% probability of a win (because I gave you both the same suits). Your expected stack is now worth 16.72% of the total payouts.
In this example, we can see that while your expected stack nearly doubles in size, your expected equity in the total payouts does not double. It only goes up by 51.9%. The 6 players not in the hand all can expect their equities in the payouts to rise to 11.39% and the SB will see his equity rise from 11.06% to 11.33%, if you push.
ADDED: BTW, I can’t come up with a reason for why both the push and fold in the 1st example would be $EV+. I was using percentages because we didn’t have a payout structure to work with. I think I either misread something or misinterpreted something because the fold should be EV-neutral, not positive. My thought is to disregard the absolute result and only consider that the relative results showed a significant gain in $EV for the push.
@SSeville made a nice point. It really depends on the number of tournaments you play.
If I play ten tournaments, where the payouts is for top 10%, I will call anything that gives 1 to 1 odd (50/50 chance). If I am going to play only five tournaments, I have to consider my tournament chips twice its value. So for a zero expectation (opponents all in + 2 x my all in) x p - 2 x my all in = 0), odds comes to be 2 to 1. I will call hands that gives me 2 to 1 odd. If I am going to play only one tournament, I have to consider my chips ten times its value. Odds will come to be 10 to 1.
As you go above, your play chip equity increases. If you are in top half, payout will be 20% of the people instead of 10%. Odds to call reduces proportionally. I will call a hand with 5 to 1 odd in only one tournament situation if I am in the top half.
So, the answer is I wont call a hand that is giving me 4 to 1 odd if I am playing only one tournament. If I am playing 2.5 tournaments I will call. In only one tournament, I will call when I reach top 40%.
Did you take into account the tournament fees when calculating the payouts? In a 20k buyin, 1,500 from each player never makes it to the prize pool.
Also, wouldn’t it be better to look at this in terms of average payout rather than total prize pool? Since you can never win the whole prize pool, how can the total be part of any one person’s equity?
What you see as a 51.9% gain in equity, I would see as less than 6% gain. So I guess I would see if 6% of the average payout is more than the 20k buyin and take it from there.
Of course, that 11% and 6% gain are for a 9 seat tourney, not one with 150. I doubt the percentage gain in equity with 150 players would be anywhere near that.
Edited to add: After thinking about this a little more, I don’t think a straight ICM type analysis id correct here at all. ICM tools were designed to chop the prize pool when making a deal at final tables, where everyone does have an equity stake in the total. That doesn’t apply where 70% or 80% of the players will have no stake at all. Or does it?
How about we get rid of all the detailed statistical aspect of the matter of perspective on this topic given the presented scenario and come to the conclusion that you, me, or almost everyone when staring at AA in your hand going heads up pre flop will never lay their AA down, in live cash games or on here. Also there is no 100% guarantee that the other player has KK in his hand unless u saw his cards. Either way u wont fold AA heads up pre flop, ever. Bottom line, period. And the value of your chips is worth zero, if you have 500 chips or 8,500 chips it doesnt matter because any amount u have are worth zero unless u place in the money. New Topic Please
