Tourney Should pot odds be very different in tournaments? (1 Viewer)

[upNdown]

I just saw this video and maybe it’s worth watching the first 3 minutes before we go on.

Alec Torelli is a huge douche. But he explains the issue pretty well. It’s an issue that I’ve pieced together through my own experience, but I don’t see it discussed much. Here it is:
If ten guys buy in for $100, and you win all the chips in a cash game, you get $1,000. But if you win all the chips in a tournament, you’re getting a lot less - maybe $400.
So shouldn’t this affect how we look at pot odds in a tournament? In a cash game, if you’re betting $100 to win $100 and you have a 51% chance of winning, you should do it every time. But in a tournament, is it the rightb play to put in all your chips (that you paid $100 for) in hopes of winning twice as many chips, that aren’t worth $200?

 

[BGinGA]

In backgammon, tournament points won (or lost) differ dramatically from cash points, and make the resulting tournament math decisions much different (and more complex).

I suspect there is a similar (but less pronounced) effect in poker tournament play. One variable that is nearly impossible to calculate accurately is converting stack size (as a percentage of chips in play) to a corresponding equity in terms of dollars, assuming that all payout spots and amounts are known.

Interested to see how this discussion develops.

 

[fieldsy]

I think you see it discussed much more with reference to either play right on the money bubble or in super late tournament strategy (i.e., final table) where there are clearer pay jumps in sight. But that's partly because we all understand what a money bubble means, and the independent chip model (ICM) can actually calculate approximate equity changes in different spots at the FT. ICM is imperfect, and I usually see commentators throw it around as shorthand for "he doesn't want to bust with a pay jump in sight." But the principles behind ICM still exist earlier in tournaments, and I agree that they are under-emphasized when people talk about hand strategy.

Think of an extreme example, similar to a comparison Torelli makes in the video. If you have a multiway spot where you can call all-in with a big draw for all your chips and get 4:1 on the call, and the odds are 3:1 to hit your draw, in a cash game you should make that call every time. It's a high-variance spot, obviously, but over time you're printing money with the call. If you lose, you buy back in and you make the same call the next time. In a tournament though, if you make that call and lose, you are out of the tournament and you have lost not only the chips you have, but the chance to earn more chips and money. And even if you win the hand, the point you and Torelli are making is that you haven't quintupled your chance of winning the tournament versus if you had folded.

It's hard to really calculate exactly how to factor this into each tournament decision. It does kind of show the advantage to rebuying in tournaments, since if you can go and fire another bullet you are more free to make mathematically optimal plays to accumulate chips in the early levels. It also seems to counsel away from taking high-variance lines and getting youself into flips when they can be avoided, although in tournament play it's sort of inevitable.

 

[MrCatPants]

I've been wondering this same thing for a while. I'm pretty successful at playing cash games, but in tourneys I'm amazing at becoming the chip leader in the middle stages and then donking it off just before the bubble. I'm thinking that maybe somehow the risk of busting out/getting a leg chopped out is even bigger than just "losing" in a pot odds sense. In the situation you're saying @upNdown the 49% loss is definitely a lot stronger than the 51% win. 49% chance your tourney is over. 51% chance you double up and are in a slightly stronger position with still nothing guaranteed.

 

[BGinGA]

@fieldsy makes two very valid important (and often overlooked) points above:

#1 - the value of re-buys
#2 - the avoidance of flips

Re-buys offer several advantages to players -- they are a measure of insurance against bad beats and cooler hands, and they allow more aggressive play in the early stages of a tournament (including getting involved in high-variance plays with potentially large payoffs). A re-buy should almost always be purchased if available, as it not only continues your tournament life, but also serves to protect your initial buy-in investment.

Avoiding high-variance plays and coin flips is generally a good idea in the early stages of a tournament (unless there are re-buys). Most players embrace both events (cash game thinking, imo), feeling that one must win coin flips to do well in tournaments and that it's just an unavoidable facet of tournament play. Not true, imo -- a more successful approach is to only put chips in the pot with a significant advantage, and only engage in flips and high varaiance situations when the results will be meaningful (such as ending it, or a massive pay jump), which occurs very rarely early in a tournament.

 

[JustinInMN]

I think there are situations where you surely could fold aces, but they all have to do with money jumps in multi way pots.

Off the top of my head if there are two players all in with similar stack sizes and have you covered, and by magic you somehow know they both have pairs. If you call with aces at risk you will go broke about 35% of the time. (Someone can do real math if they like.) If you fold, you will almsot surely move up in money barring a split pot.

So you have to weigh if the value of tripling 65% of the time is worth more in real money than the near 100% chance of making the next pay jump?

Tournament poker is weird. #PlayCash

In backgammon, tournament points won (or lost) differ dramatically from cash points, and make the resulting tournament math decisions much different (and more complex).

If I ever get to Georgia, let's roll the dice .

 

[upNdown]

since if you can go and fire another bullet you are more free to make mathematically optimal plays to accumulate chips in the early levels. I

But that’s the crux right there, isn’t it?
We all understand what “mathematically optimal” means for a cash game. I don’t know what it means for a tournament, but I’m pretty sure it’s not the same, and I suspect it’s continually changing.
As far as what @MrCatPants said about the 49%, yes! People will say it’s exploitable, but I believe protecting your stack is more important than accumulating chips. Which puts you in a difficult position, because you have to accumulate chips early and often to succeed in a tournament. But like Alec said, the chips in your stack are more valuable than the chips in the pot. And I think that needs to be calculated into optimal tournament math.
I
t’s also very counterintuitive. I love this Doyle quote - "In order to be a successful gambler you have to have a complete disregard for money." - very true for cash games, but maybe not so much, for tournaments.

 

[ChaosRock]

I'm not sure I buy the argument here. Yes, there's definitely changes when you're in the bubble or when you're ITM with pay jumps. That should affect calculations by including some of the ICM value you might be putting at risk, but that's real value. Also when playing satellites in which a certain number of players get a buy-in for a bigger tournanamne, and there's a short stack, yeah, there's absolutely situations in which AA are folded.

Other than that, I tend to think the EVs run pretty close to a cash game to the point of considering the same. Think about it this way: one player is making all the positive EV plays and the other is making only super positive EV plays. Who would accumulate more chips at the end?

Also, when we think about this issue, I don't think we can think only about one tournament. We gotta think in terms of an infinite amount of tournaments. Yes, in some cases the player will bust out and loose the chance of winning the tourney. But on the long run, that +EV will materialize in real terms.

The other way of thinking about it is this: let's say one lowers the threshold of EV for a particular play because of the argument used ITT. Wouldn't that create more incentive for a play against it, like bluffs or thin raises?

I haven't given it much and deep thought, and could definitely change my opinion, but the above seems reasonable to me at first glance.

 

[glom]

Isn’t this thing what ICM is about? I don’t play tournaments, but that’s my take.

 

[ChaosRock]

Yet another way of thinking about it is this: The total EV of a certain heads-up hand should always equal 1. One cannot lower the EV of one hand without raising the EV of the other. It is impossible to adjust only one side of the equation. The total EV cannot be different than 1. Yes, sometimes people would give up EV because of a pay jump or a bubble but other players are picking that EV up by shoving wider or raising thinner. The sum has to be 1.

 

[Frogzilla]

In a tournament though, if you make that call and lose, you are out of the tournament and you have lost not only the chips you have, but the chance to earn more chips and money.

@fieldsy
Avoiding high-variance plays and coin flips is generally a good idea in the early stages of a tournament (unless there are re-buys).

Just so we’re clear...rebuys and ICM have nothing to do with each other. Rebuys will loosen players up psychologically (if I lose, I have nothing to do) but the optimal theory strategy in both is identical.

ICM effects are created because most tourney winner take all. If the tourney is winner take all, or at the heads up stage (when it’s analagous to playing winner take all for the difference in 1st and 2nd place money), there is no ICM.

 

[fieldsy]

But that’s the crux right there, isn’t it?
We all understand what “mathematically optimal” means for a cash game. I don’t know what it means for a tournament, but I’m pretty sure it’s not the same, and I suspect it’s continually changing.

Fair enough. I guess what I mean is that you have the flexibility to take higher-variance lines in the early levels to accumulate chips if you are willing to rebuy. I think the early deep stacked levels of a rebuy tournament are more like a cash game in that respect. If you play early levels of a tournament as if each chip you accumulate is only worth 20% of its value, you'll get crushed. Because one thing that's missing in the above discussion is the value of having a big stack. Poker is a zero-sum game, so if there are spots where it's not optimal to get involved in high-variance spots to protect your stack, there is also a correlative benefit to a truly big stack who can exploit that fact. A giant stack at a tournament doesn't play like a cash game, but in a beneficial sense. If you're a giant stack at a tournament, once the average stack starts getting down to 20-30 BBs you can be raising and getting folds that would never happen in a cash game. So you accumulate, and set yourself up to go deep.

The thing about tournament poker is that so little of the field makes the money (10-15% in large field tourneys), a min-cash is such a low ROI (150%-200% of buyin), and a significant part of the field making the money earns a min-cash or just over that. With that math, the only way to be profitable over the long run at tournaments is with deep runs. And building a really big stack makes a huge difference in your ability to make a run. If you have a decent or below-average stack near the money bubble of a big tournament, the most likely way you are going to get your stack into tournament-contending territory is by winning all-ins. But if you already have a giant stack, you can be chipping up even without putting your stack on the line.

I'm a recreational player, so I don't speak with any authority here. But I think many recreational players (including myself) make the mistake of playing to make the money. Professionals play to try to win the tournament.

 

[upNdown]

Yet another way of thinking about it is this: The total EV of a certain heads-up hand should always equal 1. One cannot lower the EV of one hand without raising the EV of the other. It is impossible to adjust only one side of the equation. The total EV cannot be different than 1. Yes, sometimes people would give up EV because of a pay jump or a bubble but other players are picking that EV up by shoving wider or raising thinner. The summer has to be 1.

Simple sensible logic. I guess I’m looking at it from another angle - is the -ev of losing chips from your stack more significant than the +ev of adding the same amount to your stack?

 

[MrCatPants]

I think so, @upNdown. And I hear the others who talk about this being exploitable. But if I'm jumping on every play that has slight +EV but high risk in a tourney, I'm putting my full tourney at risk on slightly better than toss-up bets too often. If I think I have 60% equity in a hand, and I make that move three times, I'm losing it once. In a cash game I can always reload if that time I lose is the first time. In a tourney, I'm done if it's the first time (assuming it's a substantial pot).

Now, to put this in context, this is at least my thinking since I've been drawing ice cold late for the last two weeks or so - I'm thinking I must have been doing something wrong just going with plays that appear +EV. So it may be slanted by an "I'm cursed" feeling.

 

[ChaosRock]

Simple sensible logic. I guess I’m looking at it from another angle - is the -ev of losing chips from your stack more significant than the +ev of adding the same amount to your stack?

Yep, I get it. But here's my point: based on ICM, which gives different values to chips as opposed to face value, based on number of players, different stacks, each player in the hand stacks, payout structure, etc, etc. That value changes for each player, meaning the chips are worth differently for every player. So if you take Player A vs Player B and compared it to Player A vs Player C, Player B and Player C would have to have the same EV since the sum of EVs has to be 1. But based on the ICM, they are not. Which implies that Player A EV changes based on who he is playing against since the EV should add up to 1. The point: if you lower Player A EV you have to increase Player B and Player C's EV.

 

[Highli99]

@fieldsy makes two very valid important (and often overlooked) points above:

#1 - the value of re-buys
#2 - the avoidance of flips

Re-buys offer several advantages to players -- they are a measure of insurance against bad beats and cooler hands, and they allow more aggressive play in the early stages of a tournament (including getting involved in high-variance plays with potentially large payoffs). A re-buy should almost always be purchased if available, as it not only continues your tournament life, but also serves to protect your initial buy-in investment.

Avoiding high-variance plays and coin flips is generally a good idea in the early stages of a tournament (unless there are re-buys). Most players embrace both events (cash game thinking, imo), feeling that one must win coin flips to do well in tournaments and that it's just an unavoidable facet of tournament play. Not true, imo -- a more successful approach is to only put chips in the pot with a significant advantage, and only engage in flips and high varaiance situations when the results will be meaningful (such as ending it, or a massive pay jump), which occurs very rarely early in a tournament.

Well said. I like coin flips when I have a big chip lead and can sustain more losses then my opponent. Eventually their luck will run out.

 

[upNdown]

Well said. I like coin flips when I have a big chip lead and can sustain more losses then my opponent. Eventually their luck will run out.

Me too. But anecdotally, I’m pretty sure that’s worked to my detriment.

 

[JustinInMN]

So I did some reading over lunch and here is a the best piece I found quickly on ICM.

https://www.pokerlistings.com/a-ste...t-chip-model-icm-for-tournament-poker-players

Simple sensible logic. I guess I’m looking at it from another angle - is the -ev of losing chips from your stack more significant than the +ev of adding the same amount to your stack?

I think it is better to frame the question this way. In cash, pot odds are the only factor I determining whether or not a decision is positive EV because the value of cash chips are constant.

In tournaments pot odds are just one observation about ev because the prize structure very much changes the value of tournament chips.

 

[JustinInMN]

Here a bonus link on how to calculate ICM by hand.

http://www.pokerology.com/lessons/icm/

 

[BGinGA]

I'm not sure I buy the argument here.

Think about it this way: one player is making all the positive EV plays and the other is making only super positive EV plays. Who would accumulate more chips at the end?

Not sure who would have the most chips on average (probably the former), but there's the counter argument that he would be a lot less likely to even be alive at the end than the latter, who took far fewer tournament-ending risks. If he played four times as many +EV positions but busted out on one of them, it makes no difference how many chips he accumulated, because he now has none.

 

[BGinGA]

Just so we’re clear...rebuys and ICM have nothing to do with each other. Rebuys will loosen players up psychologically but the optimal theory strategy in both is identical.

Sorry, but I'll argue until the cows come home that this is not true. Optimum theory strategy can and does change across various tournaments (sometimes dramatically), pending a number of variables -- including whether or not there are re-buys.

 

[Gobbs]

Not sure who would have the most chips on average (probably the former), but there's the counter argument that he would be a lot less likely to even be alive at the end than the latter, who took far fewer tournament-ending risks. If he played four times as many +EV positions but busted out on one of them, it makes no difference how many chips he accumulated, because he now has none.

I most certainly agree with everything here. That's why you'll never hear me say, "Well, I got my money all-in when I was ahead. That's all I can do." That saying drives me crazy and I like to look at it this way....

If I get myself all-in as a coin flip twice in a tournament, statistically, I lose 3/4 of the time just on these two hands alone.
If I get myself all-in as a 3/2 favorite twice in a tournament, statistically, I lose almost 2/3 of the time just on these two hands alone.
If I get myself all-in as a 2/1 favorite twice in a tournament, statistically, I still lose over 1/2 of the time just on these two hands alone.
If I get myself all-in as a 7/3 favorite twice in a tournament, statistically, I STILL lose over 1/2 of the time just on these two hands alone.

To get all-in twice in a tournament and statistically be favored to remain in the tournament, you have to be at least an 71/29 favorite both times.

I don't mean this to say you shouldn't get all-in unless you are a monster favorite, that would be ridiculous and unavoidable (and plain stupid in some situations)...but it is relevant when you consider managing pot sizes and bet sizes. It's hard to get all-in twice as a 71/29 favorite twice. That's about the equivalent of getting all in with vs. twice pre-flop. That is not likely to happen with somebody who has more chips than you unless you are already somewhat short-stacked.

 

[BGinGA]

In a cash game, if you’re betting $100 to win $100 and you have a 51% chance of winning, you should do it every time. But in a tournament, is it the right play to put in all your chips (that you paid $100 for) in hopes of winning twice as many chips, that aren’t worth $200?

In a 10-player winner-take-all tournament, your initial buy-in of $100 (say for T100, for simplicity sakes) is actually worth $100 -- you have a one-in-ten chance of cashing, which means 1/10 of $1000 (or $100). This changes if the top two spots are paid (say 80/20), because you can't win both top prizes -- you have a 1/10 chance of earning $200 ($20) and a 1/10 chance of earning $800 ($80), but not both combined. Your maximum return-on-investment chances are only 8:1 at best.

So if you knock out that player and end up with a T200 stack (and nine remaining players), your maximum equity is now 7:2 (22.2%) to get that $800, compared to a 9:1 chance beforehand (10.0%). So your double-up makes those T200 chips actually ~more~ valuable in terms of cash-winning equity (because you aren't playing in a vacuum, and everybody else still has T100).

To figure what the break-even point is, you need to calculate your chances of winning the hand into it: at 51% in the hand, your net winning chances are 11.3%. - still more than what you started with (so it is a positive EV play), but 49% of the time you lose any chance of winning anything at all.

What's up for debate is whether or not that small gain in equity is worth being eliminated 49% of the time...... or if there is a threshold where the answer is a resounding Yes or No.


edited to correct stupid math errors

 

[ChaosRock]

Not sure who would have the most chips on average (probably the former), but there's the counter argument that he would be a lot less likely to even be alive at the end than the latter, who took far fewer tournament-ending risks. If he played four times as many +EV positions but busted out on one of them, it makes no difference how many chips he accumulated, because he now has none.

By definition the former would have more chips since he is not only taking all the same super +EV spots as the tighter player but also many of the marginal +EV spots (not all of course). That's not debatable. Now, if you're arguing the later has a lower variance, then I agree with you. Also by definition since his edge is always larger than the former on average (only average, not total EV). But as I said, you cannot look at just one tournament, you gotta look at an infinite amount of tourneys. And looking that way, on average, those taking all the positive EV spots (or most of them) would be ahead of the tighter player.

And just to complete the thought here: If you're playing one tournament with a good percentage of your bankroll, maybe you wanna limit variance and min cash (someone playing the Main Event once in their life for example). But if you're playing an infinite amount of tournaments (matter of speaking), you do not want to minimize variance as you'd be giving away too much EV.

 

[Frogzilla]

Sorry, but I'll argue until the cows come home that this is not true. Optimum theory strategy can and does change across various tournaments (sometimes dramatically), pending a number of variables -- including whether or not there are re-buys.

I won’t argue with you that people in general play differently whether or not they can rebuy.

I will argue that the ICM, a math conversion of chips to expected payout, doesn’t depend on whether a guy buying into level 3 just got out of a movie (freeze out with late reg) or just got coolered at the same table (rebuys). Nor does it affect your chance of winning....be sure to remember it’s a function of entries, not people. As is the payout.

 

[WedgeRock]

I just saw this video and maybe it’s worth watching the first 3 minutes before we go on.

Alec Torelli is a huge douche. But he explains the issue pretty well. It’s an issue that I’ve pieced together through my own experience, but I don’t see it discussed much. Here it is:
If ten guys buy in for $100, and you win all the chips in a cash game, you get $1,000. But if you win all the chips in a tournament, you’re getting a lot less - maybe $400.
So shouldn’t this affect how we look at pot odds in a tournament? In a cash game, if you’re betting $100 to win $100 and you have a 51% chance of winning, you should do it every time. But in a tournament, is it the rightb play to put in all your chips (that you paid $100 for) in hopes of winning twice as many chips, that aren’t worth $200?

To sum it up: ICM.

 

[ChaosRock]

SOptimum theory strategy can and does change across various tournaments (sometimes dramatically), pending a number of variables -- including whether or not there are re-buys.

There is definitely circumstance under which one wants to pass on some marginal spots. Bubble, chips leader vs second chips leader, short stack about to bust out and many others. Those are circumstance in which one might pass up on some EV to gain something else. But the general rule should be EV is king.

Now, can you please tell me why you think re-buys change the way people "should play"? I know some people might play differently, but I am interested in your reason why you think people "should" play differently...

 

[Poker Zombie]

This discussion makes me laugh at those who say "Holdem has been solved".

 

[ChaosRock]

This discussion makes me laugh at those who say "Holdem has been solved".

Who said that?!?!?

 

[Poker Zombie]

Michael Bowling, Neil Burch, Michael Johanson, and Oskari Tammelin (Science magazine, 1/9/15)
...and certain former posters here that have been since banned.