Further Hypothetical!

[muzzington]

I'd wake up.

[Larx36]

Even though fold is the correct answer, can anyone actually say if given this situation IRL, they're folding?

If the prize for first is 100 million and the prize for second is 50 million dollars what do you do?

Wet myself at the thought of $50m let alone $100m

[Garth Kay]

Even for 1 million dollars or 250,000 I think some people would be put to a decision in this spot.

[bennymacca]

Even though fold is the correct answer, can anyone actually say if given this situation IRL, they're folding?

this probably means that we all have at least one (small) leak in our game.

aces are obviously the limiting example, but what if you had TT or JJ or AK in this spot?

I hope that makes a bit of sense, and I dont have time to review this. benny the cunt can elaborate further.

garth has pretty much covered it, although an article would be cool.


the key point that ICM gets across is the fact that moving up a place in a tourney is very important when you are close to the bubble or a big pay jump. sometimes you get a higher equity edge by folding than you do by calling, even when you have aces.

wabbit explained it pretty well actually

the following scenarios could happen

1. you call and lose, you win nothing from the tourney
2. you fold and short stack loses - you win money without having to put ANY of your chips at risk, and stack sizes are about even.
3. you fold and short stack wins - little has changed - still 2 big stacks and a small one. you equity goes down slightly.
4. you call and win - you now go into heads up with a big chip lead
BUT
double the amount of chips does not equal double the tourney equity - each chip you add to your stack is worth less than the previous one. another way of putting it is doubling your chip stack is less good than what halving your stack is bad.

have a think about it, and you will see why that works.


i am only just starting to learn about ICM calculations myself, so an article by garth would be great.

[gmatical]

1st place - 41.7%
2nd place - 45.46%
Total - 87.1%

So this means that, at this point in the hand, we have a 41.7% of winning & 45.46% chance of second?

[Garth Kay]

1st place - 41.7%
2nd place - 45.46%
Total - 87.1%

So this means that, at this point in the hand, we have a 41.7% of winning & 45.46% chance of second?

Correct - but it is more that we have equity in these payouts.

[bennymacca]

So this means that, at this point in the hand, we have a 41.7% of winning & 45.46% chance of second?

this is a calculation based on the chip stacks only, so it is calculated before the current hand is dealt.



hmmm, i think there might be a bit more to this. what i am going to do is give both people 5% shoving ranges, and work it out such that first place gets 70% of the prize pool, and second gets 30%.

i reckon the payout structure is important here. i.e if it is a satellite, its an automatic fold, but for a standard payout structure, it might be different.

ill do some calcs and see how we go.

[AJG]

1st place - 41.7%
2nd place - 45.46%
Total - 87.1%
Ummm, no. We had this discussion elsewhere here, maybe it was after this thread i dunno, not been here much and only just notice this one.
You cannot simply addup P(1st) and P(2nd) to get P(1st OR 2nd).
The correct equation is (given only 3 players):
P(1st or 2nd) = P(1st) + P(2nd|SB_1st) + P(2nd|BB_1st)

Now, lets assume a 5% shipping range for the SB
Why so tight? You yourself in describing proper SnG endgame say you should be shoveing ~ 50% of SB opens, so why so tight over a std UTG open? (also see my own analysis below)

OK, here is how I took it...
I, like benny the cunt, also assigned 6k, 1k and 5k stacks from blinds of 50/100
And I assume a 65/35 payout structure.

First a basic data table based on ICM:

Code: Select all

Bubble factors:
 STK  6000 1000 5000   
6000 **** 1.04 1.65   
1000 1.19 **** 1.14   
5000 2.61 1.05 ****   


For those who arent aware of the term, bubble factor is the ratio of equity lost to equity gained from an allin (hence is different vs different stack sizes). For example, consider allin just SB v BB (1.04). This is saying that the 1K chips the SB is risking are 1.04x more valuable than the 1K chips they hope to gain. Conversely the BBs 1K is 1.19x more valuable than the 1K they hope to win. (in terms of equity in the prizepool)

And from the above, by comparing equity after folding v pushing/calling:

Code: Select all

SB  v BB Win % to push = 52.04% after posting 50
BB  v SB Win % to call = 49.70% after posting 100

Ignoring the > 1:1 pot odds of Hero calling to simplify:
UTG v SB Win % to call = 72.29% (ignoring BB in the pot)

So we can say, given the BB is in the pot, that we need >72.29%, lets say 75% (at minimum).

Let BB have an allin calling range of {any Pair, any Ace, any suited Kingpu, All Broadways, SCs 4+, S1Gap 7+, S2Gap 7+, S3Gap 8+, OsC 9+ } - ~40% (slightly tighter than HUNE calling range)

Sub-Scenarios for SB:
1) SB is on a steal, so pushing ATC (as far as we are concerned, ie we cant accurately narrow a range)
2) SB has pushing range narrowed for BB's calling range, ie that has = 49.7% at its widest which gives:
{ 22+,A2s+,K2s+,QTs+,JTs,T9s,98s,87s,A2o+,K9o+,QTo+,JTo } ~32%

Stove results (applying ~10M monte carlo trials):

Code: Select all

1)
   equity    win    tie          pots won    pots tied   
Hand 0:    13.265%     12.97%    00.30%           2986031        69763.83   { random }
Hand 1:    13.950%     13.53%    00.43%           3115016        98784.83   { 22+, A2s+, K2s+, Q7s+, J8s+, T7s+, 97s+, 86s+, 76s, 65s, 54s, A2o+, K7o+, Q9o+, J9o+, T9o }
Hand 2:    72.785%     72.51%    00.34%          16690713        77211.83   { AA }


2)
   equity    win    tie          pots won    pots tied   
Hand 0:    13.109%     12.65%    00.46%           2749978       100966.67   { 22+, A2s+, K2s+, QTs+, JTs, T9s, 98s, 87s, A2o+, K9o+, QTo+, JTo }
Hand 1:    13.814%     13.43%    00.40%           2917984        86320.17   { 22+, A2s+, K2s+, Q7s+, J8s+, T7s+, 97s+, 86s+, 76s, 65s, 54s, A2o+, K7o+, Q9o+, J9o+, T9o }
Hand 2:    73.077%     72.66%    00.46%          15792590       100017.17   { AA }


In either case the Aces are a fold.
Interestingly, the SB actually has more equity by pushing any two!

Likewise I ran it for the BB to call with any 2, and in also turns out to make extremely little difference!

Code: Select all

   equity    win    tie          pots won    pots tied   
Hand 0:    13.266%     12.91%    00.36%           1485360        41857.83   { random }
Hand 1:    13.278%     12.92%    00.36%           1486755        41868.83   { random }
Hand 2:    73.457%     73.26%    00.23%           8430296        26596.67   { AA }


==> EVEN IF YOU KNOW YOUR OPPONENTS ARE PUSHING/CALLING WITH ANY TWO CARDS, YOU STILL SHOULD TO FOLD YOUR ACES! - IMAGINE THEY FLIP THEM BEFORE YOU ACT... ITS STILL A FOLD

Now THATS a surprising result!

[bennymacca]

Ummm, no. We had this discussion elsewhere here, maybe it was after this thread i dunno, not been here much and only just notice this one.
You cannot simply addup P(1st) and P(2nd) to get P(1st OR 2nd).
The correct equation is (given only 3 players):
P(1st or 2nd) = P(1st) + P(2nd|SB_1st) + P(2nd|BB_1st)

tell me where this comes from, i haven't seen this before.

Now, lets assume a 5% shipping range for the SB
Why so tight? You yourself in describing proper SnG endgame say you should be shoveing ~ 50% of SB opens, so why so tight over a std UTG open? (also see my own analysis below)

secondly, what does P(2nd|SB_1st) + P(2nd|BB_1st) add up to?


re-read the question. someone has shoved before the SB, they are not open shoving.

its funny how you do all this analysis without even reading the question

[AJG]

Ummm, no. We had this discussion elsewhere here, maybe it was after this thread i dunno, not been here much and only just notice this one.
You cannot simply addup P(1st) and P(2nd) to get P(1st OR 2nd).
The correct equation is (given only 3 players):
P(1st or 2nd) = P(1st) + P(2nd|SB_1st) + P(2nd|BB_1st)

tell me where this comes from, i haven't seen this before.

Do you mean which thread? ==> here.
Although, yes, I apologise... I was detailing the method for calculating P(2nd) when infact I was intending to question your claim that ICM indicates that, a probability X of cashing requires X% equity to get allin. I pointed out the wrong thing, again apologies... my bad...

Dude, I DID read the question, what makes you think otherwise?

Now, lets assume a 5% shipping range for the SB
Why so tight? You yourself in describing proper SnG endgame say you should be shoveing ~ 50% of SB opens, so why so tight over a std UTG open? (also see my own analysis below)

....

re-read the question. someone has shoved before the SB, they are not open shoving.
Maybe you should re-read? The SB is the first to shove, over our UTG 3x open....

You are UTG with AA and open the standard 2.5 - 3x.
The SB re ships all in.
BB calls.

its funny how you do all this analysis without even reading the question
Its funny how I point out a mistake you made (albeit the wrong one) and ask you a question, and you are so keen to rebutt that you make errors yourself while doing so, while accusing me of not even understanding the premise of my own words.... Nor willing to answer my question apparently

So let me ask the question again.
You have stated in another thread (I cant find it atm, but the one started by Heather Jenkins asking about SnG strat), that during SnG endgame, when it is folded to you in the SB you should be shoving around 50% (IIRC?). So why apply a range as tight as 5% for shoving over a 3x UTG open raise?