Tremendous Bluff? Or Not?

[MANTIS01]

Posted by: doubleup

Limping is ok as a gambling play i.e. you are willing to put your chips in with a bit of the flop in an effort to double up, knowing that you might be behind.  You can't apply cash game ev principles to tournaments when you have short stacks.

This is pretty much what I am saying here Longy. Applying long-term expectation logic for a particular hand in any and every tournament situation stifles the creativity needed to get you out of the mess you're in here and now.

In this unique situation you can use the UTG limp to get the cheap flop you need for this hand. That fact combined with my position and the real need to make something happen would make the limp appealing for me. With my current stack size my choices are beginning to run out so being pro-active and creative are starting to outweigh ABC poker and +EV long term play in my decision making.

In this example, seeing a cheap flop and committing with a piece of it after check-check is a better option than pushing all-in pre-flop with no pair no info.

Posted by: Longy

are you suggesting that you going to pick up a vibe from the other 3 players in this situation that you can buy the pot with a bet if checked to

Pretty much yes. Using your positional advantage to assess the situation post flop and then decide how to act accordingly is pretty standard isn't it?? Your stack still has leverage and pushing with the additional information of check-check after seeing how your oppos act is a more informed play than just pushing pre-flop imo.

In saying the stacks are not deep enough to justify the limp with a hand that wont work often enough to justify it indicates that it is ok to make -EV plays when you ARE deep and actually don't have to. My point is that the shortness of the stack means exploring -EV plays cheaply is a territory worth consideration and something that is probably necessary given the circumstances.

If this last attempt at doing something a bit different doesn't work then I am now looking to push with a stack that is -1600 chips...this doesn't make much difference. The pre-flop push and a tournament life gamble should be a last resort not a default mechanism when you feel a bit pressured...and this limp could help you avoid that risky eventuality.

Posted by: LuckyLloyd

Every hand of poker you play has to be viewed in light of whether it is plus EV or not. Cash games and tournaments should not be analysed any differently.

I am liking a lot of what you say LuckyLloyd but we are poles apart here. To say the decision making is the same suggests the factors that lead you to arrive at your decisions are identical in both. Well, the clock, increasing blinds, average chip stack, prize money ladder etc etc..mean the factors to consider in both formats of the game are significantly different...and if the factors are different then it stands to reason your thought process MUST be too.

[Bongo]

Posted by: doubleup

Limping is ok as a gambling play i.e. you are willing to put your chips in with a bit of the flop in an effort to double up, knowing that you might be behind.  You can't apply cash game ev principles to tournaments when you have short stacks.

This is pretty much what I am saying here Longy. Applying long-term expectation logic for a particular hand in any and every tournament situation stifles the creativity needed to get you out of the mess you're in here and now.

So making a long term losing move is OK because it might get you out of a hole?

[MANTIS01]

Posted by: Bongo

So making a long term losing move is OK because it might get you out of a hole?

If you are in a hole there is no long term...because you're in a hole. Getting out of the hole is your concern at the present moment.

When the bubble arrives, aggressive players apply pressure more frequently. This is a unique tournament situation...and how best to exploit it is shaping the LAGs play...the long-term profitability of the move they are making is not. So in the same way...if you are in a hole and need to find a way out here and now...long term expectation may not be the immediate solution.

[M3boy]

Interesting discussion guys.

Posted by: LuckyLloyd

Quote
Every hand of poker you play has to be viewed in light of whether it is plus EV or not. Cash games and tournaments should not be analysed any differently.

Now maybe you do have an argument that limpimg here is NOT a viable option, but this quote is so so wrong. Cash games and Tournaments are SO different.
Tournaments are about survival AND chip accumulation. Cash is totally different.

Posted by: Longy

Quote
are you suggesting that you going to pick up a vibe from the other 3 players in this situation that you can buy the pot with a bet if checked to

Again, you may have an argument that pushing is best over limping, but to say that "in position" I cannot get a read on players after a flop is nonsense. I had two ways of picking up this pot, one by flopping it, and one by taking it. I am in position.
Yes my initial thoughts were UTG had a big pair, but when the flop comes down it is a scary flop for an overpair and with the stack size of UTG, they HAVE to bet out here. When they dont, I can re assess the situation.

Posted by Longy
Quote

Also this argument but only losing 1600 seems ridiculous as this isn't the point your stack after committing the 1600 to the pot makes the hand extremely hard to play, whereas if you flop a monster you will never get paid enough on average to make up for your investment.


Like I have said, with the stack size I had, loosing 1600 in a "gamble" play was not too damaging as pushing all in with 1600 less makes no difference. The satck size is so small that it wouldnt matter to a player facing a calling decision for my stack.

I would rather push 6xBB into a flop that I think have missed my opponents, than pushing 7xBB preflop.

Seems most agree that pushing preflop is a better option, now this maybe true, but in this situation I took a calculated risk in order to gain chips. The SB or BB could of had a big hand here, and it would of only cost me 1600 to find out. Rather than pushing in preflop only for one of them to wake up with AA/KK/QQ and then my tourney life would be on the line and drawing pretty thin.


I like to play flops and read people - I am confident in this part of my game. I do not feel under pressure to push preflop with 7-8 BB's.

5xBB is my "pushing in and hope" stack ratio - maybe this is too low, but it is generally what I use.

My opinion of this hand was that I should of shoved on the flop

[Bongo]

Posted by: Bongo

So making a long term losing move is OK because it might get you out of a hole?

If you are in a hole there is no long term...because you're in a hole. Getting out of the hole is your concern at the present moment.

When the bubble arrives, aggressive players apply pressure more frequently. This is a unique tournament situation...and how best to exploit it is shaping the LAGs play...the long-term profitability of the move they are making is not. So in the same way...if you are in a hole and need to find a way out here and now...long term expectation may not be the immediate solution.

There is a long term, unless you never plan to play another tournament ever again.

[MANTIS01]

The criticism of the limp in this situation stems from the fact that we are trying to get LUCKY. That said, I would like to know what the grand master plan is for our soon-to-be-over-tournament if we let this opportunity pass us by.

If we pass we know the next hand we play will be an all-in...so what hand is that going to be? Are we saying pass here in the hope that we get LUCKY enough to wake-up with a premium hand in the next couple of orbits...and we will be LUCKY enough to get action...and we will be LUCKY enough to win the race etc?

Alternatively...are we prepared to push with a weaker range instead? If so we need to get LUCKY that we don't run into a better hand when this happens.

If we push with the 10-J now instead we are hoping to get LUCKY that we don't run into a monster UTG right now.

The logic that committing just 1,600 chips here in order to gamble and get LUCKY is poor play seems a bit ridiculous. Especially because the alternative presented is to wait a few hands longer and then commit everything in order to gamble and get LUCKY. Limping here gives us one last chance to avoid that far riskier eventuality.

Posted by: Bongo

There is a long term, unless you never plan to play another tournament ever again.

Regardless of the number of tournaments you play in the future you will NEVER find yourself in this unique situation again. I don't go for long-term tournament logic...never have.

[kinboshi]

I'm also strongly of the opinion that LeKnave didn't think he was bluffing, but only he can confirm that.

I can confirm that - he told us that he thought he was ahead.  Which made it more amusing.  Made for a good thread though.


I'm with Mark and Paul on this one with regards to tournament decisions being more than just a consideration of EV as you would in a cash game.  There are many times where you'd be willing to risk your stack in a cash game, knowing that even if you're rong, in the long-run it's a +EV move.

In a tournament, a wrong move signals the end of the tournament - you don't get the chance to reload.  Yes, there's the next tournament, but there are a finite number of tournaments you can play - and there are certainly a finite number of times you can make a decision that ends your tournament. 

[Bongo]

And there's a finite amount of times you can reload in a cash game...

[Bongo]

Posted by: Bongo

There is a long term, unless you never plan to play another tournament ever again.

Regardless of the number of tournaments you play in the future you will NEVER find yourself in this unique situation again. I don't go for long-term tournament logic...never have.

I think anyone who plays a tournament is going to find themselves with a short stack at some point, and playing to get the most money out of the tournament, rather than just gambling and trying to get "lucky", will leave them with more money.

[kinboshi]

And there's a finite amount of times you can reload in a cash game...

Of course.  But if you can win £50 in a cash game now, or in two weeks - it's the same (of course there's opportunity cost, but ignore that for now).

If you win some chips in a tournament now, you might be in a position to do well and cash/win.  Lose your chips, and you might not be in that situation again.  In fact, you might be in a similar situation, but it will never be the same. 

Take the discussion about KK first hand in a deep-stack tournament.  In a cash game, you might lose your stack, or you might double up.  If you lose your stack, you can reload.  Play the hand 50 times in the same way, and your results will probably reflect that it's a +EV move.  Do the same in the tournament, and different factors come into play.   

[totalise]

Regardless of the number of tournaments you play in the future you will NEVER find yourself in this unique situation again. I don't go for long-term tournament logic...never have.

thats because you are looking at the blinds, cards, twiches, rips in the seat, bent nature of the cards, and deeming it an exclusive never to be repeated situation again. Granted, it might be true, but its not overly relevant. You will frequently in the future find spots that have a negative equity, will you take all of them, hoping to get lucky? Will you call with any two cards preflop when the stacks are deep, hoping to defy the odds and get lucky and then take the tournament by storm and congratulate urself for the previous play? Its a bad idea generally to try and defy math in any form of gambling, and poker is no dffferent, be it a cash or a tournament.

Of course, there are times when you should take -EV spots now

one of them is to make sure you dont take an even deeper -EV spot later, like posting the BB with a random hand when u get a hand UTG that is slightly better then random but has a negative equity if you push, take the spot that has a lesser negative EC

Another is that if your shortstack play is terrible, but you are a fearsome supremely skilled player when you get a deepstack, the value in taking the risk now can be made up many times over by your superior big stack play. Obviously, and the reason why poker is profitable, is that most people grossly over-value their abilities, they do this all the time, but especially when they have a big stack.

There are a couple more spots like this, but the above is a good start

It seems that the notion of "you might get lucky" is a fanciful way of justifying very poor play, and just a way of telling a story. Its very easy to flip it the other way and say "well I folded the 10/J hre, got AA, doubled up to 30k, then got it in with AK vs 99 and lost, but the other person had 29k, if I had limped with 10/J and missed, I wouldn't have covered the 99 person and I woulda been out, but instead i managed to creep into the money"

In a tournament, a wrong move signals the end of the tournament - you don't get the chance to reload.  Yes, there's the next tournament, but there are a finite number of tournaments you can play - and there are certainly a finite number of times you can make a decision that ends your tournament.

theres also only a finite number of times you can limp/fold your stack away pissing into the wind, sure sometimes u get lucky and spin up a stack, but you can take a stack of chips and go do the same at roulette, so why wait for a poker tournament to do it?

[doubleup]

And there's a finite amount of times you can reload in a cash game...

My original point was more directed at the effect of blinds/antes on the tournament stack.  If you have 10bbs and lose 3 of these while waiting for a chance to double up as a 2-1 favourite, the ev of your stack is 9.33bbs.  So you can either adopt the approach of pushing a lot to try to avoid the losses each round with the downside that you are eventualy going to get called by a better hand or take any opportunity to see a flop cheaply in the hope of getting a situation that might show some profit.  If you played short stacked cash you could lose these 3bbs, but top-up and therefore show a  small profit when you put your 10bbs in as 2-1 favourite.

[MANTIS01]

Posted by: totalise

theres also only a finite number of times you can limp/fold your stack away pissing into the wind, sure sometimes u get lucky and spin up a stack, but you can take a stack of chips and go do the same at roulette, so why wait for a poker tournament to do it?

Yes, but you are taking the logic you use for this one very specific situation and suggesting that you "could" use it as a general rule of thumb in other completely different situations. You could...but I wouldn't recommend it.

Most of the time your stack size will be comfortable and using +EV plays to maintain the status quo is clearly the best strategy. However, when you are short-stacked and detached taking on a cheap long shot is now something to consider. You wont be able to do it again and again...but right here and now you can afford it...you have the protection of the UTG limper...you have position...and you have a good drawing hand. So your unique situation and these unique conditions mean that the play is wothwhile.

Kessler threw everything at Calzaghe in the last round because he needed a knock-out...most of the time that would be a poor strategy.

The QuarterBack throws a Hail Mary pass when his team are behind and time is running out...most of the time that would be a poor strategy.

Tournament poker is a sport...not a maths exam.

Like I said before...What is the solution to our current tournament predicament that doesn't rely on luck any time soon?.....don't try and get lucky now...wait a bit and then try and get lucky...seems to lack any real substance imo.

[Bongo]

Kessler threw everything at Calzaghe in the last round because he needed a knock-out...most of the time that would be a poor strategy.

The QuarterBack throws a Hail Mary pass when his team are behind and time is running out...most of the time that would be a poor strategy.

Why would they normally be a poor strategy?

In my mind because they don't significantly increase the chances of success in the long term, but carry significant downside.

e.g. The Hail Mary pass will not be successful as often as a shorter pass, so by using it you gain the small chance of scoring and at the cost of a higher likelihood of losing possession.

It is a good strategy at the end of a game because:
1) If you don't score you lose.
2) At the end of the game the downsides are minimised, easier passes won't get you a goal, giving up possession isn't so as earlier in the game either.

I don't see this correlating to the tournament situation at all. It would possibly apply if it was the last hand, and you were in last place, and the payouts weren't proportional, but that's not the case here. We're not running out of time. We're running out of chips.

I think a more accurate comparison, and I'll use the sport of boxing, would be to say that Kessler is starting to tire, so he starts flailing his arms around aimlessly in the hope that he somehow knocks Calzaghe out before he runs out of energy completely.

[M3boy]

theres also only a finite number of times you can limp/fold your stack away pissing into the wind, sure sometimes u get lucky and spin up a stack, but you can take a stack of chips and go do the same at roulette, so why wait for a poker tournament to do it?

I agree, limping into many pots and folding is a bad idea - and one I do not do.

On certain occasions however, I will limp - in position, against a certain oppo etc... - not very often as this would be a tournament disaster - granted.

This was one of those occassions I considered that limping in would pay good dividends, and was not costly in relation to the F/E of my stack size.