Home
(0 votes) 
September 29, 2012
Offline
Let me see if I can word this logically.
In decision points in MTT’s you have to quantify your decision. Say for an instance in a Live MTT I analyze a hand at 300/600 + 75 and the results of my analysis results in an answer of cEV = 75, with the risk of busting or near busting if I lose in this spot. I have a small plus, which in a cash game warrants taking the risk. In an MTT, is it ever warranted to err on the side of survival and passing on these borderline or small marginal +cEV spots? And if so, at what point does it become less marginal and worth the risk? When the +cEV = the size of the SB? Or a certain % of the chips risked at the time?
February 5, 2015
Offline
I am sure Andrew or Matt will break it down far better than I. I am (desperately, slowly, painstakingly) trudging my way through Kill Everyone. What a book though!
The “bubble factor”, (another term for the ICM consideration) in an MTT is always > 0. It gets progressively more painful to bust out the further along you find yourself in the T. It becomes especially painful around certain high ICM spots, such as pay jumps or especially the money or FT bubble.
It is certainly correct to pass up marginal cEV spots in an MTT, survival is worth something always, but at certain points in the T (higher ICM spots), it will be correct to pass up very +cEV spots for the sake of survival.
I want to say that it is non-linear, but a) I am not 100% sure that is correct terminology. And b) I do not wish to come over as a pompous prick! (Too late, some might say already…).
August 24, 2015
Offline
Generally speaking you should be careful close to the bubble. Even a 60/40 should be avoided if it means all in and there is only 5 players left until the bubble for example unless it is for a big enough pot that makes it worth it. Min cash is quite valuable and your chips is worth a lot close to the bubble. take a 27$ 300plrs mtt for example. 47th is min cash for 70$. Then 9th place is 150$. Needless to say MTT`s are extremely top heavy and once you get that min cash you can basically take most +ev spots you can find. The time to chip up is in the mid-late stages and also early stages. If it is a extremely deep stacked MTT where you have are by far the best player you dont have to flip or take the smallest +ev spots but in general you should be building a stack as much as you can to aim for the top 3 spots where all the money is. At the FT a lot more of ICM comes in to play and then you basically should not bust before others that are shorter than you. I am sure someone will explain this better for you. As far as amount of BB`s most of the time u are playing 15-30bb poker so whenever u have +0.5 bb ev spot is pretty good i believe.
June 2, 2013
Offline
After this one i am going to sleep 
At the mtt buble we play by cEV or $EV? I can´t remember this one now.
Lots of pros say we shouldn´t pass any profitable spot, even meaning we are going to bubble.
Top heavy payments mean we can/have to take some risk to win, I am not folding 60/40, if I have the 60%.
I think this slowing down, is much more used on sng strategy, using ICM at the buble. I used to fold lots of AK, 99 TT sometimes JJ at the bubble, 9 man sng btw.
September 29, 2012
Offline
During the whole MTT you should be making decisions based on $EV. From hand 1 the chips you win have less value than the chips that you lose. However, that disparity in chip difference grows at certain points in the event. The problem is that in MTTs, it is not possible to determine your exact ICM factor at that point. It can only be estimated until the final table.
I was wondering, how much of an edge do the pros here look for during middle stages. Or if in their opinion, that the ICM factor is small enough during that time, that it can be almost ignored.
August 24, 2015
Offline
No legit pros is saying we should never pass on a profitable spot. If you mean + chip EV spot. If you are on the bubble with 5bb and you can call an all in where you know u have 60% you have to fold. If you had 40bb it is a different story though. But having a general rule of never passing on a profitable spot is not good cause of ICM.
February 5, 2015
Offline
$ev at FT almo…
jjpregler, I was always taught to use cEV prior to FT by my coach. [As an aside his name was (is) Clint Losch, well respected SNG coach,he was or still is a partner in Global Staking. But he has disappeared off the face of the poker planet.. If anyone knows where he is or how to contact him I’d appreciate the heads up].
This would suggest that during the early/ mid stages ICM is of negligible importance.
TPE Pro
August 25, 2012
Offline
Here’s a few articles I’ve written on this interesting topic. Make sure to read the top one first, since I refute a couple of my own suggestions in the later ones.
The short version is that almost everyone monstrously overestimates their own edge in MTTs in terms of bb/100, to the point where unless you’re an extremely good player playing with very deep stacks it’s hard to come up with a reason to fold any kind of a +EV spot until you get down to the point where payjumps start to matter.
The basic idea is that you need to weigh up the EV the same way you would an ICM calculation – if I call and win, my stack goes up to X amount and my edge at that stack size is Y, whereas if I call and lose, my stack goes down to A amount and my edge at that stack size is B.
At very deep stacks or very short stacks there’s no significant difference between edges, but if you’re in a river spot where calling and winning means you go up to 80bb whereas calling and losing means you go down to 25bb, yet if you fold you stay at 40bb, then the fact that your edge in the tournament will likely be much bigger at 80bb than 40bb outweighs the fact that your edge won’t change a massive amount between 25bb and 40bb. The benefit of the times you call and win outweighs the drawback of calling and losing.
There does exist a theoretical threshold at which a player could be so much better at deep stacks than they are at short stacks that it would be justified to take -EV spots for the sake of building a big stack at certain points in the tournament – in fact, if they were a very poor short-stacked player with little push-fold knowledge but a really good deep-stacked player then they would be incentivised to take frequent high-variance, -EV spots at middle stacks in order to ensure they’re either playing deep-stacked or they bust.
However, of course the more of these -EV spots this player takes, the smaller their edge gets at these stack sizes, so the act of deliberately taking a -EV spot is not really justified just by virtue of this theory. We don’t really even have evidence that a player with such a big skill gap between stack sizes really exists.
September 29, 2012
Offline
Thanks Matt. I remember reading the first two articles in the past, but after taking some time off for private life, I forgot about those.
That helps me get closer to a more accurate post-mortem analysis. I am going to ponder this for a few days to see if I can incorporate the information from Kill Everyone on what they termed “Bubble Factor”, but I prefer the terminology of ICM factor. Assuming that their math presented is accurate.
As you stated that even from hand 1 there is ICM consideration in an MTT, even if it is as small as 3% – 5%, then it steadily grows until there is a sharp spike at the bubble and again at the final table bubble. Then once on the final table, we can do straight ICM calculations with the software available.
June 2, 2013
Offline
Yeah, I was playing by cEV till the FT, where i started to consider ICM… I will read the articles later… Thanks Matt!!
February 5, 2015
Offline
You know it’s interesting, as you say “providing their math is accurate”.
Who is to say it is?
Maybe we are all just poker lemmings blindly following what we read!
There is an avatar I see occasionally, it is a load of fish swimming in one direction with a highlighted fish swimming in the opposite direction, with the comment “maybe he is right” attached.
Most Users Ever Online: 2780
Currently Online:
40 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
bennymacca: 2616
Foucault: 2067
folding_aces_pre_yo: 1133
praetor: 1033
theginger45: 924
P-aire 146: 832
Turbulence: 768
The Riceman: 731
duggs: 591
florianm1: 588
Newest Members:
Tillery999
sdmathis89
ne0x00
adrianvaida2525
Anteeater
Laggro
Forum Stats:
Groups: 4
Forums: 24
Topics: 12705
Posts: 75003
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1063
Members: 12008
Moderators: 2
Admins: 5
Administrators: RonFezBuddy, Killingbird, Tournament Poker Edge Staff, ttwist, Carlos
Moderators: sitelock, sitelock_1
