The point of no return
A part of tomorrow's poker log at www.CanadianPoker.com
Back a while ago I espoused “Dave’s Rule of Attending a Gunfight:†If you don’t have enough bullets to shoot your way to safety, be very careful with your aim.
The point was that there appears to me a time in a poker tournament when losing $X chips has a more severe penalty attached to is that then benefits of winning those same $X chips. The struggle I was having was quantifying the moment at which this occurs.
After some very interesting thoughts and posts at PokerForum.ca I am going to add some more thoughts. These are random thoughts that may or may not bear on the question.
(1) As was pointed out by boxcard at PokerForum.ca and in discussion on the phone, chips distribution in a poker tournament is NOT a nice balanced distribution curve. Boxcard notes that the median stack (half the players above and half the players below) is usually about 80% of the average chips stack (the mean). This implies that as the chips begin to get unevenly distributed the tendency is to compound this uneven distribution. In other words, the BIG stacks (i.e. those that are average) tend to consume the little stacks. So, once you begin the inglorious slide down the back of the chips distribution wave you are in more and more trouble. You are more and more likely to get gobbled up. All of this implies that, yes, if you are hovering around the average/median stack size be very careful about playing hands that will tend to push you onto the down side of the curve into the “get eaten up†area.
Why does it work this way? Well, two things happen. First, with a smaller stack you are less and less able to withstand the natural variance of the game. In other words, you cannot afford to lose a hand. Big stacks can lose a hand and bounce back. Small stacks cannot – they’re eliminated. Second, some of your weapons are eliminated. I have been reading an excellent new books called Tournament Poker and the Art of War by David Apostolico. As he points out, in no-limit hold’em your chips are your force. Often you win with the “threat of force†– namely the fear that the enemy may come into conflict with your whole chip stack. Once you are short stacked you are no threat. You get called A LOT more. And, even though you may have a strong hand you are in the ugly position of not being able to withstand the natural variance of the game.
(2) Leaving aside discussions of mean and median stack, there is a much simple measure of the moment at which “pain of loss†becomes something to REALLY avoid. That is, when the loss will take you below a point at which your opponents will fear your stack. If you slip below the median stack (about 80% of the mean) then half the players in the tournament have more chips than you do. You are in the ugly “hate variance and they will probably call me†zone.
So, if you slip below 10x BB then you are in trouble. You are not a lot of a threat and, worse, you are close to panicking because the blinds will suddenly look REALLY problematic. In other words two things are compounding your problem: (1) you are no threat and you are likely to get called and (2) you have to get your chips in or you will be blinded out. So, you are moving in with marginal hands in a situation in you are likely to get called – bad combination.
So… here is my rule of thumb still based a lot upon my instinct since I don’t think any discussion I have seen has, yet, been categorical or conclusive.
If the loss of $X chips will take your stack below the median amount (about 80% of the average) and yet the addition of $X will only move you as high as 1.5 times the mean then you are better off to avoid the loss. Note also that is rule really applies to stealing. You are going to have to play some hands. But, take your foot off the gas pedal and look for “legitimate edges†once you reach this point.
As example: You are average stack at $10K. The blinds are $500-1000. Should you open for $3K on a steal attempt with Q-8s? The loss of $3K will take you to $7K which is below 80% of the average. But, the addition of $4K will only move you up to $11.5K (not quite 1.5 x the average). This is a situation in which you should put away the steal arsenal. In your current situation you will, hopefully, be given the opportunity to use your superior skills of hand selection to win the tournament. If you steal and fail then all of your weapons are gone. You cannot use your superior hand selection skills because you are going to be forced to go with the first hand that looks OK. And, you are probably going to be called. You have no “skill overlay.†Whereas, the $11.5K does not really add any new weapons to your arsenal.
Back a while ago I espoused “Dave’s Rule of Attending a Gunfight:†If you don’t have enough bullets to shoot your way to safety, be very careful with your aim.
The point was that there appears to me a time in a poker tournament when losing $X chips has a more severe penalty attached to is that then benefits of winning those same $X chips. The struggle I was having was quantifying the moment at which this occurs.
After some very interesting thoughts and posts at PokerForum.ca I am going to add some more thoughts. These are random thoughts that may or may not bear on the question.
(1) As was pointed out by boxcard at PokerForum.ca and in discussion on the phone, chips distribution in a poker tournament is NOT a nice balanced distribution curve. Boxcard notes that the median stack (half the players above and half the players below) is usually about 80% of the average chips stack (the mean). This implies that as the chips begin to get unevenly distributed the tendency is to compound this uneven distribution. In other words, the BIG stacks (i.e. those that are average) tend to consume the little stacks. So, once you begin the inglorious slide down the back of the chips distribution wave you are in more and more trouble. You are more and more likely to get gobbled up. All of this implies that, yes, if you are hovering around the average/median stack size be very careful about playing hands that will tend to push you onto the down side of the curve into the “get eaten up†area.
Why does it work this way? Well, two things happen. First, with a smaller stack you are less and less able to withstand the natural variance of the game. In other words, you cannot afford to lose a hand. Big stacks can lose a hand and bounce back. Small stacks cannot – they’re eliminated. Second, some of your weapons are eliminated. I have been reading an excellent new books called Tournament Poker and the Art of War by David Apostolico. As he points out, in no-limit hold’em your chips are your force. Often you win with the “threat of force†– namely the fear that the enemy may come into conflict with your whole chip stack. Once you are short stacked you are no threat. You get called A LOT more. And, even though you may have a strong hand you are in the ugly position of not being able to withstand the natural variance of the game.
(2) Leaving aside discussions of mean and median stack, there is a much simple measure of the moment at which “pain of loss†becomes something to REALLY avoid. That is, when the loss will take you below a point at which your opponents will fear your stack. If you slip below the median stack (about 80% of the mean) then half the players in the tournament have more chips than you do. You are in the ugly “hate variance and they will probably call me†zone.
So, if you slip below 10x BB then you are in trouble. You are not a lot of a threat and, worse, you are close to panicking because the blinds will suddenly look REALLY problematic. In other words two things are compounding your problem: (1) you are no threat and you are likely to get called and (2) you have to get your chips in or you will be blinded out. So, you are moving in with marginal hands in a situation in you are likely to get called – bad combination.
So… here is my rule of thumb still based a lot upon my instinct since I don’t think any discussion I have seen has, yet, been categorical or conclusive.
If the loss of $X chips will take your stack below the median amount (about 80% of the average) and yet the addition of $X will only move you as high as 1.5 times the mean then you are better off to avoid the loss. Note also that is rule really applies to stealing. You are going to have to play some hands. But, take your foot off the gas pedal and look for “legitimate edges†once you reach this point.
As example: You are average stack at $10K. The blinds are $500-1000. Should you open for $3K on a steal attempt with Q-8s? The loss of $3K will take you to $7K which is below 80% of the average. But, the addition of $4K will only move you up to $11.5K (not quite 1.5 x the average). This is a situation in which you should put away the steal arsenal. In your current situation you will, hopefully, be given the opportunity to use your superior skills of hand selection to win the tournament. If you steal and fail then all of your weapons are gone. You cannot use your superior hand selection skills because you are going to be forced to go with the first hand that looks OK. And, you are probably going to be called. You have no “skill overlay.†Whereas, the $11.5K does not really add any new weapons to your arsenal.
Comments
So against other stacks who are in an equally perilous position would stealing still not be a viable option.
I ask because usually once you're down to 10BB, the next blind jump is going to bring you down to 6.5BB or 5 BB depending on if it's a full or half jump in blinds. So by that point you're even more desperatley short stacked.
I will steal at any point with any amount of chips if I have good reason to get away with it. So, I guess the answer is: "When you get to 10 x BB your prefered method of chip accumulationg becomes hands with a positive EV -- all other things being equal."
And... this whole thing applies mostly to NL where the COST of the steal exceeds the amount won. That is, perhaps, the most critical element.
Perhaps if we are going to attempt this steal then we should push all in?
1. It shows that we are committed to our hand.
2. Perhaps we will hit a card if called and win. If not at least we went out betting...
3. If we just bet 3 X the BB it gives the bigger stack a chance to see the flop..
?? Yes no?
Pushing allin, laying 9-1 preflop, will only lead to getting called by a better hand. One of the great no limit skills is determining proper bet size. for example, when we want a call, we bet the maximum amount we think the villain is willing call, and when we want a fold, we bet the minimum amount we believe it will take to make the villain fold.
The inflection point Dave is talking about has gotten a lot of airplay recently in poker theory circles, and no solution has been defined. It basically comes down to math (as usual). We set up a range of hands an opponent (given his stack size) will call with, then determine the probability that he holds a hand within that range. This is done for each opponent remaining, as well as including the effect of other callers, then assign pot-equity values based on potential matchups. At 10x BB, there are very few hands that will call an all-in bet, but those that do will have you crushed.
There is a 2+2 thread in the Multi-table tournaments forum dealing with this right now, if I find it I'll post it.
As well, Dan Harrington's 2+2 book on NL tournaments has a lot of information on this.
But I digress. The point is that open pushing for 10x BB is not an ideal move, but neither is always raising 3x the BB. Bet the most you think will get called or the least you think will fold out better hands.
As dave said, adding 1.5 BB is far less important than not losing 3 BB. Thus, when shortstacked, far from the money, all we can do is make raises with our good hands, hope to get action, and hope they hold up. Same as in a cash game.
Always keep in mind, however, that when making raises, if you decide you need to raise an amount that is enough of your stack that you can't fold to a reraise, you're better off just pushing your chips in first.