chip stack strategy
Hi!
The blind structure of a Tournament is SB/ BB+Ante!
What chip stack strategy is the right one in the following example?
SB 500/ BB 1000 + 1000
I have a 30.000 stack.
Do I play a 15BB or a 30BB Strategy?
Thanks
It may also be the proverbial “boiling the frog” scenario. The frog doesn’t notice he’s boiling if you gradually increase the temperature.
Interestingly, I recently learned that the study on frogs and boiling water only observed that frogs who had their brains removed didn't jump out. The others did.
Anyway, in practice, the difference between BB ante and regular ante only comes up in a couple of places. When you're very short, like 5BB or less, you'll want to shove sooner with a regular ante because you're losing chips with every hand. With a BB ante, you can mostly keep your regular shoving range, although you'll want to open it up in EP before you're back in the blinds.
That, and the BB ante not changing shorthanded means there's a little more incentive to be a little wider and try to steal more pots preflop. But even that is balanced against the ICM in those situations.
frog should be fried not boiled. Legs are pretty tasty.
This is true when you are playing with a full table. But later in the tournament when tables are often not full, having a BB ante, actually does boil the frog faster since the ante doesn't adjust for number of players at the table.
Agreed but it doesn’t change the point that a standard ante and a BB ante are mathematically equivalent. That is still true short-handed; the BB ante is just mathematically equivalent to a larger standard ante, namely 1/n big blinds, where n is the number of players
I don't know why you changed cost to EV. Of course the EV of a preflop fold is zero (if there is no icm to consider).
Because what you posted makes no sense. The cost of folding is not what you posted. The cost of folding is the difference between the EV of playing the hand and the EV of folding, which of course is zero. Hence the cost of folding is the EV of playing the hand. If a hand gives say an EV of +0.2BB when played, folding costs 0.2BB. Obviously, I canÂ’t give a general value for cost of folding, and obviously folding will sometimes be profitable (actually it is most of the time). Most starting hands have -EV, so folding them is correct.
The main point is that this analysis applies regardless of where the dead money in the pot comes from. It doesn’t cost you anything to fold your BB (unless playing it is +EV). You don’t have to pay additional chips when you fold. Folding is free. You really need to get past the whole “I paid that BB and ante” thing. It just is not mathematically correct. Chips in the pot belong to the pot, not to any player.
Just to try another way to make the point: suppose an innovative card room decides to run a NLHE cash game a bit differently than normal.* In place of blinds and rake, the player to the left of the button pays the dealer two Redbirds ($10). The dealer drops one as rake and puts the other in the middle. All pots therefore start at $5 and preflop works the same as postflop - UTG can check or bet and others can act accordingly. Would you bet more when UTG in this game because you were the one who put the $5 in the pot? You shouldnÂ’t - you are in the worst position on all streets and the potential payoff is the same regardless of position. You should bet more often as button since that has a higher EV due to positional advantage.
*Obviously I made this structure up to illustrate my point. No card room is ever going to use it. Creative angle shooting types would find too many ways to get out of paying their $10 to the detriment of other players.
Just to try another way to make the point: suppose an innovative card room decides to run a NLHE cash game a bit differently than normal.* In place of blinds and rake, the player to the left of the button pays the dealer two Redbirds ($10). The dealer drops one as rake and puts the other in the middle. All pots therefore start at $5 and preflop works the same as postflop - UTG can check or bet and others can act accordingly. Would you bet more when UTG in this game because you were the one who p
Does “bet more” mean more often here? This example doesn’t support your conclusion and actual supports mine.
Explain the difference mathematically speaking: (Assume 8 handed table for both)
Scenario 1: blinds 500/1000 with a bb ante of 1000
Scenario 2: blinds 500/1000 with a standard 125 ante
Answer: there is no difference. In both cases the pot size before any PF action is 2500. In both cases we are forced to bet 2500 chips every 8 hands. In both cases, if we are BB facing a minraise we must pay 1000 more to call (and the call amount is identical for other raise sizes). How are they different?
The only p
You will figure out the difference when the blinds change and depending upon your position vs the dealer button players pay different amounts not the same for their antes in the last 8 hands.
Does “bet more” mean more often here? This example doesn’t support your conclusion and actual supports mine.
Yes I meant bet more as in bet more frequently; ie a wider range, not a larger sizing. You should be betting a wider range when on the button regardless of structure though. That was the point. And you should be betting a tighter range UTG, again regardless of structure. The main point was that you are NOT incentivized to bet more often because you were the one who paid the dead money. Likewise in tourneys with a bb ante, you are not incentivized to bet more often when in the bb.
Of course you should be betting more often in all positions when there is a bb ante vs no ante. More dead money incentivizes trying to win the pot PF.
