Quote:
|
For the record as its relevant to what I just said I dont believe just cos im in this current stack position it means im going to finish that place on average
|
This is assuming that you are of average ability relative to the remaining players. I agree that if you are better, then your aspirations are legitimately higher. What is interesting is if you believe you are weaker. Is it right to just sit and wait and hope that you avoid collisions between larger stacks which move you up the leaderboard, or to become more aggressive? In general terms, the weaker you are the more aggressive you should be - you're making the better players rely more on luck than they otherwise would (the corrollorary being that their greater skill is less of an influence). However, from a game-theoretic perspective it may in fact be optimal here to just sit back and not play anything but an
absolute monster!
Quote:
|
This is only true if you dont believe in your ability to get your money in good with better spots at another time. I could equally say something like I think I can get in with 65% the best of it at some point in the next level, conjecture yes but I believe it to be the case. So does your 43% of the time folding = 0 still carry any weight whatsoever if I believe something like that?
|
Not so. Obviously there are assumptions here - notably the one above about the proportionality of chip stack size and likely finishing position. However, even dispensing with this just moves our likely finishing position up or down - it doesn't change the basic concept here - that folding decreases your stack and therefore your winning chance, while calling gambles on elimination versus increasing your stack size (and therefore your winning chance/ dollar expectation). Potential future opportunities will present exactly the same issue. Having a larger expected chip stack makes these future opportunities MORE valuable. The risk consideration is still the same though - double through now (and its dollar worth) or go out (foregoing ANY prize money).
As regards what constitutes a short-stack I believe there is a continuum - you don't suddenly go from big stack to short stack - it is a gradual progression and it relates to BOTH average (or indeed median) stack size and to blind levels. However at a 7 handed table with only 10BB I'd be looking for almost any opportunity to get all-in, UNLESS there are several players virtually certain to be eliminated in the next 5-10 hands. In my experience, blind levels will last only about 2 rounds of this table (if that) before (probably) doubling. Between BB and SB you're dropping 15% of your stack. A call into a three or 4 handed pot after that leaves you with little more than a pot size bet as your option on a flop or river - i.e. you are more or less in all-in territory. You certainly can't afford to be playing hands and hoping to hit the flop - you're in the game of trying to win pre-flop. Far better to do that with you being the one moving all-in, but you may have to take calling opportunities too. I don't know what your move in requirements would be here, but I think I'd have to be moving with most suited aces, any ace with bigger than maybe 7 or so, most pairs, and probably KQ