Importance of pot odds in NL Tournaments

G_The_Jester · #1 (**permalink**) 06-07-2006, 11:14 AM

I know the importance of pot odds in cash games but have been wondering a while on how important they are in tournaments.

I am not talking about raising or calling against pot odds but about raising or calling with them in tournaments.

In cash games your decisions on playing with the odds are born out of a lifetime of poker. Make the right calls consistently and you will win over the long term. But in tournaments you could be turning down a big pay day on the turn of a card.

Take a scenario where you are average chip stack in the middle to bubble stages of a MTT and you find yourself with a decision as follows:

You are up against the chip leader.
You have a straight & flush draw.
You can only see the river.
Chip leader has put you all in but you have the pot odds to call.

By folding in this situation you are effectively reducing your chances of playing well over the long term, but given your chip stack you could still go on to win the tournament.

Don't just stick to this scenario ... I want to find an opinion on how and when, in different circumstances the fold becomes a negative play.

Jason75 · #2 (**permalink**) 06-07-2006, 01:05 PM

This is also a "hole" in my game. The question has to do with tournament equity and +$EV (not chip EV) plays.

These can be very hard to calculate while playing.

Once a tournament begins, I calculate the average stack size at the ITM, and at each significant level of payout (including the final table). It's easy to do, just multiply the starting stacks by the # of entrants and that gives you the total chips in play (in a rebuy you have to wait until after the rebuy period is over). Once you know that, divide the total chips by each place that starts a new payout level (first ITM, next tier, etc.). First ITM is easy in a 10% payout structure . . . it's just 10x the initial chip stack. Final table is also easy, just divide the total chips by 10.

I write this stuff down on a little piece of paper, along with the payout for each "level". When faced with a big decision like this, I simply ask myself:

"If I win this pot x% of the time based on my outs and reads, how often do I think I'll make the $ (or next payout level)?

I then multiply the %'s together to get the overall ITM%.

I then ask: "If I fold this hand, will I make the money more often than the % I just calculated?".

If the answer is no, then I call. If the answer is yes, I fold. If the answer is maybe . . . I fold.

But I have no hard calcs for this. Perhaps some of the ICM wizards could help here . . .

Beavis68 · #3 (**permalink**) 06-07-2006, 01:17 PM

Pot odds are key, but you dont want break even pot odds, you want some overlay.

Say you are a decent player, you have a 55% chance of doubling up before you bust (I say the best player is probably around 60%).
If you consistantly put all your chips in with less than 10% overlay from the pot, you are selling yourself short.

If you have 1500 chips, you would want 1650 (a great player may want 1800) in pot before entering a true 50/50 situation.

If you are passing up spot like this, you are likely overestimating yourself and hurting your chances of finishing big. If you routinely put all your chips in with less than this you are probably selling yourself short, and will not do much better than "average"

of course, this is all mumbo jumbo theory, but there are so pretty bright players (including a few of Sklansky's "ten smartest players" that pay attention to this stuff - one of whom wrote an extensive artical on it) who go buy thiis theory. Also, the lower your stack gets, the less worried about overlay you should be because your option begin to decrease, and as you fall below your opponents it makes it much less likely you will catch up.

Jason75 · #4 (**permalink**) 06-07-2006, 01:19 PM

Beav,

You got a link to the article or know who wrote it?

Beavis68 · #5 (**permalink**) 06-07-2006, 01:24 PM

It was written by William Chen in a newletter Conjelco publishes. I could never find it online.

He does the math in a much more complicated fashion, but I think we get similar answers.

Harrington never really discusses overlay, but I sure he wouldnt have a problem with the concept, Paul Phillips seems to feel similarly.

Think the newsletter was "the intellegent gambler"

Coryan · #6 (**permalink**) 06-07-2006, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beavis68

Pot odds are key, but you dont want break even pot odds, you want some overlay.

Dare I say it? I AGREE WITH BEAV!

Well stated. Too many tournament players don't understand the HUGE difference between a coinflip (less than 10% overlay) and a hand with, say, a 15% overlay. Good post, Beavis.

G_The_Jester · #7 (**permalink**) 06-07-2006, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beavis68

Pot odds are key, but you dont want break even pot odds, you want some overlay.

Say you are a decent player, you have a 55% chance of doubling up before you bust (I say the best player is probably around 60%).
If you consistantly put all your chips in with less than 10% overlay from the pot, you are selling yourself short.

If you have 1500 chips, you would want 1650 (a great player may want 1800) in pot before entering a true 50/50 situation.

If you are passing up spot like this, you are likely overestimating yourself and hurting your chances of finishing big. If you routinely put all your chips in with less than this you are probably selling yourself short, and will not do much better than "average"

of course, this is all mumbo jumbo theory, but there are so pretty bright players (including a few of Sklansky's "ten smartest players" that pay attention to this stuff - one of whom wrote an extensive artical on it) who go buy thiis theory. Also, the lower your stack gets, the less worried about overlay you should be because your option begin to decrease, and as you fall below your opponents it makes it much less likely you will catch up.

This is all very good providing that you play the same buy in tournament value with the same number of players every time ...

However the fluidity of MTT prize funds offsets this standard proposition and must sway the right call / wrong call scenario.

Lets say you normally play the $20 dollar buy in tourneys and you hit your odds with overlay twice consecutively, this got you deep in the prizes.

You then sit in the WSOP from a qualifying seat and sit in the same situation with the same call, surely the end prize has to offset your decision, and the fact you have to get less deep into the prizes to make the same return, especially as now over the term the odds are against you as you hit your 50% twice before and luck will even itself out.

Beavis68 · #8 (**permalink**) 06-07-2006, 01:56 PM

what are the odds of playing correctly and making the money?

what are the odds of folding +EV spots for 5 days and still making the money?

You enter a big 10k tournament with 5000 people. Top 10% pay.
Average stack at the bubble will be 100k blinds will probably be betwee 1k/2 and 2.5k/5k plus ante, you will probably have had to ante and post 20k to 40k in blinds. You only get probably 30 hands per hour. How many opportunities do you think you will have to see better overlay?

Do you want to go out playing good poker, or do you want to sit there, hope the deck slaps you with good hands, hope you get paid off with those good hand, and hope you dont get sucked out when you get action. It wouldnt bet unrealistic to go 2-3 days without seeing AA or KK.

Given your specific bubble hand? Bubble play and in the money play is a little different because you do have real dollar considerations as Jason said. If it were a once in a lifetime WSOP tourney, the pay schedule was very flat for the first few hundred spots, and there were short stacks ready to bust, folding probably wouldn't be far wrong it were wrong at all. In a SnG, it is a definite fold on the bubble.

G_The_Jester · #9 (**permalink**) 06-07-2006, 02:04 PM

OK Beav I said lets not keep this to my specific hand.

If you are a short stack and looking to double back to the average stack then it's a no brainer.

However sitting on an average stack with a lot of play still ahead of you how do you decide whether a fold is correct or not?

If you base it on the final prize then it must be based on your own expectations from the tournament not from a correct play standpoint.

By this I mean if it is correct to fold to continue for a $10m prize fund with your average stack then it must be equally correct to fold for a $100 prize fund.

Beavis68 · #10 (**permalink**) 06-07-2006, 02:10 PM

lets look at an ICM model of a bubble play in a SnG.

you have 5k left in your stack. the CL puts you all in giving you 2:1 on your money.

one player left has 3000 one play left has 500.

You fold, the CL has 10k you have 5k - you equity is 31% of the prize pool

You call and win you have 15k the the CL has 5k - your equity is 41%.

you lose you get 0.

how often do you have to win to make calling better than folding?

31%=42%x x=74% so you even getting 2:1 on the bubble, you have to win more than 75% of the time to have + $EV for going all in.

I guess I didn't read your question correctly.

Bubble play is definetly different.

Given the WSOP example. 2004 225 spots paid, the bottom spots get 10k you have to make it though over half the field more to get to 20k

Hard to argue that doubling up on the bubble is good enough to get you through another half of the field.