david stephany

You explained something I've been thinking about for a long time too. Though I don't think it requires a bunch of all ins. In particular, as you pointed out, at key points where we can gain a lot of stack utility that is useful to have for the stage of the tourney I think there is some merit to what you're saying. 

It's difficult to quantity, because if we are on the same page, and I think we are, part of the calculation needs to factor in the skill edge you have. In particular, at around M14-22 (30-50 bigs) there is a more pronounced skill edge awarded to the better players. Between opens, cbets, 3 bets, x/raises and 4 bet decisions for example, the pro is going to make much better +EV decisions than the standards donks in the MTT. These small amounts of continued extra EV compensate for the initial lost EV by making a marginal call at an opportune moment to accumulate a bunch of chips that as you said, offer more utility. If you opt to 'play it safe' you often leave yourself short and have 0 skill edge. A monkey can jam correctly these days.

More specifically, and being results orientated, I had a hand recently where a somewhat aggressive player made a fairly deep jam and I held QKoff. when I used equalab, I think the call was marginal maybe a percent or 2 negative. But rather than fold (arguably correctly and preserve my stack) I knew If I folded I'd be getting short, think it was around M9, with a blind increase imminent, and my skill edge would be soon diminished and my tourney life up to the vengeful poker gods. However by taking the hand (he had AJ I think it was), when I doubled I crippled the only other decent player on the table and gained a significant stack which I was able to leverage effectively in many spots and ultimately won the tourney. 

I've worked extensively with poker snowie and a lot on equilibrium ranges, GTO and in MTT theory. I don't think I've even seen something address this concept you have brought up - If I had more time I would look further into it. I do believe although it can sound a bit fishy, especially to a cash game player, there is more going on than meets the eye in this area you bring up... 

Good smooth flow with great logical breakdowns James. Have a question tho, at 34:45 you quickly say 22 is a fold despite having our aggro friend opening utg and getting 22:1 implieds in position. 

Then at 38:07 you say you would at least just call with the 66 facing the aggro player again this time 3 betting from sb and getting 15:1 implieds. 

I thought you were quite quick to dismiss a call with 22 and wanted to know your thoughts on why? Was it simply that with the 66, HU, we close out the action and face a strong likelihood of him following up his 3 bet pre with post flop aggression and a good chance to dbl? As opposed to the 22 where we still have players behind that could squeeze and aggro guy might see less need to go after a single raised smaller pot oop?

Brilliant video. To the point with no BS and very good hand breakdowns, with some interesting spots. 

Yeh I think you make really good points Russ. Also I agree with "I think they should perceive the other player with a big stack to shove lighter because of the knock out opportunity" could alter a range slightly. 

The thing I was really wondering though was kinda why no mention was really made of fold frequencies only get in ranges? I would surmise he prob 3 bets 20% there? I mean, aggressive player stealing form late and an ideal 3 bet size? 

Let's say for simplicity he 3 bets 22.5% of the time but as Jason says only calls off with 7.5% (AJ+77+)

V that range we only have 30% equity. The pot would be 10962 total, and with our 30%eq we return 3288.6 from that. But get in the effective stack of 5306 so make a lose of -$2017 to our total overall stack (EV in that situation)

But if he is 3 betting 22.5 % but only getting in 7.5%, he folds 66% of the time and we pick up the dead money (gain to stack of 1993 in pot - our 424 contribution = 1035.5) (increase to our stack in that situation, EV)

So 33% we get in, 0.33 x -2017 = -665

And 66% he folds, 0.66 x 1035.5 = 683.43

So I would have thought

raising then folding EV = -424

raising then 4 bet jamming v his likely 3b range = 18.4+EV the best option? Also we get $EV from KO? 

Does this EV calculation look right? 

I think for folding to be the best option we have to assume he is 3 betting very honestly? Especially with $EV KO as a bonus, though I wouldn't know where to start to factor that in... 

Does that look right? 

Also if he just shoves do we call? Coz Jason was very adamant it would be a small pair <77. Although it's an unexploitable re-steal, it's obviously not balanced whatsoever. And I think makes it an easy call then given the dead money already out there and out predictable 46% eq + KO bonus? 

Great vid guys really enjoyed it looking forward to the next one! 

The first A9o at around 3mins I don't really see how you create such a narrow range for villain. Isn't his 3bet stat 10%? And your aggro and raising late - It's probably much wider? 

So I'm guessing your talking about his get in range - Which we don't do great against but don't you need to calc the % you pick up when he folds and the % eq when we get stacks in from jamming and calculate the overall EV rather than just seeing we have 32% V a likely get in range there?  

I think the combination of him folding a ton, the increased $EV from knockout prize when we get him, makes this much closer than discussed.... Thoughts?