Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Negreanu Article

Interesting deep-stack poker article that hints at an "online educational program" Negreanu is working on that sounds promising.

Basically, he describes a hand in a 1/2 game with $1K buyins, and how the depth of stacks affects play.

To that end, in lieu of a .5/1 game some Friday night, I would be up for a .25/.5 game with a $200 - $250 buyin. I am still not in favor of making a deep-stack standard with the $100 buyin for WNP as Martin suggested, but occasional forays would be interesting.

15 comments:

Sushi Cowboy said...

I would be all for a deep stack experiment. $250 would be 500xBB just like Negreanu's game. Or we could do .20/.40 $200. Lots of straps on the table.

My fear is that the experiment is going to get muddled by ginormous raises pre-flop and everything just scaling so we end up playing closer to 100-200xBB stacks. Last night I don't know how many times I saw 20 chip pre-flop raises...with multiple callers! I definitely think we need to make adjustments if we keep seeing play like that (like not inviting Yuri ever again...kidding).

Ryan said...

I would say that for the most part, the raises to 20 were:

* By Yuri
* In response to a straddle and a limper or two (i.e., appropriately-sized)
* Me trying to represent a massive tilt raise when actually I had pocket jacks, flopped a set, and still lost to a flush despite my image management working just fine.

Personally, I raise relative to the blinds and current pot size, and I *feel* like most of use do as well, I'm not sure where else you were seeing raises to 20, unstraddled with no or few limpers.

If there were such raises, surely it was a late-session thing, not specifically a "we're deep-stacked" thing.

Still, if the result of being deep-stacked is that people overraise preflop, I'm willing to spend an evening to find that out. And I'll play around it and crush the table for it.

Austin said...

Chuck did it a couple of times, but I think that was mainly because he wanted blinds terribly bad :P.

Ryan said...

Ah, that's right, he did. Well, I don't think he got any callers, whether he wanted them or not.

Bottom line, I don't think a deep-stack night would devolve into 10x BB preflop raises becoming the norm.

Austin said...

So then the question becomes why do it? Just because it adds the extra suspense of the possibility of using the whole stack? Is it because you can't just raise all in and have someone call because you're short stacked? I could be totally off, but it just seems like it would play out the way our normal games do.

Sushi Cowboy said...

I believe either Joe or Royal (I get them confused so often) was open raising for 20 as well.

Sushi Cowboy said...

Austin, I think the article did a good job of giving an example of how super deep stacks changes the play of hands. Negreanu is right, with shallower stacks AA vs KK will likely get all the money in pre-flop...not that would have changed the result in this case. But with deeper stacks there are necessarily more steps that need to be taken to get an entire stack in and much more opportunity for scare cards to show up and for board texture to change.

You can't just push all in pre-flop with KK because either you're only going to be called by someone who has you crushed. You would need to raise, re-raise, re-re-raise, re-re-re-raise etc. and eventually *someone* is going to get the idea that their KK or QQ is no good. Or the person with Aces could then trap once they are sure that the other person has a big pair and wait for a flop that low and clear of both of them to try to get more money after the flop.

Likewise, if you flop TPTK with AK on a K72 rainbow board, you'd be a fool to push all in because you're only going to be called by someone who has you destroyed. Plus you don't want to necessarily chase away all draws because that's how you make money. If everyone who only had a draw folded then most of the pots would be small and be taken down on the flop...boring. I guess the way I see it the main difference is that huge pots will need to go through more intermediate steps and create more interesting play.

Austin said...

I think you and me are saying roughly the same thing Martin. Almost all of those examples you give (aside from the AA vs KK one) differ very little from deep stack versus medium stack.

I guess my main point was that I don't recall too many all in pushes during Tuesday's game, and so my question was if we don't get that many of them in the first place, why change. If you want to eliminate them altogether (or virtually anyway), then that's a whole different matter :).

Sushi Cowboy said...

Think of the difference between the lunch game and TuNP. How often does money get in during lunch compared to night poker? Having mega-stacks would mean a further adjustment to how you manage your stack. You aren't going to get even fewer "what the hell" or pot-committed calls. I just hope that players are still able to make a 7-9 chip pre-flop raise and don't feel like they have to make 20-30 chip open raises which would defeat the purpose.

Marshall said...

I agree with Austin here. I don't think it would change much. I mean we already buy in for 120BB don't we? Thats not exactly short stacked at all, it's pretty deep even. Plus that's only where we start. By mid session, half the players have 240-360BB in front of them, which is plenty deep IMO.

The raises to 20 were rarely or never just 20 cold with no action in front. The reason we are raising to 20 is because of the straddle like Ryan said. With a straddle, and one limper in front of you, there are already 11 chips in the pot. 20 is very appropriate depending on your intent.

The logical and simple adjustment is to raise the limits. I don't think people would be so willy nilly if they had more to lose. But that was voted down and for good reasons, so we have what we have.

Bob Loblaw said...

The first 20-raise pre-flop that I saw at the table on Tuesday (and I arrived 1.25 hours late) was on that fucking hand that Chuck dealt an ace up to Ryan.

Ryan, how much did you pay Chuck to stack the deck like that for you?

Christ. Let's recap. Ryan gets an ace dealt FACE UP to him, so he's given the burn from the top of the deck, as per the rules. He bets 20 into the pot pre-flop when the betting gets to him. Maybe it was straddled, but I don't think it was. I've got QQ. Did I call his 20 bet? Or did I raise pre-flop?

And then the flop: Kxx, and me with my pocket queens, Ryan bets 40? 60? And I ship. How could I be bad? With that Kxx, and Ryan throwing quite a bit at it, what does he have?

He can't possibly have KK based on his pre-flop betting. Why's he going to raise to 20 pre-flop with KK when we all know an ace has been shown, reducing the draw potential of a lone ace. He's going to want some people with A* to call him.

Does he raise to 20 preflop here with AK? Why would he do that? Yet another reason to get more callers with a smaller bet.

And any other K* is too weak a hand for Ryan to bet 20 at pre-flop in this instance. So he's got QQ, JJ, or TT, all of which I'm dominating or chopping. So why not reraise Rayn's strong flop bet?

What's that? He's got AA? Unbefuckinglievable.

99.8% of the people weren't raising 20 pre-flop just for the hell of it.

Ryan said...

I don't know if it was a reraise or a raise after a straddle and some limpers, but I guarantee it was an appropriate raise, not a huge raise out of the blue.

I only overraised to 20 once, when I had JJ and was representing tilt right after losing a monster to Jeh.

Worked like a charm, except for the part where I flop a set and Marsh turns a flush.

Bob Loblaw said...

My point exactly. Your raise to 20 with AA was TOTALLY appropriate, regardless of a straddle or not. Thinking back now, I actually think I was on the big blind here, and Yuri wasn't straddling. I remember saying "But Ryan, this is my first hand of the night", having thrown away the previous two hands.

Sushi Cowboy said...

Well I know it sure makes a difference at the Wynn's 1/3 game where there is no cap at all and some player's bring thousands to the table. The mega-deep stacks can exert a ton of decision pressure on medium sized pots. At that point I think you WANT to be short stacked.

Ryan said...

I am going to echo Martin a bit, but I am compelled to answer, as I think both Austin and Marshall are totally under-appreciating how deep stacks affect the game. First, I think the basic and obvious situation where you are pot-committed with a normal stack but not with a deep stack happens way more often than Marsh and Austin are acknowledging, but it goes much deeper than that (no pun intended).

Does the first hour of WNP play/feel the same as the last hour? No, it doesn't. Part of that is that people change their games as the night goes on, more straddling, more big preflop raises for the heck of it...but it's more than that. It changes because inevitably half the table has monstrously deep stacks.

The presence of multiple monster stacks completely changes the dynamic of the game, and starting the night deep stacked is like starting with the gameplay of late-session WNP. Except even more so, because late at WNP, there are also inevitably some short stacks, and if you are a deep stack heads up against a short stack, you have that feeling of relief that your maximum loss for the hand would be that tiny pile.

Now, imagine *no* short stacks. Every single player has a stack that would make them a monster stack at midnight on a Wednesday.

Austin and Marsh say, basically, "but it would only change a hand in which it would have been an all-in with regular stacks." Untrue. It changes your whole approach (at least, it should), particularly when it comes to implied odds. People play much looser late in a WNP session not just because it's late, but because there are inherently better implied odds in a deep-stack situation, meaning you can justify seeing flops with a much wider range of hands.

How many times have you heard Jason fold preflop, saying, "You're stack isn't big enough to call." He's right, there are times where you fold simply because your opponent doesn't have enough to pay you off with if you hit. Why set mine to a bet of 15 when the raiser only has 50 behind? If he has 600 behind, it's a different story. I fold for that reason all the time, just without the Jason-style commentary.

And the opportunity to make a bold bluff is way different with a deep stack. Let's say you raise it up and I have you on a premium pocket pair, and you bet out on a flop of unconnected rainbow undercards. If we are normal-stacked, my opportunity to steal this pot from you is limited. I know if I put in a raise, you will likely reraise and almost certainly be pot committed, and I will have to give up on my play, so I don't even bother, I fold to your flop bet.

If we are deep stacked, though, I will still have room to make a third raise to represent a true monster, and you will really have to feel good about your read to continue with your overpair after that.

That's a hand that plays out with normal stacks in a way that would make you think, "See? that would be no different deep-stacked," because there was a bet and a fold on the flop. But it could be hugely different deep stacked even though it seemed like a standard, "preflop aggressor bets out on the flop and caller folds" hand.

So, Austin and Marsh, you are seeing it as only changing the action of a normal-stacked hand in which there was an all-in, and if that's the only difference you see, then I definitely want to play deep stack with you, because you are under-thinking it.

One way to run a deep-stack session without putting a ton more money on the table would be to play, say, .10/.20 with $100 buyins, but make a full $100 mandatory, and make add-ons mandatory for up to $200 more whenever your stack falls below $80. Some system that says, "You are committing to investing $XXX in maintaining your deep stack via add-ons. After you have bought in for that total amount, there is no mandatory add-on."