Dispelling a myth - turbos vs normals

There seems to be a view that it is necessary to take either marginal or -EV situations (such as taking the wrong end of a flip early) and/or play more aggressively in any given hand in turbo compared to normal speed SNGs because the blinds increase faster in turbos.

My assertion is - it doesn't matter whether it is a normal or a turbo, all other things (stack sizes, blinds, position, number of opps, reads on opps, your cards etc.) being the same, EV is EV and there is no difference between the correct decision at a turbo and the correct decision at a normal.

Discuss.

There are a few parts to your posts:

I agree you dont want to take EV- situations early. You take EV- situations either when you have no choice because of your M (i.e. you dont expect to have a better situation then this) or when it is worth it to try to knock off an opponent, those are the same in turbo and non turbo.

However there are situations in which you need to play turbo differently then non turbo in a given hand.
One reason is that all things are never equal, and I specifically referring to reads, you never had perfect reads on all players, and in general turbo players are a bit more loose, and you need to adjust their hand range accordingly.

Since turbos have a higher blind increase it means it is in general a shallower stack tournament, and you have less time to wait for big hands, so it is often correct to call in slightly EV+ situations in tournaments when it is correct to fold in normal tournaments in order to ensure survival, there are cases when you fold EV+ situations in turbos as well, but the amount of EV you are willing to give up is different.

It also works the other way around in a sense, since the blinds are slower in normal I may attempt to see flops and sacrifice some chips which I will not in turbo, for example I am CO with 78s, one limper ahead, 9 players all even stacks, blinds 50/100 and about to go up, SB usually completes and BB is tight, I am more inclined to limp it in normal then in turbo

To complement what TLR mentioned. I also open a bit more my pushing hands in a turbo compared to a normal, where you have more time to wait for a better hand/spot.

I think TLR said it best. Conservation is the name of the game in turbos. You can't see that many cheap flops in turbos compared to normal because the blind levels increase so fast. In position, it's ok to limp in after others with scs and pps. pps, IMO, can be limped in the first couple levels from any position. Other than that, you want to play only big hands.

Flicking some chips in here and there, just isn't worth it because before you know it the blinds have hit 50/100 and you now have <1200 stack with 6-7 players left. Not to mention the two chip leaders on your immediate left.

I subscribe to TLR's post almost entirely. Most specifically:

Originally Posted by TLR

Since turbos have a higher blind increase it means it is in general a shallower stack tournament, and you have less time to wait for big hands, so it is often correct to call in slightly EV+ situations in tournaments when it is correct to fold in normal tournaments in order to ensure survival, there are cases when you fold EV+ situations in turbos as well, but the amount of EV you are willing to give up is different.

It also works the other way around in a sense, since the blinds are slower in normal I may attempt to see flops and sacrifice some chips which I will not in turbo, for example I am CO with 78s, one limper ahead, 9 players all even stacks, blinds 50/100 and about to go up, SB usually completes and BB is tight, I am more inclined to limp it in normal then in turbo

Originally Posted by taipan168

My assertion is - it doesn't matter whether it is a normal or a turbo, all other things (stack sizes, blinds, position, number of opps, reads on opps, your cards etc.) being the same, EV is EV and there is no difference between the correct decision at a turbo and the correct decision at a normal.

From another post:

Originally Posted by |~|ypermegachi

Originally Posted by Xioustic

That being said, +EV plays will always be correct. I know this has been repeated but it should be emphasized, +EV plays are correct because they are +EV.

only if you're using the definition of +EV which spans the entire SnG. if you are only referring to the EV of one particular hand, then i think you're wrong.

It is my hypothesis that the span (length) of the entire SnG changes when the blinds increase faster, and thus +EV decisions for a particular hand can be incorrect if you take into account the fact you'll more than likely get a better spot to make your chips. This factor changes based on the number of hands you're dealt before the game gets to the push/fold level.

With what context do you use EV? Are you talking about hand EV or tournament EV?

Turbos are regular SNG's that don't take as long.

The link below is a dispute between an author called Arnold Snyder and Mason Malmuth. Basically, Snyder wrote a book called The Poker Tournament Formula and in it he says that you must play fast in fast tournaments. Malmuth's contention is that the speed of a tourney doesn't matter how you play. There's a lot to read but it's interesting.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...=7#Post6585664

I still contend +EV plays do not change as when the blinds go up next do not become a factor. So +EV plays are still +EV plays regardless of if it's a turbo or normal or not.

But like Hypermegachi in the post I quoted above, I argue that a +EV move can be incorrect if it's not +EV spanning the entire SnG (for example, taking unnecessary risks early on by taking marginal, riskier +EV plays in a normal speed game). +EV, when taken into the context of the full span of a SnG, is dynamic to the speed at which the tournament moves because the span becomes shorter at a turbo.

A marathon is still a marathon whether or not it's 100 miles or 150 miles. You'll still have to pace yourself with the same strategy (don't use up all your energy before you finish). However, your pace will be different in the two marathons because the length of the two differs by 50 miles. SnGs are marathons, and thus not about a single marginal +EV hand. In the same way you sprint and use up all your extra energy as the race comes to a close, you will make more marginal +EV plays as the tournament comes to an end more quickly.

Im with Tai on this.

Once you work out your $EV for a play, you make it if it is positive END. No matter what version of poker you are playing. For mathematical insight into why this is true read my post "Poker is totally Mathematical", stickied in the beginners section.

Now the calculation for what play is +$EV may differ from turbos to standard in some of the ways TLR suggested. But that is a question of using all the different factors of the game to construct some kind of "model" for what is +$EV.

Im afraid that once you work out the best $EV play (however you choose to do it), then not making it is completely wrong, without question.

Lets take an example
Blinds 50/100 8 players, each with a stack of 1500, you are in UTG+1, UTG folds and you have 88, your move ?
I would argue that assuming the blinds are 50/100 and they raise every 10 minutes, and this is the 1st hand of this blind level I can justify folding here, and maybe even limping.
No assume blinds double every hand.
Next hand you are UTG blinds are 100/200
SB: blinds are 200/400
BB: blinds are 400/800
so in 3 hands your you are in the BB for half your stack and you are forced to play.
In this case 88 from UTG is autopush for me.

what is your point?

The $EV calculation is subjective anyway. I'm arguing that once you have worked out your $EV for a move, you must make the mathematical play.

If you judge your $EV to be negative in the first example then folding is absolutely right for you.

IF you define EV as 'I take into account all factors, including the probability of future hands according to the blinds structure' we have no arguement, however EV usually refer to the specific hand played, without taking into consideration future hands

Each hand, when viewed individually, is a story written by betting patterns that help us to decern the likely holdings of our villain. Read any of the many posts in FTR forums to see this in action.

Our actions over a tourney also write a story. To ignore this story is just as it is foolish to ignore the story within an individual hand. This is very apparent during heads up play when the two players have little or no holdings for the majority.

With reasonable M's this can be a pure psychological battle. Whether or not a move is EV within the individual hand or play can be over ridden by the story it can write or the story that has been written.

Personally with this EV idea that I have struggled with I realised the other day that what other tools can you use if you are multitabling 4+ turbo tournaments? Given an HUD, reduced reads compared to 1-tabling the main tool can only be a good knowledge of ICM if the aim is $/hour.

Whether or not a move is +EV within a hand is not affected by tourney speed as you are assessing possible outcomes of the individual hand, what is important is using the correct information to evaluate EV. I also disagree that every +EV move has to be accepted because poker is a game without complete or 100% correct information. The answer to EV calculations results in a guide or an indicator and should never be assumed to be 100% correct.

Originally Posted by TLR

IF you define EV as 'I take into account all factors, including the probability of future hands according to the blinds structure' we have no arguement, however EV usually refer to the specific hand played, without taking into consideration future hands

EV is YOUR expected value of a decision based on your judgements of your probability of winning chips converted by some means into a $ value. I use ICM but it may not be best.

your probabilities can and should take all things into account

'your probabilities can and should take all things into account'

Poker is a game with incomplete information therefore it is impossible to take all things into account.

Originally Posted by MuddyWicket

'your probabilities can and should take all things into account'

Poker is a game with incomplete information therefore it is impossible to take all things into account.

i'd consider lack of information to fall under the umbrella of all things.

Originally Posted by MuddyWicket

'your probabilities can and should take all things into account'

Poker is a game with incomplete information therefore it is impossible to take all things into account.

hence you summarise all your uncertainty in the form of probabalistic judgement. There is no such thing as an inherent "TRUE" probability for anything. It is just a measure of uncertainty.

Note that if it was a game of perfect information then you would never lose as you would not be acting under uncertainty and could always put money in when you knew you would win.

So you put your uncertainties into a formula then you obey it blindly and without question? Regardless of how strong an indication the answer is? If the answer is marginal you will continue regardless of any risk?

You will always have risk. Push your edges.

Sprayed I agree but you didnt answer the question.

Originally Posted by MuddyWicket

So you put your uncertainties into a formula then you obey it blindly and without question? Regardless of how strong an indication the answer is? If the answer is marginal you will continue regardless of any risk?

what exactly are you asking? whether we should continue when given a +EV decision? i don't see how the answer can ever be no (in the sense of overall EV, not vacuum EV)

Originally Posted by MuddyWicket

So you put your uncertainties into a formula then you obey it blindly and without question? Regardless of how strong an indication the answer is? If the answer is marginal you will continue regardless of any risk?

yes

'in the sense of overall EV, not vacuum EV'

Maybe I am thinking people are discussing vacuum EV. i.e. the details regarding a single hand taken as a single instance and put in a vacuum when in fact they are discussing a more meta global EV. (or they are in fact confusing the two and confusing me!).

Given that it is then possible to be -EV in a vacuum but have meta/global +EV and vice versa? (theoretically).

Originally Posted by MuddyWicket

'in the sense of overall EV, not vacuum EV'

Maybe I am thinking people are discussing vacuum EV. i.e. the details regarding a single hand taken as a single instance and put in a vacuum when in fact they are discussing a more meta global EV. (or they are in fact confusing the two and confusing me!).

Given that it is then possible to be -EV in a vacuum but have meta/global +EV and vice versa? (theoretically).

EV in a vacuum????

The point is that all your aversions to risk are taken into account in the EV calculation. So once you find the optimal decision you take it, without question.

EV may be a mathematical formula but the probabilities in the calculation are utterly subjective and are different for everyone.

Please read this: http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...=472170#472170

It goes into more details about the EV calculation.

I've read it and it is a very good post.

I've just re-read HHII and in there is an example which might help.

Its his 10:1 rule, if the stack pushing into you has less than 10% of your stack then call with any two cards. In this example he calls with j3 off suit - which he loses. In a vacuum or in isolation this move was -EV or -chip EV.

He then explains in the book that everyone thought he had gone crazy and as a result of this he wins a lot chips back on the basis of this move and his new image. Therefore in tourney EV the move was positive.

In a vacuum or in isolation this move was -EV or -chip EV

Guys, I keep seeing comments like this. Calling getting 5/1 on a flush draw may cost you chips IN ISOLATION, but this does NOT mean your play was -EV. EV is expected value over time, not the current value of your play.

You can't spend Sklansky dollars, but you can and must earn them, or you should EXPECT to be broke.

Great post Tai

I give up.

Well done for understanding the simplist level of pot odds.

Tai sorry for messing your thread.