warning this post is going to be even longer than usual. I need to explain the “WHY” behind the method, otherwise you probably won’t understand. If you don’t care about the why, go ahead and skim through most of the first part… without further ado here is part 4.
“I’m All in” Possibly the most overused phrased in poker.
Note, this is not to be confused with putting an opponent who has fewer chips all in. It’s okay if you have a big chip stack and you are putting other players all in, you know that even if you’re called, you’ll still have plenty of chips to work with. Obviously if you have a big hand with little chance of being outdrawn and you are going to get called by someone with less chips, you will strongly consider using the all in.
Amateurs love to put all their chips on the line.; Then again, as an amature it makes sense that they would want to take a risk because they don’t know what they’re doing and if they try to do anything else, they’re going to be committing themselves in bad spots anyways, or giving up too many chips as they blind down to nothing.
But then again, there are so many players that are too good to be using the all in so frequently. They have skill, but consider poker more luck than it is. In addition, there are plenty of players that wait too long for an all in, as well as there are those that put their chips in too quickly.
So how in the world can you determine how to adjust and recognize when to put all of your chips on the line?
You have to look at the tournament structure, as well as your skill over your opponents. Doing so can be difficult, especially if you are someone that really moves chips around. Generally the better you are, the more your survival is worth. It’s also true that your chips are worth more if you are more skillful, since you can use your chips more effectively as weapons than most of your opponents.
This paradox is the reason for several arguments on whether it’s better to get a lot of chips early, or late. I believe it’s better to get chips whenever you can without risking more than you have to, while still considering the impact doing so might have in the future.
But I generally don’t believe it’s right to risk your entire survival early for only .05% of the total amount of chips. Picture everyone starts with a small army of soldiers. Would you, when outnumbered 1000 to 1, go on an all out attack with everything you have early to capture enemy soldiers, and continually risk your soldiers life? Or would you wait until the moment was right, use some of your top soldiers to snipe out the enemy with tranquilizers, then drag them in as your own soldiers waiting until you silently grew a force, and then when the opportunity was right when the battles were larger (blinds higher) ambush a lot of soldiers a few times gain a force and dominate from there on? Why risk an all out attack when you may not need to?
Regardless the question remains, how do you know based on your skill and tournament structure when to go all in?
Foretunately there have been people that have already thought all of this through. The first person is (Paul?) McGrill), he invented “M” the term used for how many rotations are left. Dan Harrington made this popular in his book Holdem on Harrington (voumes 1, 2 and 3). The problems with M were noted by a man going by the pen name of Arnold Snyder. and can be seen here(link). To summerize, Everyone who uses “M” is making a big mistake because the tournament is usually much faster than that, especially in turbo and online structures. If you think you have 50 rotations left for example, you will be suprised to realize you really have a lot fewer than that as the blinds rise and the tournament goes by much quicker than you can handle.
Although I believe Snyder has greatly advanced this concept, I however, have additional problems with Snyder’s solution. In his more recent book (the sequel) hehe concludes that “true M” is not as important. But there’s a reason for that. Snyder’s solution involves the “true M” but this does not account for one’s ability to pick up chips, or your need for chips in order to gain more chips.
Snyder’s method might be closer in theory to accurate, but “M” as shown by Harrington, is probably closer to correct at least for a player like him(Harrington). The reason is, what happens when the player is super tight the blinds go up, there are a few limpers and NOW Harrington might make a big raise? He gets away with a big steal, that he might normally not be able to win without a tight image. Everything he lost by folding can be made up for in one hand without much of a hand, and you wouldn’t have that advantage without the tight image, and without the skill to recognize the perfect situation.
As the blinds go higher, Harrington will be able to continue to accumulate chips, even though if put “on autofold” he would not be able to pick up a very strong hand as the “M” might indicate. The number of rotations he will have left is based on IF he folded every hand. The problem is, he will not fold every hand until he goes into “all in or fold mode” which will happen much later in the tournament. Snyder admits that Harrington doesn’t play like the player he characterizes as a “Harrington bot” I would agree, but I think Harrington’s M is “accidentally right” for him in some situations. Harrington has simply laid his foundation of play, but he does not mention that when he spots weakness he will go after it. Harrington in his book, even said that a good player will not stick to the conservative style, but the style he outlines is mostly the conservative style in his book. The reason Harington is “accidentally right” is because his M works for him. Harrington has the ability to pick up chips, and a lot of them at that, so even though his “true M” is often much lower and requires much greater risk, because of his ability to pick up so many chips, his “true M” is irrelevant.
Say his “M” is 18, indicating he has 10 rotations left at the current blind levels. His “true M” by Snyder’s definition is only 5 indicating he has 5 rotations left before he blinds down considering the blinds will be raising. BUT, what if every single player at his table was so weak that he/she folded unless they had AA or KK, and Dan raised every single hand and folded to every reraise? He would in reality have an infinite number of hands left, so long as his ability to pick up chips stayed high.
So skill NEEDS to be a major factor in calculating the strategy IF one is to use a form of “M” or “true M” as Snyder introduces as a strategy to determine just how long you really can wait before you blind down. Otherwise Snyder is correct in that M and “true M” are mostly useless. An “all in or fold” strategy would be the only spot you would use M or true M if you didn’t account for skill, and in that case, true M would be more accurate. So a new term is born. “Adjusted M” is the term to refer to how the true m is adjusted for skill to estimate the true number of hands left before a player will have to be all in.
Now the thing about this “adjusted M” is that if you account for skill, theoretically you could steal the blinds once per rotation and never blind down to completely nothing. But the reason we must not allow this is that in reality you will be forced to move all in to pick up the blinds, and you will be going into all in or fold mode eventually. You cannot steal the blinds with 3 big blinds left. So we will not base it off of how many hands till zero big blinds are left, but instead until under 20 big blinds. In my opinion, once it gets there, the same strategy just won’t play because many moves are unavailable, and a few raises gone bad at that point will put you in all in or fold mode anyways. If you let it go too much beyond there, you will get trapped and soon a double up will finally allow you to play a few hands, only for you to find that the blinds raise and suddenly you’re in the same spot you were or worse. If you want to keep your ammunition, you must stay above this point. This is where Snyder’s insight really is great to understand. His whole concept of pushing ahead of the blinds by using “true M” is spot on at this point, or even slightly before it. However the best players in the world will usually not get to this point as quickly as Snyder indicatres in his formula, while the worst players will probably get to that point much quicker. So that’s why the adjusted M is best!
So what happens when we get to 20 big blinds? We then assume that we go into all in or fold mode and we blind down to nothing. In other words, we use “adjusted M” until we get down to 20 big blinds (or whatever number you choose that works for you in which you go into all in or fold mode). From that point on, we use the true M. It makes perfect sense, you play with all your skill and are able to maintain your lead ahead of the blinds, then as the blinds go up and start to catch up to you, your skill is limited. Once you hit 20 big blinds, then you don’t attempt a blind steal. You might play superior cards, but it’s best that you assume if you raise you’re willing to go all in with that hand. So now we determine how many TRUE hands are left based on Snyder’s chart.
The “adjusted M” until we have 20 big blinds left plus the “true M’ will give us the real number we want. I shall call this “Mavricks left” or “mavs” for short. This number will be a MUCH more accurate estimation of how many hands left we can REALLY expect before we are all in if we do not change our strategy. This will give us a MUCH better number to deal with, when determining just how long we can wait before accepting an all in. We will be able to use that number towards a calculation that will help us better assess when waiting for the best hand is worth it, and when waiting for that point will provide such a low edge that it’s better to take on more risk by “making moves” that we wouldn’t normally make. Sometimes the field is easy and taking a risk isn’t at all neccesary, and on rare occasion, you can go an entire tournament without being all in more than once or twice, and sometimes not at all… BUT, other times, the biggest risk is not taking one.
That’s what IRC is about. Risks that although are profitable in terms of chips, simply aren’t worth it for a player of high skill who will be able to find enough low risk high reward situations. They can pass up profitable opportunities in the name of securing their survival, which they will use to pick up more chips when they otherwise may have been walking home. Once the blinds are larger, a single hand will earn them much more chips anyways, which they will then be able to use if conditions dictate, to pick up a lot more chips.
0
The better a player’s skill and the slower the structure, the better hand that player can ultimately wait for before being willing to risk an all in, (IF he decides that is the optimal thing to do* ).
=
4b?
Enter the IRC Tournament formula…
Thanks to a spreadsheet based on the blind structure, and works from Harrington and Snyder, I have been able to come up with a new and improved spreadsheet. In it, you must estimate how many big blinds per rotation on average you will be able to accumulate. This can be difficult, especially for a conservative style player like Harrington who will fold for several rotations, come up with a big steal, and the blinds have increased so although he picks up fewer blinds overall than he paid, he still may have increased his chip stack. Through several tournaments, every hour or half hour you could just keep track of how many chips you have. From there you will be able to figure out your “average skill factor”. In reality the skill factor will likely be skewed for many players, but it will be easier to just assume you earn chips on a consistant basis PER every rotation, even if you don’t earn any for awhile until you get in a big pot. That doesn’t mean it’s neccesarily right, but unless you know calculous and are willing to do the math required to find a more perfect model, you’re going to have to just make an assumption. Even if this assumption is wrong, it will still bring you closer to an optimal strategy than the assumptions that people are making already (M, true M, etc).
Once you figure out your “skill factor”, you can plug it in the spreadsheet. Now there’s a spot that might be different for everyone, but you should be able to identify a spot when you can no longer continue to pick up chips consistantly without moving all in. Identify this point, and now you will plug the numbers into Snyder’s tournament formula spreadsheet (found at Http::/// ). And the end result will allow you to figure out how many hands you have remaining based not only on the tournament structure, but also based on your own skill.
It’s certainly not perfect, as it may be more optimal to steal more cautiously early and aggressively later when the blinds are big, and it is also going to result in a strategy that is not perfect. In addition, there’s so many other factors like whether or not your opponent has you outchipped and how many “mavs left” he has, and how he plays based on that. There are other things to consider. For example,the strategy might have you waiting for JJ or better as it may very well be the best hand you will see. While this is true, if you get JJ on the first hand, it’s has MUCH less valuable than if you get it after you have accumulated a lot of chips. An elite player might see JJ as a clear fold to many all in situations early, but not later when they have fewer big blinds. In addition, if you do not follow this to a tee, and instead use it as a “rule of thumb” you may find that although the chart says you have the beest hand you are probably going to get, you simply know you’re beat and need to fold and accept a situation later on.
However, until there is a more perfect model, this is perhaps the most powerful information you could ever get your hands on, especially when used in combination with chip utility theory as discussed in Arnold Snyder’s book. I thought about NEVER revealing this information, but hey, if my site should become so popular that everyone knows it, I will benefit from it anyways, if not, I still will be able to use it for my own success. Most likely, enough people will not consistently use it enough to prevent me from being a profitable tournament player. I hope that someone will also help me out just a little bit on how to advance this even further if you have any ideas. Although it provides the true number of hands based on skill and all other things considered, I still am not entirely sure how to make this information more optimal.
There are other issues. The problem with just saying, “okay you have 100 hands left, that means you will see the top 1% of hands once on average” is that just because you see that hand, doesn’t mean anyone will call you. So if you are waiting to get your money in with the top 1% of hands (aces), you could end up being disapointed. So you should adjust it to how often they’ll call an all in, and the equity you gain when they fold.
In addition, you need ALL of the chips to win, and that would require multiple double ups, which complicates things. It’s also going to be incorect when you might be say on the bubble and you have a slightly less than double up hand. The “mavs left” would indicate a fold. However, I disagree a lot in this spot because if you don’t take it, when the bubble bursts your table is going to be in all in mode, and you will be unable to exploit your edge, and soon forced into an all in with the same hand anyways, but this time with less chips, and more players to act that could have a better hand. If you would go all in on the bubble, you’ll bust out maybe 45% of the time, but when you win, you’ll stand such a better chance at finishing deep in the tournament that you’ll make MUCH more money this way in a normal payout structure.
However, it is not a winner take all, so in some situations, there may actually be more money associated with blinding down and waiting for a slightly better hand kowing that you still have about the same chance to win, but a much better chance of securing more money. Say you’re 6th with 6 people left and 2 big chip leaders evenly matched in chips go all in. You have 3 big blinds. You have such little chance at advancing, that you have a much greater chance at getting more money by folding any single hand here, even aces. The reason is the chance of both of those players getting a split pot is much less than your chance of winning with aces, even if you knew one of them had ace king and you had them absolutely dominated.
And of course there are so many intangibles that it cannot measure, like how other people handle situations above, but that’s poker, and that’s why even if I give this information, they’ll be so much more room to advance my ideas farther, and get better anyways.
But the biggest problem with this method is that you may be a bigger postflop favorite than you would be all in with aces preflop if you play a lot of hands after the flop. So it’s a preflop strategy which is much less sophisticated, and leaves a smaller edge than if you would get your money in after the flop. So at a table that is passive that allows you to see a lot of flops and is willing to call an all in, you will probably be able to find a greater edge than being all in preflop with aces.
If there were a way to estimate based on your play (and this same concept) how many flops, turns, and rivers, you would see, with what hands, you could determine a more accurate assesment of the best hands that you will actually see, but that requires much more work, and still would be just a guess. That doesn’t mean the assumption would be wrong, and in fact it would be much closer to optimal poker. But people are so far away from optimal play in tournaments that it’s insane. Sure they may know optimal cash game play, and optimal preflop game, but that is not optimal for tournament play. It’s just that I have not done the work, and once I do, it still requires guessing and you will need a lot of experience guessing based on the situation before you can even gain an edge by using that method.
The IRC method currently uses general guesswork to use as a rule of thumb, and from the numbers, you should be able to assess the situation and determine if you should be more willing or less willing to take on risk in an all in… Generally you might assume that at a certain table you will be able to get action say 1/3rd of the time. If this is the case, then lets say you have 120 hands left. Now rather than waiting for 1/120 or the top .83% of hands, you’ll have to be willing to go with the top 1/40 or top 2.5% of hands. Personally I would skew this slightly toward a better hand when making my guess because I have less chips early and later on players will be more desperate so my hand is more likely to be good later. I’m going to readjust this number as the tournament goes on anyways, so I’d rather take the survive early (while accumulating chips), and then take a chance later. If I don’t get called, I’ll win more, and if I do get called and lose early, I’ll miss the opportunity to exploit my skill and get a lot of chips.** The top 1/40 is probably the best hand you can expect to get all in with AND get called. So if you have 90 hands left, consider that 3/90 (1/30) or roughly 3.3% of hands is the best hand you will be able to get all in.
Since it’s not a winner take all, and because using your skill throughout a tournament will result in more chips, basically you want to play for a very high percentage chance of surviving deep. Ironically you will actually end up taking a lot more risks as you get deeper, because you get to a certain point in a tournament where it is most profitable to either A) bust out, or B) get a huge amount of chips that you can use to dominate the table and get in position to win… confused yet?
Lets say you have 1000 chips early, now moving all in with ace ace will take you to 2000 80% of the time. plus the dead money in the pot I’ll expect to have 1800 chips or gain 800 chips from that move. Now if you would have taken that all in, you might have 14,000 chips much later on in the tournament, instead of just 13,000. Of what significance is that 1,000 to your survival? Very little, and it’s also of very little significance to the next double up. It’s only people that push every single edge that should push those big edges.. Now what if it is late in the tournament and I have a 55% chance of winning. If I win here I’ll double up from 13,000 to 26,000. I’ll do that 55% of the time I’ll expect to get 14300 or gain 1300 chips. So the truth is, getting it all in with a 55% chance of winning late in the game may actually have more value than an 80% chance of a double up early on in the game. Someone with adequete skill will be able to advance much deeper a very high percentage of the time. Now for someone that gets to 26,000 they’re in just as much position to win as someone who had 14,000 and got his second double up to get to 28,000. The difference is, the person all in once has a 44% of survival, while the person all in once has a 55% chance of survival. Would you risk a 11% chance of elimination for only a couple big blinds when you have tons of chips left? That’s what many people end up doing throughout the course of a tournament by trying to double up early and often.
I have ran several different hypothetical payout structures and situations, throughout the tournament based on various skill factors and passing up situations, and I find generally waiting until longer not only gives you a better chance at finishing deep, but also winning, and there is more equity in doing so. What I cannot factor in is the pyschology, as well as the utility you gain from taking more risks early***.
You will have to learn to determine this on your own. If you get more chips, you will be able to speculate on drawing hands longer, use implied odds to greater advantage, and use information bets, and calls in situations with less chips you would have to either move all in, or fold. However, as a shorter stack, you gain the advantage of having better pot odds and making your opponents think they are pot committed into calling you, and in addition, you gain the ability to be isolated with more dead money in the pot than a large stack because people will call you trying to knock you out, and then one player will decide he thinks his hand is better than yours and isolate you with a huge all in. If you had a bigger stack, you wouldn’t get called by these extra players, and you actually would also miss out on some value. As a short stack these things can make it easier for you to get back in the game.
In some cases, opponents make assumptions that because you have a lot of chips that you must have bluffed and they will actually call you down and play back at you too, so if you expect one thing and get the other, it could actually have a negative effect. These are just things to consider… ignoring them would result in a flawed strategy, so I feel I must address them.
+-
Now in part 4a,b? I said you would also adjust your hands that you raise with as well as the amounts, based on your number of chips. That’s where this hand range comes into play. You have the top 1/30 hands in this example which will be calling an all in, or raising or moving all in but not getting called, this group of hands is what you will want to make a raise where you can get your opponent pot committed. However, MOVING all in, is different than pushing all in. I think you can push with TWICE the amount of hands than you would call with. You have the possibility that your opponent folds, but also, if you pushed with only AJ, AQ, and AK for example, your opponent could not call and expect to have the best hand with AJ or AQ. AQ on average will break even. He can only call with AK (or of course a pair). So you can plan on getting your opponent pot committed (putting in a bet where if he reraises you can get him committed to the hand with the range of hands as calculated. But multiply that percentage by 2, and that’s you range for actually PUSHING all in with.
-+
Up next comes the argument of when it’s better to make some all in moves without much of a hand so that you either are more likely to get action when you do have a hand, or you at least are able to come up with some chips that will allow you to prolong your life.
Now comes the fun and interesting part about the IRC method… Sometimes, making big all in moves, and certain plays without much of a hand is going to be a betttter bet. This one is tough to prove and tough to execute. When your skill level dictates that your all in will only give you a small edge, you will have to make moves. It will be worth it to come up with plays to prolong your tournament life, so that you can find a bigger edge, nd it is sometimes worth the risk of elimination to put yourself in a position to have a better chance at finishing DEEp rather than just squeezing in. As I have learned after reading Poker tournament Formula 2, it will also provide you with utility, which allows you to use your chips as a weapon.
-
*based on his chip utility he may find there are situations where getting more chips in order to use to bully opponents in certain situations is worth taking the risk of elimination with a worse hand, because ultimately it will allow him to avoid being all in again after the first one, since his opponents will allow him to pick up more pots, while also giving him a better chance at winning. The desired result is to never be all in, but the player that is honest with himself and recognizes he most likely will need to be all in a few times, will then make a decision based on utility.
(For more information on utility read Snyder’s 2nd book. Poker Tournament Formula 2.)
**on the other hand, if I don’t take this chance, I may also miss out on opportunites as well, so I will need to factor in how bad I need chips given the circumstances and how worth it is for me to get them, along with how many hands I have left to wait if I do not, and several other factors.
*** Although I could attempt to try to define values for the utility, that would only be guess work, so although I urge you to always consider it, and read PTF2 so you understand what the F I’m talking about, for simplicities sake, it’s better that we find a profitable method that can clearly be numerically defined, and that you can have consistent results with to lower your varience and better protect your bankroll, and then for those that choose, allow you the flexibility to decide for yourself when to deviate.