Here's a part of Gigabet's (Darrell Dicken) theory on tournament poker. This dude is on an entirely different level. It took me 3 or 4 read throughs to even understand one part of what he's saying.

He began explaining part of his tournament theory after Party ran 2 $15,000 sit'n goes, which Giga won both of them. In one of them, he called 2 all-ins in front of him with Q3. Neither had him covered, but he didn't have a huge stack either. He basically called off half his chips with Q3 preflop.

The most important part of the theory I think is keeping the money to the right of you. Keep the short stacks to the left. Even if you have to raise with J4 and give money to the players at your right, just don't let players to the left have a chance at chips.

His theory is about 20 levels deeper than that, but that's one area I picked up on. Here it is. Feel free to discuss. If you don't know Gigabet, google him.
________________________________________________________________________________________

I just read through the responses of the my last post that was entitled "Theory of Stack Sizes: Hypothetical Response to the Gigabet Dilemma." I thought that I would answer some of the more frequent questions in this post.

Choose Life

To see if I can simplify it for the people who say that it is completely over their head, or those who say it is complete nonsense, I will put together the simplest hypothetical model that I can come up with.

The structure is a HU freezeout with starting stacks of 10,000. The blinds start at 10/20, and double every hour. The first hand of the tournament the button (SB) is dealt two black Aces. The BB is dealt two random cards. The button opens the pot for 100, and then accidentally exposes his hand. The BB sees the two Aces and moves to make the call, but accidentally throws an extra chip in. The dealer sees that the extra chip is over half the original raise, so declares the raise binding.

Now it is the button’s action, he knows that the BB has seen his hand, and the button knows that the BB knows that he knows that the two Aces were seen. So what size of raise should the Button now make?

To simplify the situation, I will assume some things about the two player’s levels of thinking. First, they both are familiar with true pot odds and implied pot odds. Second, they both know that the other is familiar with both types of odds.

With that knowledge, the button raises the pot to 1800 straight. That raise makes it so that no matter what two cards the BB holds, he will be making a mistake to call.

Now it is the BBs action. Should he call?

Your first instinct is probably folding, because you know that you are behind, and it is a big raise. Then your second instinct is to call, because you know that with the size of his raise, he will go broke if he is outflopped. While thinking that, you quickly calculate your odds of outflopping the two aces, and realize that you aren't getting the correct odds to try to outflop the two aces.

Here is where the Gigabet Dilemma comes into effect. Remember that "line" I was talking about? Where is the line at? Right off hand it appears as if it is at 10,000, since both stacks are even, but that is not so. Because the blinds are so insignificant to the size of the two stacks, the line is actually much lower than 10,000. Remember, I said that the line will move if the size of the pot or the size of another stack becomes exceedingly large or exceedingly small relative to the field.

In my mind, I see the line right around 6,500. Because the size of the bet needed to call doesn't fall below that line, and the result of winning gains the BB a new "block," I believe that he should make the call.

In simpler terms, with blinds at 10/20, what is the difference between a stack of 8000 and a stack of 10,000?

For those that still cannot accept a play that results in a long term net loss of chips, let's raise the stakes of this freezeout HU tournament. Originally, I'll say that the buy in is 10,000 dollars for each particapant, which makes the total prize pool 20,000 dollars.

Now let's change the prize pool to...your life. If you win, you live. If you lose, you die.

Now would you call the raise?

The Gigabet Dilemma is a combination of the Lottery Concept and a reverse of Gamblers Ruin.

Gamblers Ruin states that, because you cannot recover from zero, you should avoid taking gambles that have long term postitive expected value, if the result of losing the gamble sets you at zero. If that theory is accepted, wouldn't the reverse of that theory also be true?

If it is a mistake for a person to avoid positive gambling situations, if the result of losing the gamble sets that person to zero, then wouldn't it be correct to offer those situations? I don't believe that this would be a case of both players making a mistake so the field benefits. Because you aren't going below the "line," the lottery concept essentially takes over.

This model is a perfect example of that theory in play. Even though the BB is taking a long term net loss of chips(that doesn't go below the line when called and lost, but creates a new block when won); because the button will be set to zero when he loses the gamble, wouldn't it then be correct to offer(call) the gamble?

Paradox?

One of the more prevalent responses in that last thread pointed out the obvious paradox of me stating that I take certain -ev gambles with loose(meaningless) chips to gain more meaningless(the responses' adjective, not mine) chips. The chips I am willing to lose are meaningless, but when they are added to the chips that I could potentially win, a block is created that has real value in my stack.

Why can't I identify a single chip as having any value? I guess it boils down your position over the rest of the table. Position is used to describe who acts last in an individual hand. Position is something else also, sometimes you are in a very good "position" at the table. Usually when a person makes that statement, they mean that the strongest players at the table are on the players immediate right, and the weakest players are on the players immediate left.

Most of the time, you cannot control where you are sitting relative to the rest of the field. However, with added "blocks" to your stack, you can control where the other players are sitting, relative to you.

I'll explain by reducing a final table of a MTT to pure position, meaning that you have to play the remainder of the tournament out without looking at your hand. Of course the other players do not know that you aren't looking.

In this final table you are chip leader. Because you cannot look at your cards, you get the added bonus of placing the remaining eight stacks wherever you want them. Where would you place those stacks?

Seat 1 - t10,000 (you)
Seat 2 - t3,000
seat 3 - t4,000
seat 4 - t5,000
seat 5 - t6,000
seat 6 - t7,000
seat 7 - t8,000
seat 8 - t9,000
seat 9 - t9,500

Without any knowledge of the players individual abilities, you could say that you have really good position at this final table.

You could fall into this setup of stack sizes, or you could, using your blocks, orchestrate this setup.

People watch me play tournaments that are nearing the end, and convince themselves that, regardless of what people say, I am the biggest donkey that plays the game. They watch me go from chip leader to short stack, and then back to chip leader. Seemingly playing any two cards from any position, behind any amount raised.

I understand that reraising J4 is not going to make me any chips in the long run, but I have an extra block, that will allow me to play through multiple streets. And the fact is, it doesn't matter if the original raiser gets my chips. What does matter though, is that the players behind me cannot have a chance to get the raisers chips.

When I raise UTG with Q2, I understand that I am going to get called and/or reraised by someone behind me too often to make that raise profitable. However, I do not want the players on my immediate left a chance to play marginal hands and pick up chips, whereas, the players who are later to act, can and will play marginal hands against my ep raises, can have my chips. The players directly behind me won't play their marginal hands, not because they fear my ep raise too much, but because of the small chance that I do have a real hand combined with the chance of someone behind them waking up with a hand.

What do I do if I am successful at orchestrating the position of all of the stacks at my table? I sit back and make the standard play and watch the chips flow to the left. It is like a stream blocked by a dam, and I am the dam.

There is nothing in particular that has to be done when that situation arises....it just happens.

Gigabet

lol, true. Give me the aces.

I soooooooo wanna see a replay of those two $15k SNG's that he won...

I see some of his concept it is going to take some studying. Thanks for sharing KK.

Utter genius or crazy man, this is interesting stuff. Another post he made:

is this basically a system for being unpredictable and playing implied odds?

I know I often play -ev for reasonable size bets. A classic example would be a small pair against someone that I am pretty sure has a high pair. I know I can probably take his stack if I hit.

It seems to me like giga is the **** blocker of chips. but on the other hand it is a strategy i willingly employ in tournaments, with the addition of placing the loose opponents to your right i.e. big chips, allowing your game to have free range on the short stacks. and of course i do play more aggressively/loose when i notice my chip stack is average or below average. and confrontations with short stacks generally end up all-in no matter how the cards fall anyways. continuously calling these all-ins does result in a large variance but helps your table image as... an idiot... so you will get called on any all-in good or bad by marginal hands just dont try to bluff.
Tournament strategy at its best play the big pots and pick on short stacks.

-mix

dont think he does it early in a tourney. his post indicated this is how he plays the final table. I dont see how this could possibly work early. By the time you got the players where u want em the table will be closed.

I'm not a genius but I don't see how setting up a table into static positions helps at all due to the fact that the button is constantly moving. Even with the chips on the right and short stacks on the left, any action you make has to withstand a full revolution of the table. The only time you truely have beneficial position is when you're sitting on the button and it's limped around to you. Am I wrong in thinking this? I understand what he is getting at, because he says in theory you want the table to be highest to lowest in chips starting with highest at your right and lowest at your left. In theory this gives you more positions of power, because if the really big stacks limp or fold before you, than you can squeeze out the rest of the short stacks. But how many positions of the button does this add to your arsenal? Aside from sitting on the button and it being folded around or limped to you, I don't see any real benefit from this, because by redistributing the wealth, you probably aren't the biggest stack at the table, and making power plays when there are larger stack yet to act just isn't beneficial, even if the largest stacks are out of the way.

I understand the general idea of this theory, I just fail to see how it all comes together...

Truly amazing concept in my opinion, I would definitely have to agree that this guy here is a genius, if he sticks with it I'm sure we'll see his name on a book sometime soon.

Ninja, the point is that the big stacks will usually have to act before him, and as we all know, position is as important as cards and stack size, if not more so. And with a little luck, he'll get all of the chips from the right.