Dara O'Kearney (Satellite Specialist) - Ask Me Anything about satellites/knockouts
Dara OKearney
Poker Pro
Silver Level
Hi, again apologies for the delay replying, I was giving the wsop my full attention.
This is an interesting spot. With the one big blind stack being so short, it's almost the same as a bubble spot. These are spots where you are supposed to shove super wide in theory, but can only do so in practise if the players you shove into are playing optimally (and most crucially know how tight they have to call off). In theory, you can shove any two here, because the BB is supposed to fold 96.8% of the time (he needs 88+ to call). If you run the numbers your actual hand makes little or no difference: shoving 22 makes you 6.06% of the value of a seat long term, shoving aces is only worth an extra 2% or so, and shoving 72o makes you 5.92%
This illustrates that your actual hand makes little or no difference: the crucial thing is the bb calling range. Let's imagine he's not very ICM aware and is going to call off 44+, Ax, K6, Q6s, Q8o, JTo, J8s, T9s. Suddenly we can only shove 9.5% of hands, 88+ A8s+ A9o+, and shoving 22 loses us over 4% of the value of the prize.
There's an entire section in "Poker Satellite Strategy" we call "Adjusting for imperfections" on these types of adjustments you have to make: they make a massive difference to your bottom line in satellites.
Thanks for the question!
Dara OKearney
Poker Pro
Silver Level
Sorry, I have no idea on this. I find the ACR software very confusing myself: their support are probably the best people to talk to
Dara OKearney
Poker Pro
Silver Level
No idea, sorry. Amazon seem to change the pricing constantly and it's not something within our control as far as I know. It's worth keeping an eye out to see if the price comes down again I guess.
Thanks for your question
Dara OKearney
Poker Pro
Silver Level
Dara OKearney
Poker Pro
Silver Level
Dara OKearney
Poker Pro
Silver Level
Dara OKearney
Poker Pro
Silver Level
To GTO or not to GTO
I think it's very useful, but not the be all and end all. My interest in GTO started when I worked out (from first principles) my own push/shove charts based on what I perceived to be the calling ranges of my opponents in the stts that were my main online game at the time. These calling ranges changed over time (what we call population tendencies now) so every so often I would go back to recalculate the new shoving ranges based on the changes I perceived. After a few iterations of this I realised there must be an endpoint (I didn't know the terms GTO or Nash equilibrium at the time) that shoving and calling ranges converged to.
Flash forward a few years and the biggest problem I identified in my own game as I moved up stakes was that against truly elite players, I felt I was getting exploited. So I started looking at the whole GTO thing again in areas other than push/fold as a defensive strategy.
These days I tend to revert to my approximation of GTO against players I perceive to be much better at the levelling and adjustment game than myself, and against players I know nothing about. For players I do feel I have a read on their weaknesses, I focus more on thinking about how best to exploit those weaknesses. But even here, knowing GTO is useful as a baseline from which to adjust.
In satellites, as anyone who reads "Poker Satellite Strategy" will know, this is very much my approach. I start from the GTO solution, but then go into detail about how and why to adjust against non GTO opponents. Simple example: it might be GTO to shove any two into a GTO player's big blind because they know they have to call very tight near the bubble of a satellite, but if that player is clueless and I have seen them make calls that are far too loose, then I will adjust accordingly (by shoving much tighter). Blindly sticking to GTO in these spots is just burning money.
Thank you for your question.
I think it's very useful, but not the be all and end all. My interest in GTO started when I worked out (from first principles) my own push/shove charts based on what I perceived to be the calling ranges of my opponents in the stts that were my main online game at the time. These calling ranges changed over time (what we call population tendencies now) so every so often I would go back to recalculate the new shoving ranges based on the changes I perceived. After a few iterations of this I realised there must be an endpoint (I didn't know the terms GTO or Nash equilibrium at the time) that shoving and calling ranges converged to.
Flash forward a few years and the biggest problem I identified in my own game as I moved up stakes was that against truly elite players, I felt I was getting exploited. So I started looking at the whole GTO thing again in areas other than push/fold as a defensive strategy.
These days I tend to revert to my approximation of GTO against players I perceive to be much better at the levelling and adjustment game than myself, and against players I know nothing about. For players I do feel I have a read on their weaknesses, I focus more on thinking about how best to exploit those weaknesses. But even here, knowing GTO is useful as a baseline from which to adjust.
In satellites, as anyone who reads "Poker Satellite Strategy" will know, this is very much my approach. I start from the GTO solution, but then go into detail about how and why to adjust against non GTO opponents. Simple example: it might be GTO to shove any two into a GTO player's big blind because they know they have to call very tight near the bubble of a satellite, but if that player is clueless and I have seen them make calls that are far too loose, then I will adjust accordingly (by shoving much tighter). Blindly sticking to GTO in these spots is just burning money.
Thank you for your question.
C
crimsonshroud88
Enthusiast
Silver Level
Hi, Dara!
Remarkable explanations of various situations, thank you!
"I start from the GTO solution, but then go into detail about how and why to adjust against non GTO opponents."
Do you think it might be reasonable to start from a non-GTO solution especially when playing cheap satts since they are simply below the scope of good players who understand GTO ranges (too cheap for them)?
Won't a random person in this pool be more inclined to be making mistakes in their default play?
Thank you!
Remarkable explanations of various situations, thank you!
"I start from the GTO solution, but then go into detail about how and why to adjust against non GTO opponents."
Do you think it might be reasonable to start from a non-GTO solution especially when playing cheap satts since they are simply below the scope of good players who understand GTO ranges (too cheap for them)?
Won't a random person in this pool be more inclined to be making mistakes in their default play?
Thank you!
DaveE
Solvem probler
Community Guide
For what it's worth the kindle version from amazon was $9.95CAD or $7.95USD a couple of weeks ago.
Amanda A
Legend
Bronze Level
Hi Dara,
I'm reading your book and learning a lot! I wanted to ask you about a couple hands in a $3 entry Sit and go 9 max regular ACR tourney I just played (3 places paid 50% 30% 20%). 3 players left, blinds 100/200. I was in SB with JJ, Button who is pretty aggressive shoves 2610. I have 9500 and BB has small stack 978. I make the call BB folds and button shows A4o. He gets lucky hitting his A and 4 and suddenly I go from being a huge leader to having a not so huge lead. Ugh. Few hands later short stack goes out to my other opponent. Now we have about the same stack sizes. I am on button with Q8o. I min raise (maybe a mistake) He shoves and I fold. Next hand I have A10o. He shoves and I call. I hit my 10 but he hits a 3 and I'm done. What did I do wrong here? I had such a big chip lead 3 handed and ended up in 2nd place. Should I have folded my JJ and just kept chipping away at the small stacks? That's where things went south for me. I feel like I gave up a huge advantage and took on too much risk on that hand even though I know I was way ahead of his shoving range. Would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks!!
I'm reading your book and learning a lot! I wanted to ask you about a couple hands in a $3 entry Sit and go 9 max regular ACR tourney I just played (3 places paid 50% 30% 20%). 3 players left, blinds 100/200. I was in SB with JJ, Button who is pretty aggressive shoves 2610. I have 9500 and BB has small stack 978. I make the call BB folds and button shows A4o. He gets lucky hitting his A and 4 and suddenly I go from being a huge leader to having a not so huge lead. Ugh. Few hands later short stack goes out to my other opponent. Now we have about the same stack sizes. I am on button with Q8o. I min raise (maybe a mistake) He shoves and I fold. Next hand I have A10o. He shoves and I call. I hit my 10 but he hits a 3 and I'm done. What did I do wrong here? I had such a big chip lead 3 handed and ended up in 2nd place. Should I have folded my JJ and just kept chipping away at the small stacks? That's where things went south for me. I feel like I gave up a huge advantage and took on too much risk on that hand even though I know I was way ahead of his shoving range. Would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks!!
Dara OKearney
Poker Pro
Silver Level
First off, well done on your successes on the satellite front.
You hit the nail on the head when you said that it would be reasonably easy to burn through a small roll fairly easily playing the multi level feeders: the more feeders you have to get through the greater the variance will be, and the bigger the downswings. With PPL specifically, there's the added complication that what you win at the end is not actual cash but tournament money which then has to be used in a live event where you have at best a one in six or one in seven chance of cashing. Starting with $100 I imagine in most worlds you go bust, even with a big edge over your competitors. So I'd focus on some other lower variance way of building a roll before going at the sats.
Thanks for your question and good luck whatever you decide.
Dara OKearney
Poker Pro
Silver Level
Good day! And welcome to cardchat! A simple question: how many days, weeks, months, years have to play it to become a pro in poker?
Hi!
I'm not sure I'm qualified to answer this question. I know how long it took me, but that was 12 years ago when the game was much softer, and I imagine it varies greatly from person to person.
In some ways, it's a lot tougher these days (because the overall standard is higher), but in other ways it's easier (there's more information and content out there to help you). The ways in which it's easier though are time consuming, so it certainly takes longer these days.
The only real yardstick I have comes from the amount of time it took enthusiastic determined recreationals to progress: on average 9-12 months of 40 hours a week split between play and study.
Thanks for your question, and I hope this helps.
Dara OKearney
Poker Pro
Silver Level
Hi. The short answer is that in a satellite, I am looking to lower variance as much as possible. In a normal tournament, you are trying to win all the chips and are incentivized to take any good spots to try to do so. In a satellite you are only trying to survive until the money, so you only take as many spots as you need to.
Thanks for your question
Dara OKearney
Poker Pro
Silver Level
Hi,
I agree that in cheaper sats most opponents won't be playing GTO or anything close to it, but I still think it's useful to know what the GTO is. Once you know that, you know in which direction to adjust for opponents who are playing sub optimally, and have an idea of how much you should adjust.
For example, let's say you are small blind with a short stack and it folds around to you. If you think the big blind is going to call tighter than he should, then it's obvious you should shove wider than if he's too loose. But how much wider exactly? If you don't know the GTO shoving range you don't know what's you're aiming to be wider then. In the book, we give some example where we say something like "the GTO solution is we should shove 32% of hands and the BB should call 30%, but if he calls 50% we can only profitably shove 12% whereas if he only calls 20% we can shove 60%". In this case knowing the GTO gives us the baseline (32%) from which we adjust up or down. This is an easier way to get to something approximating the best strategy rather than just taking a guess what our shoving % should be in each individual spot.
Ultimately though, it doesn't matter how you arrive at the right answer if it's the right answer. If you have an internal table with shoving ranges from every seat for every stack size and situation that's great, but for most of us it's easier to learn a much smaller subset of GTO ranges (available from Apps like Snapshove) and then adjust accordingly based on our assumptions.
Thanks for your question!
Dara OKearney
Poker Pro
Silver Level
Hi Amanda,
Glad you're enjoying the book.
OK, let's look at the hands:
(1) JJ. Absolutely the correct call. His shove isn't great, but even if he were shoving correctly (A9o+ etc) jacks is printing money as a call. Unlucky
(2) Q8o. If I'm reading this right, stacks are roughly 35 bbs each (unless blinds went up in the mean time) so min raising and folding to a shove is fine. With 25 bigs or less I'd start limping most of my range, including Q8o
(3) ATo is definitely a call
No mistakes here: you just got unlucky. The JJ hand was crucial, but only because your opponent got very lucky. 7 times out of 10 your jacks hold and you're 90% plus to win the tournament.
Thanks for your questions.
Dara OKearney
Poker Pro
Silver Level
This is the question I probably have been asked the most down the years, and the answer is counter intuitive. The human mind has a cognitive bias/design flaw to anchor things to each other whether there's a logical connection or not. For example, when selling something, we are far happier to sell if the offer is above what we paid for it, but in reality a price above our original purchase price could be a bad deal (if it's less than the actual current value) or one below the original purchase price could be a great offer (if it's more than the actual current value).
This manifests itself in satellites by players linking the amount they are prepared to commit to satellites to a tournament to the buyin of the target tournament. So you'll hear arbitrary guidelines like "don't spend more than x% of the buyin on satellites".
The reality is that's not a useful way to think about satellites. Each individual entry is a one off proposition, and should be judged purely on its own merits (in terms of likely edge over the field and ROI). If you bust, the next bullet should be just as profitable, maybe even more so, unless you're so tilted by the bust you won't play your A game.
There's a section in my "Poker Satellite Strategy" book which explains the maths of why it's particularly profitable to late register satellites. My own approach to satellites is I generally register my first bullet right at the start (to take advantage potentially of the weakest players before they lose all their chips) and then if I bust that, hold off until the last possible minute to reenter (if that's allowed: some satellites insist you reenter immediately).
An exception is satellites where the addon is much bigger than the starting stack and rebuys: in this case it's often better to skip registering at the start and maximum late register. Again, this is explained in more detail in the "Poker Satellite Strategy" book.
Thanks for your question!
Dara OKearney
Poker Pro
Silver Level
Yes, I use PokerTracker on sites that support it
1sunchin
Legend
Silver Level
Hello Dara!
Read your book now and want to ask what you think about this situation:
https://www.boomplayer.com/31426858_26B2CF413E
It is final table of PS Bounty Builder $5.50 [Saturday special] August 24,2019.
Regards.
Read your book now and want to ask what you think about this situation:
https://www.boomplayer.com/31426858_26B2CF413E
It is final table of PS Bounty Builder $5.50 [Saturday special] August 24,2019.
Regards.
jmateuspoker
Rock Star
Silver Level
I would like to ask questions. I have been playing for years micro limits would like to evolve
The question is whether satellites can be a way for bank roll to develop faster?
I would love to understand this or see an opinion from a satellite expert like you.
mateuspoker
The question is whether satellites can be a way for bank roll to develop faster?
I would love to understand this or see an opinion from a satellite expert like you.
mateuspoker
Dara OKearney
Poker Pro
Silver Level
Hi,
This looks perfectly played to me. Bounty builders are essentially the opposite of satellites in terms of endgame strategy: in a satellite near bubble we rarely want to induce so we would normally just shove this hand, but in a PKO we want to induce much wider than normal. Getting he guy to shove a hand we dominate is a great result, even if the outcome wasn't.
Unlucky!