PDA

View Full Version : Another Reason To Play For Second


David Sklansky
11-01-2004, 04:44 AM
Vince Lepore's adamant insistence on avoiding most go broke situations when there is a short stack in third place takes on added validity when the prizes are so high that marginal utility comes into play (assuming there is no extra value to the publicity of winning). Of course the assumption is that you are on a fairly short bankroll.

Here's an example:

Say first prize is $500,000, second is $300,000 and third is $100,000. I will call this 5, 3 and 1 in the calculations.

Suppose the third guy is basically broke and you and the other guy have equal chips., So your EV if you don't gamble is 4. But now your opponent moves in and the tiny stack folds. If you have a coin flip and you call your EV drops to 3. See why? To play in this extreme situation you have to be a 3-1 favorite since you risk 3 to gain 1. This of course assumes that the short stack has zero chance of a comeback. Playing with less than a 75% chance actually lowers your EV

But now lets say that the extra 200k above second place is not worth that more incrementally to you. Say that to you, first place is only worth 400K in incremental dollars. Thus waiting for the other guy to go broke gives you an EV in marginal utility dollars of 3.5. Playing a coin flip reduces it to 2.5. And the degree of a favorite you need to be to fight is now FIVE to one.

In real life what I am saying is this:

Not only do slightly negative EV plays become positive EV when the third stack is short, negative EV plays that REMAIN negative might still be right if they increase your chances of finishing seond (at the expense of finishing first) and second place money (but not third) can change your life. By this criteria Vince's call with AQ is probably the right play.

Smoothcall
11-01-2004, 05:25 AM
n/m

BarronVangorToth
11-01-2004, 10:54 AM
One thing that people forget is the added value of 1st BEYOND the actual money. While coming in 2nd has some added value as well, it isn't significantly higher than that of coming in 3rd, whereas coming in 1st has a much larger added value than either of those.

In short: all of these calculations are fundamentally based on the fact that the ONLY thing involved is money, when that is far from the actual reality.

(Not to mention, there is more money involved as well, as I'm sure if there was Book X and you printed one with Greg's name and one with David's name, Greg's would outsell David's, since Greg came in 1st in the 'o4 WSOP, thus generating more royalties. Plus the sponsorship potential is higher for Greg than David, etc etc.)

And this doesn't take that X-Factor into account of coming in 1st and what that is "worth."

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

slickpoppa
11-01-2004, 11:12 AM
Winners go home and f*ck the prom queen.

West
11-01-2004, 12:15 PM
You could probably come up with better candidates for "difference between 2nd and 3rd place money = life changing" than Gus Hansen and Paul Phillips.

Rick Nebiolo
11-01-2004, 01:03 PM
[ QUOTE ]
One thing that people forget is the added value of 1st BEYOND the actual money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't forget it. It's about the only point I made in the original series of threads. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

~ Rick

Daliman
11-01-2004, 02:47 PM
I didn't read all of every thread, but wasn't VL's contention that Gus made a good play by calling there, and PP bad a bad one? Your answer seems to say that Gus was wrong, although doesn't really make PP's play right either, but then again, PP WAS first in..

curtains
11-01-2004, 02:52 PM
Best time to play for 2nd is for Daliman when he's in a head's up match with me. It'd save us both a lot of time and energy.

Also zero chance in hell that PP made a bad play. If anyone says that, they are basically saying that the only hands Paul Phillips (The chip Leader) can legitimately raise Gus with in a 3 handed game are AA-KK-QQ-JJ and AK. Somehow that seems a tad bit on the tight side to me.

binions
11-01-2004, 03:32 PM
In fact, the topic of his original post was "Who made the bigger mistake - Gus or Paul"

binions
11-01-2004, 03:37 PM
Seems to me the book is out on Gus's constant raising. Come over the top of him. If Gus doesn't start calling with his legitimate hands (like TT 3 handed) that get re-raised, he's going to develop a problem for himself.

Rick Nebiolo
11-02-2004, 12:27 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Seems to me the book is out on Gus's constant raising. Come over the top of him. If Gus doesn't start calling with his legitimate hands (like TT 3 handed) that get re-raised, he's going to develop a problem for himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great point but you get two gold stars deducted for not using any math /images/graemlins/grin.gif

~ Rick

Daliman
11-02-2004, 12:53 AM
HU matches

Daliman 5
curtains 2

Desdia72
11-06-2004, 04:24 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Seems to me the book is out on Gus's constant raising. Come over the top of him. If Gus doesn't start calling with his legitimate hands (like TT 3 handed) that get re-raised, he's going to develop a problem for himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great point but you get two gold stars deducted for not using any math /images/graemlins/grin.gif

~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]

actually, he get's two platinum stars for not using any math. i think it's a great point also.

SCfuji
11-06-2004, 06:10 PM
can we add any value to...

paul phillip's all-in move decreasing the number of future aggressions against his blinds by Gus (if Gus folds to PP's all-in of course)?

fuji