Chips Change Value. How Does that Change My Play?

[rgschackelford]

Hi everyone,

I've been thinking about the idea of chips changing value, and it seems that I must be missing an aspect of the idea. Due to the prize structure, chips are worth less later in a tournament than earlier. Well, my question is "How should this affect how I play?" I don't think I should not try to pick up more chips, since you want to get as many chips as you can (preferably all of them). I am just having a hard time analyzing what this does to how I should play.

Anyway, thank you in advance for tackling this issue.

Rusty G. Schackelford

[magiluke]

If I understand your scenario, if you don't look at the value of the chips, but just the chips themselves, this shouldn't affect your play.

It doesn't matter if everyone has 10 $100 chips, or 10 $1 chips, if they are all in proportion, it doesn't matter, they still have the same amount, essentially.

I think what I said makes sense...

[rgschackelford]

Oh, that's all that that means. Alright. I've been playing like that all along. Thanks.

Rusty G. Schackelford

[the shadow]

In general, chips stay the same value in ring games. Chips also maintain the same value in winner-take-all tourneys.

However, chips change value in tourneys where 1st place takes a fraction of the buy-ins and 2d and later places take other fractions.

For a starter, take a look at the threads on Independent Chip Modeling ("ICM") collected in section 4.1 of the favorite threads (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1918735&page=1&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=31&fpart=1) in the Single-Table Tourney forum.

The Shadow

[Louie Landale]

In case there is confusion, it doesn't really matter what the printed value of the tournament chips are: starting with T100 is the same as starting with T1000: they are worth your buy in.

I guess its true that each chip, on average, is worth less later in the tourney than in the beginning is true. Yes, if there are 4 of you left than each is guaranteed 4th place, and your chips are now fighting over just the top 3 places, which must be less than the over-all payout structure. And after you win, your tournament chips are worthless so you might as well give them all back. But I don't think that's very relevant.

Consider this: one player is the clear chip leader with say T1200, the 2nd place has T150, and 3rd place has T149, and 4th has T1. That single extra chip #2 has is worth a lot of money, and the single chip #4 has is worth a BUNCH of money.

The "chips change value" notion suggests [1] chips you have are worth more than the chips you can win: doubling your stack does NOT double your pay-out EV. [2] If you have few chips, your chips are worth a LOT more each than if you have plenty of chip. [3] If you have lots of chips and bet against a short stack, you both may be wagering T100 but you are risking a lot less final EV than is the short stack.

[1] Means you should tend NOT to take risky even-money investments. Don't bet for value unless you are a comfortable favorite if called. [2] Means if you have few chips, then survival, especially when you are already in the money, is standard play. [3] means if you have lots of chips you should attack the short stacks shamelessly. In fact I can invision a situation where its profitable to raise blind every hand, even if they know it.

The reality of Tournaments is to play very conservatively. But it turns out that once you have a clear chip lead, the opponent's correct conservatism means you should play liberally or recklacly. I think Malmuth got it right in his Essays (#2 I think): the best tournament folks start out recklacly hoping to amass chips, so they can continue to pound away. They tend to get busted early or do well.

- Louie

[grimel]

There are a lot of people that are going to hate you for that. For some reason it made a lot of sense to me this time.