Ed Miller Is Wrong

[zkzkz]

In Getting Started In Hold'Em Ed Miller discusses a "very common debate" about a hypothetical situation in tournament poker where everyone at your table goes all-in and you look down at your cards and find AA. In my copy it's on page 158.

I'm going to show why his analysis (not necessarily the conclusion) of the situation is wrong.

He analyzes the situation in terms of pot odds and pot equity. Saying you have 30% chance of winning so the "opportunity is worth well over $20,000 to you". He concludes that you should go all-in even if it's the first hand of a long tournament and that anyone who would argue otherwise is simply letting their emotions get in the way of proper play -- not wanting to get eliminated before they get a chance to play.

But he misses an important detail. The $20,000 gain is in tournament chips. It has absolutely <font color="red">*NO*</font> intrinsic value.

The <font color="red">only</font> value those chips have at all is in the increased chance of winning the tournament that they give you. How much of an increased chance of winning a tournament does having 10x everyone's else's stack on the second hand? It sure ain't gonna be 10x their chance.

So, hypothetically, let's say you had a 1% chance of winning the tournament when you entered and with 10x the normal stack you've tripled your chances to 3%. Now going all in with AA looks weak. You win 30% of the time but you're only getting 3:1 odds.

Unfortunately it's very hard to estimate the degree to which having a 10x stack would help your odds of winning the tournament (and just doubling or tripling up would be even harder). In a tournament with a flat prize distribution it might give you a near lock on a smaller prize.

This also explains why playing conservatively when you're on the bubble isn't entirely irrational. If you know your own playing strength and know you have very little chance at the top few prizes that play well then your entire upside is limited to an increased chance at some slightly larger prizes. It can be hard or impossible to get odds that justify going all-in if you don't think you really have a shot at the prizes that are more than 2-3x the prize you already have a lock on if you just fold.

So people's emotions aren't necessarily leading them astray here. Their instincts are on the right track. You have to consider what those chips really are worth to you and before you risk going all-in for a chance to double-up ask yourself whether you're really doubling your expected tournament winnings even if you double-up.

In the actual scenario described I suspect having a 10x stack on the first hand of a tournament does in fact increase your expected winnings by more than 3.3x so calling with AA would be a +EV play in real dollars, not just tournament chips.


Actually, this would be an interesting question to analyze using empirical data. It's doesn't require any non-public information about people's hands either, just stack sizes of the field. Plot people's eventual winnings versus stack size after some hands, say, just before the first blind increase. Then look for a curve fit. Hm. To do it properly you would have to look at the same players across multiple tournaments to eliminate the effect that larger stacks will tend to indicate better players. But it could be done and it would give some hard numbers for how much you should expect doubling-up in early stages to increase your real dollar winnings.

[ZBTHorton]

I didn't read the post.

No, your wrong.

[bugstud]

ok Phil

[miajag81]

[ QUOTE ]

The <font color="red">only</font> value those chips have at all is in the increased chance of winning the tournament that they give you. How much of an increased chance of winning a tournament does having 10x everyone's else's stack on the second hand? It sure ain't gonna be 10x their chance.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong.

[asb165]

Your screen name gave me an aneurysm. And I left work early and I'm drunk.

[ThrillFactor]

Nice first post. Hope your stay is a short one.

[SossMan]

as Paul Phillips has stated many times, there are many things in tournament poker theory that are debateable, but chipEV and $EV being close enough to equal early in a tournament to not skew any decision enough to forego a huge +chipEV situation isn't. (debateable, that is)

been there, done that...about a million times on this forum.

[adanthar]

didn't read past first line of post that mentions folding AA

we. don't. care.

[zkzkz]

So hypothetical: you're in a tournament with 100 people and you think you're the best player there. You figure you have about a 10% chance of winning.

Would you still call someone all-in on the first hand and a 60% chance of winning?

I still think it would be interesting to see empirical data on exactly what the stack size vs $EV graph looks like. I suspect there's a large linear section around the average stack and some funny things going on around the extremes.

[zkzkz]

Heh, you guys must get a lot of net.kook types that don't get it. Oh well, your loss.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
So hypothetical: you're in a tournament with 100 people and you think you're the best player there. You figure you have about a 10% chance of winning.

Would you still call someone all-in on the first hand and a 60% chance of winning?

I still think it would be interesting to see empirical data on exactly what the stack size vs $EV graph looks like. I suspect there's a large linear section around the average stack and some funny things going on around the extremes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I always think I'm the best player in the tournament but I don't think that the best player in the galaxy has even close to 10% chance of winning the whole thing.
I put myself at 3x a normal field and I would beat his chips into the pot if, for instance, I had JdTd on a 8d9d2s flop and he showed me black AA. (about a 60-40 favorite).

[AlwaysWrong]

So your theory is that Ed Miller isn't aware of the chip ev $EV distinction?

In a 250 person tournament with Party's payout structure, getting 10x the chips on the first hand gives you a little over 8x money expectation. (I used ICM with the assumption that everyone else is an average stack to get that number.)

[davekngs]

interesting theory but it is hopelessly wrong

[allintuit]

My sentiments exactly, this is wrong on so many levels...

[zkzkz]

What's ICM? This sounds like what I want to use to explore this topic. How come neither Miller nor Harrington go into the topic of chipEV vs $EV except in the context of being on the bubble for a higher prize? It seems like a fundamental issue.

So you're still clearly +$EV here but you can't just look at the pot odds to figure that. Instead of being up "$20,000" you're up 2.4 times your entry fee (which in his scenario would be $24,000 actually).

So what what stack size gives you an EV of 3x which is just barely enough to warrant an all-in call for a flush draw.

It sounds like you would need a stack size of about 3.5-4x to get that?

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
How come neither Miller nor Harrington go into the topic of chipEV vs $EV except in the context of being on the bubble for a higher prize?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because CEV=$EV for all normal considerations when you are far enough from the bubble.

BTW, the issues you bring here were discussed on this very board about 2974342894 times, and it doesn't seem like you have anything particularly new to say, so don't be surprised if people give you some sh1T about this thread.

And also: welcome to the boards.

[Ben Therre]

Folding AA preflop will get you banned in 10 states that I'm aware of, in Montana we would just hang you.
GL

[AlwaysWrong]

In the early stages of a tournament right through to where you're within spitting distance of the money chip ev is close enough to $ ev that it's not worth talking about in a book focused on practice. If you read Tournament Poker for Advanced Players, which has more of a theoretical focus you'll see Sklansky discuss the distinction in detail.

The reason that there is a significant difference here (10x vs 8x) is that the situation is absurd - you're offered a 10x or bust proposition. If you're in something less absurd like 2x or bust, the difference between CEV and $EV is close enough to zilch that it couldn't possibly matter to your decision.

ICM = Independent Chip Model .. Google it or use 2+2's search feature.

I wrote an article about it here (http://www.604poker.com/display.php?id=109).

[bobman0330]

You're missing a critically important point. Your entire critique is based on the assumption that you can get a better overlay on your chips at some later point. cEV doesn't really matter because you'll have to gamble to win chips later. The main point is that your overlay here is massively larger than most other overlays you can hope to get later on. In other words, think about it as taking a long series of smaller gambles all in a row. Sure, you're more likely than not to bust out, but you're more than likely to bust out anyways.

[Jax_Grinder]

First post under that sn that is. Surely, this is a poster who wanted to float this silliness without sullying his reputation (such as it may be) if noone bought it. THAT was a +ev move on his part.

And, oh yeah...inflection point.

[iraise50]

With your first post you go to great lengths to seem interesting, intelligent and controversial. Ed Miller makes sense and has been teaching people to play quite effectively. He's made my own game much better and I think that until you have a little, tiny piece of clout yourself a statement like that should be written more like "Could Ed Miller be wrong here?" OR...."I don't understand Ed Miller's thoughts in this situation" something....more humble. Wanker off.

[zkzkz]

Thanks, this article is very helpful.

I intentionally tried to put an evocative subject in the hopes of getting replies. I guess I got more than I bargained for. Two or three insightful replies and dozens of people who failed reading comprehension 101.

[OrianasDaad]

Tournaments almost require some degree of luck to win.

Having basically a 1-2 shot to get a 10x stack will help alleviate much of the early luck.

If having a 10x stack increases your chances of placing higher in the money more than 30% of the time, then it's more $EV than folding.

Despite the disparaging of KW's limit HE book, I have found one piece of advice invaluable. It involves thinking about your hand in that position (both on the table and relative to the betting) for the rest of your poker life. I've expanded upon it somewhat, but it helps me think in terms of the long-run.

If that occurance ever happens to me, then I'll certainly call.

It's an interesting theoretical question, though. The unlikelyness of the described event means that the difference between calling and folding isn't a major mistake either way.

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
But he misses an important detail. The $20,000 gain is in tournament chips. It has absolutely <font color="red">*NO*</font> intrinsic value.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't miss that detail at all. The whole tournament chapter harps on the notion that chips change value.

[ QUOTE ]
The <font color="red">only</font> value those chips have at all is in the increased chance of winning the tournament that they give you. How much of an increased chance of winning a tournament does having 10x everyone's else's stack on the second hand? It sure ain't gonna be 10x their chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you so sure that getting 10x the chips doesn't improve your winning chances by 10x? If the tournament were winner-take-all, that's EXACTLY what it would do. In a tournament with a prize structure, it may not be exact, but it's still in the ballpark. That's why I used the less-specific, "More than $20,000" than a calculated number.

Here's an approximation you can use to analyze these situations:

The further you are from the prizes, the more tournament chips behave like cash. That is, as long as the prizes are so far off that it "looks" like just a single prize to you, then chips aren't changing value much at all.

For instance, five players left in a three-place-paying sit 'n go... chips change value a lot.

6,600 players left in the WSOP main event... chips behave roughly like cash. Even if you get ten peoples' chips. If there were infinitely many people, they'd be exactly like cash.

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
So hypothetical: you're in a tournament with 100 people and you think you're the best player there. You figure you have about a 10% chance of winning.

Would you still call someone all-in on the first hand and a 60% chance of winning?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not the scenario in my book AT ALL. My book lists the first hand of the WSOP main event. It's not an arbitrary choice.

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
I intentionally tried to put an evocative subject in the hopes of getting replies.

[/ QUOTE ]

You got me to reply. But in general I don't like being told I'm wrong when I'm not.

[Havok]

I'm sorry, but speaking from experience Ed Miller is 100% correct. I was in an online tournament where in one of the first few hands something very similar came up, and I chose to go all in and my aces held up. Only 3 other playes besides myself. The other holdings were kings, queens, and 9's. This win enabled me to have a large enough stack to play the game I wanted to play, and I ended up 4th in a large multi-table tournament. Sometimes you have to take chances to get ahead. It is after all gambling, but passing up aces, and increasing my stack never. I've had aces cracked and been knocked out of tournaments before and never regretted it, thats poker. You have to have the courage to go for it all when you have a chance. And anyone that can fold pocket aces (in my opinion) is the kind of weak tight player I'll bluff often to progress further while they let the blinds eat them away.

Enough said.......ANYONE AGREE!!!!!