early flips

[schwza]

according to ICM, doubling up on the first hand only gives you .184 of the prize pool compared to .10 before doubling, so it would appear that taking an early flip for your stack is horrible. but if you're trying to maximize $/hr instead of ROI (it's obvious that you should be, imo), you need to know how much time doubling adds to your game, on average. does anyone know this information, or at least have some impression?

it could matter a lot - here are some completely made up numbers.

suppose i one-table 11's (one-tabling does not affect the argument, just makes it simpler). my ROI is 20% (so my expected payout is 1.2 * 11 = 13.2) and my average stt takes 40 minutes. my hourly rate is $2.20/40 min = $3.30/hr.

if i double up on the first hand, assume my expected payout is multiplied by 1.84 (could be higher or lower in reality), so it's 24.3, for a profit of $13.3. also assume that it takes 50 minutes on average if i double immediately, for a rate of $16/hr.

thus, passing on a flip has an hourly EV of $3.30. taking a flip has an hourly EV of:

.5 (16) + .5 (-11 + 3.30) = 8 - 3.85 = 4.15 [-11 for busting, + 3.30 for his EV in the next one]

so with these numbers that i made up, it looks like this guy should take a flip on the first hand.

i'm not saying this proves anything at all; i just wanted to point out that some of 2+2's horror at playing in the first level can be traced to incorrectly focusing on ROI instead of $/hr. if someone has some better guesses for actual numbers, i'm all ears.

[gumpzilla]

Interesting. However, something nags me a little bit about the numbers. I think one issue is that you're looking at ROI in one case, but also subtracting 11 dollars when you bust. But ROI already has the buyin subtracted, since it's profit above the buyin. So I think the two things you're comparing shouldn't be compared. Of course, the correction to this would lead to an even more pronounced version of the same effect, since it leads to an increase in the EV of flipping.

Also, I suspect things get more complicated if you're getting opportunities to double up with flips not on the first hand, but, say, 10 minutes in.

[Bigwig]

I didn't get enough sleep to properly analyze your numbers. But my personal belief is that I don't mind getting into flip situations early if I was the one raising all-in. This obviously changes as the tournament advances.

[Moonsugar]

I try to get all my money in with AK as often as possible in the beginning of SnGs. I read somewhere about the math a couple of years ago. $/hr it makes sense.

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
I try to get all my money in with AK as often as possible in the beginning of SnGs. I read somewhere about the math a couple of years ago. $/hr it makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are talking about being the pusher, correct?

[schwza]

sorry, the math on that was all screwed up. that was pretty sloppy. i think this is proper.

now i think for this guy taking a flip is bad, which makes more sense. the point i was originally trying to make in the first post is that taking a flip reduces ROI from 20% to 10.5%, which looks like a disaster. but it only reduces $/hr from $3.30 to $2.76, which is not nearly so bad. of course, the issue is usually not taking a literal flip, but something stickier like "should i limp 45s in MP2?" people seem to usually overlook the fact that it's much better to bust on the first hand than bust in 4th 40 minutes later.

pass on flip

buy-in = $11, expected cash-out = $13.20, time = 40 minutes, so hourly rate is $3.30. ROI = 20%

take flip

win flip
buy-in = $11, expected cash = $24.30, time = 50 minutes.

lose flip
buy-in = $11, expected cash = 0, time = 0 minutes.

total after taking flip
assume you take two flips and instantly lose the first and win the second.

buy-in = $22, cash = $24.30, time = 50 minutes, rate = $2.76/ hr. ROI = 10.5%

[gumpzilla]

Here's another issue that occurred to me.

You're using ICM to adjust the equity as a result of doubling up. This is all well and good, BUT we're already assuming that ICM isn't telling us the whole story about the equity of this player, otherwise his ROI would be -9% like Joe Public. Your assumption of scaling up the equity as ICM says is certainly a reasonable choice, but it seems to me like there's a fair amount of wiggle room conceivable.

[schwza]

i agree completely.

[ QUOTE ]
if i double up on the first hand, assume my expected payout is multiplied by 1.84 (could be higher or lower in reality

[/ QUOTE ]

when i got to that point, i said, "um.... multiplying by 1.84 is not totally crazy, right?" but yeah, pretty arbitrary. doesn't obscure the main point that focusing on ROI instead of $/hr leads to wrong conclusions though.

[citanul]

aside from the already pointed out problem of ICM being both inaccurate for situations where there are many players, and pretty inaccurate for situations where a player plays more skillfully than his opponents, i have another issue with this line of thinking. note: i have no problem with pointing out that hourly rate is considerably more important in many situations than ROI.

here's my problem: i think that people sometimes take thinking of hourly rate as more important than ROI too far. particularly if you're still a learning player and still in the lower stakes games, trying to max out your hourly rate instead of learning to play as well as possible is probably not the greatest idea in the world. situations that are going to be assured early flips at worst against bad competition are going to become worse and worse spots as the competition gets harder. not that that last sentence is exactly on the same point as my real point. =P but yeah, basically, taking flips may or may not increase your hourly rate earlier in games, but it certainly doesn't teach you to play great poker.

when i consider the sngs, i consider ROI the main statistic, even though i know there's hourly rate, and all sorts of more advanced statistics to delve deeper into shapes and powers of your results. i feel that ROI gives a more accurate assessment of "how badly you are beating the game" than the other statistics. hourly rate can be manipulated and befuddled by all sorts of things, notably adding more tables or playing rolling games instead of sets of games.

the point that you make, which was sort of made in that disgusting "which would you prefer, 3rd or 10th" thread, that hourly rate is worthwhile to consider especially when you are considering situations where you might bust out early is clearly a very good one. i just beg all people who start to think about this to remember that each time you bust out early you lose a buyin, and at a 25% ROI, that takes 4 games to make up. stuff like that.

alright, before i start to ramble like skipper in his sleep,

citanul

[wiggs73]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I try to get all my money in with AK as often as possible in the beginning of SnGs. I read somewhere about the math a couple of years ago. $/hr it makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are talking about being the pusher, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the answer is yes, then I also take this line. I will very rarely call in all-in in the first level, but with substantial action pre-flop (but not to the point I assume someone has AA or KK), I don't mind pushing with it. I think this is a much better line, BTW, in the 11s and 22s where I play rather than higher buy-ins.

[Jay36489]

I agree. I'm still learning (as we all are) and I'm not going to go crazy with coinflips early to try and maximse $/hr. Half of playing is winning, the other half is learning.

That being said if I'm getting all my money in early with AK I'm not hoping for a coinflip, and I'm often not disappointed.

[45suited]

GREAT point Citanul. I read so many posts about players either:

a) struggling with their ROI or
b) struggling with their B/R after moving up in limits

This whole "ROI vs $/hr" comparision (as a reason in and of itself to take coinflips early) might be valid for a player whose ROI is huge. But for the typical player, using $/hr as a factor is nonsense IMO. And the paradox is, that for someone whose ROI is big (like me when I was playing the 11s, for example), even though I can "afford" to make these plays (they won't turn my ROI negative), the fact that I have a skill advantage over my opponents makes me even less likely to.

Really I think that looking at $/hr as a consideration is really just a way for somebody who is in the mood to gamble it up to make a play that they know is wrong. (I'm not saying all early coinflips are bad, just that using $/hr as a consideration is usually just a way to ignore the other important factors.)

I think that it's a dangerous habit to get into not playing "your best" in each SNG. No matter how short stacked I get, I fight and claw and never give up. By the same token, I would never make a -EV play based upon $/hr considerations.

[citanul]

also, note that a player with a max hourly rate don't care about ROI philosophy will have to adjust their thinking about bankroll. players seeking to maximize their HR at the sacrifice of ROI will have a higher ROR. or at least i think so?

citanul

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
also, note that a player with a max hourly rate don't care about ROI philosophy will have to adjust their thinking about bankroll. players seeking to maximize their HR at the sacrifice of ROI will have a higher ROR. or at least i think so?

[/ QUOTE ]

If increasing hourly rate suppresses ROI, then yes, your risk of ruin will go up. How significant this is depends on where your ROI is. Dropping from a 30% ROI to a 25% ROI in the 10s isn't really going to matter, but playing the 100s and dropping from a 10% ROI to 5% ROI is going to be potentially a more substantial problem.

[45suited]

[ QUOTE ]
also, note that a player with a max hourly rate don't care about ROI philosophy will have to adjust their thinking about bankroll. players seeking to maximize their HR at the sacrifice of ROI will have a higher ROR. or at least i think so?

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. And I'm not willing to give up one iota of ROI because of this reason.

We always talk about "sample sizes" for determining your ROI. So... what if the player with a 10% ROI over 1000 games (who is really a break even player who had a good run, for example) starts making plays like this to "maximize his $/hr"?

[Moonsugar]

Yes. If I got notes on someone I can call with AK too.

[schwza]

thanks for the well thought out response.

[ QUOTE ]
here's my problem: i think that people sometimes take thinking of hourly rate as more important than ROI too far

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't understand why we should care about ROI in the slightest. i think it's comparable to a NL ring game player focusing on maximizing his win % when flops seen or showdown win % and then considering his $/hr as a useful by-product of those stats. it's obviously not a perfect analogy because ROI is a much closer fit to $/hr than any of those ring stats, but you get my idea. don't get me wrong, i think that 99%+ decisions will be the same whether you focus on ROI or $/hr, but the 2nd is the one i care about (i don't actually calculate it, btw; i only have stats for my ROI).

[ QUOTE ]
trying to max out your hourly rate instead of learning to play as well as possible

[/ QUOTE ]

i would say those two are the same. i'm including in the concept of "max out your hourly rate" doing things like playing 1 table to max out your future rate when playing 4 would more profitable in the short term.

[ QUOTE ]
taking flips may or may not increase your hourly rate earlier in games, but it certainly doesn't teach you to play great poker

[/ QUOTE ]

i probably should have been more clear on this. i'm not really too concerned with taking early flips. that doesn't happen much, except maybe calling an all-in with a combo draw or something like that. i'm more concerned with the mentality that you should open-fold AJo in MP in level one because busting is so much worse than doubling up. and i think that playing more hands early does help teach you how to play well.

[ QUOTE ]
and all sorts of more advanced statistics to delve deeper into shapes and powers of your results

[/ QUOTE ]

just out of curiosity, what are they?

[ QUOTE ]
hourly rate can be manipulated and befuddled by all sorts of things, notably adding more tables or playing rolling games instead of sets of games.


[/ QUOTE ]

i would say hourly rate can be increased by doing those things, not "befuddled." hourly rate/table would be a useful stat too.

[ QUOTE ]
that disgusting "which would you prefer, 3rd or 10th" thread

[/ QUOTE ]

i did not see that thread. how could anyone not take 3rd?

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
thanks for the well thought out response.

[/ QUOTE ]

not everything i do is a 1 line flame.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i don't understand why we should care about ROI in the slightest. i think it's comparable to a NL ring game player focusing on maximizing his win % when flops seen or showdown win % and then considering his $/hr as a useful by-product of those stats. it's obviously not a perfect analogy because ROI is a much closer fit to $/hr than any of those ring stats, but you get my idea. don't get me wrong, i think that 99%+ decisions will be the same whether you focus on ROI or $/hr, but the 2nd is the one i care about (i don't actually calculate it, btw; i only have stats for my ROI).

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
trying to max out your hourly rate instead of learning to play as well as possible

[/ QUOTE ]

i would say those two are the same. i'm including in the concept of "max out your hourly rate" doing things like playing 1 table to max out your future rate when playing 4 would more profitable in the short term.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you're talking about maxing out your hourly rate as including the concept of earning less now so you can earn more later, thus raising your overall hourly rate (and i mean talking about later as in months later) you're talking about hourly rate considerations in a totally different way than everyone else in the forum. not that that's bad or anything, just trying to clear up terms for further debate. but many of the take flips now situations are sort of the opposite of learning to play well so you can compete well at the further levels. if you are already at your max stakes, then there's arguments to be made based on game lenghts, # of talbes, and style in which you restart your games.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
taking flips may or may not increase your hourly rate earlier in games, but it certainly doesn't teach you to play great poker

[/ QUOTE ]

i probably should have been more clear on this. i'm not really too concerned with taking early flips. that doesn't happen much, except maybe calling an all-in with a combo draw or something like that. i'm more concerned with the mentality that you should open-fold AJo in MP in level one because busting is so much worse than doubling up. and i think that playing more hands early does help teach you how to play well.

[/ QUOTE ]

so we're back to the fact that you want to play poker, eh? well... not much i can argue about that. i honestly don't think that if you're confident and good post flop (or want to learn post flop skills) that you should be folding all these hands. but that we've been talking about in like every thread lately.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and all sorts of more advanced statistics to delve deeper into shapes and powers of your results

[/ QUOTE ]

just out of curiosity, what are they?

[/ QUOTE ]

most of them amount to nothing more than just looking at your numbers and thinking, or some silly multiplying and dividing of existing standard metrics. none of them that have been forwarded on this forum have really been anything but mocked for their uselessness as "improvements."

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
hourly rate can be manipulated and befuddled by all sorts of things, notably adding more tables or playing rolling games instead of sets of games.

[/ QUOTE ]

i would say hourly rate can be increased by doing those things, not "befuddled." hourly rate/table would be a useful stat too.

[/ QUOTE ]

what i meant is that a player can get an artificially good feeling about how "good" they are by doing things like these. hourly rate/table is a better consideration than hourly rate i think. but that's mostly because it's so much closer to ROI. hourly rate/table is actually a better stat than either.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
that disgusting "which would you prefer, 3rd or 10th" thread

[/ QUOTE ]

i did not see that thread. how could anyone not take 3rd?

[/ QUOTE ]

people are way dumber than you think sometimes?

citanul