KingDan
09-19-2005, 08:28 PM
Suppose that you could buy-in for any amount of money into a party 1000 chip STT.
Assume that each chip's cost is proportional to another chips. What I mean by this, is if the tournament is 50 to join and get $1000 chips, $1000 gets you 2000 chips, 25 gets you 500 chips etc.
What would be the optimal buy-in? My original thinking that 1/3-> 1/2 would be +EV as other players might not be twice as likely to beat you. But then again if you are 10% ROI+, this probably would not be worth your time as you can make more with a normal stack.
So if starting with normal chips is better than 50% or so of the chips... would more than normal starting chips?
Lorinda has made a post about gambling early in STTs which may support this idea. More chips to outplay your opposition and explains how time may be better spent this way.
But then again, I am a cocky bastard and figure I am better than my average opponent. If I wanted this why not play a strategy that encouraged gambling early? With this you can try to gamble early.
However this would allow yourself"more chips" than you could buy assuming you can get your chips in with the best of it.
This question is confusing, and unfortunately I think it will be one of those it depends answers.
A similar idea, say that 5 handed everyone has equal chips. At this point pretend that you could rebuy for $50 which would be distributed .50/.30/.20 to the top the prizes.
According to ICM everyones EV with 2000 chips, everyones EV is $1000. Suppose you added 50 for another $1000 chips.
Everyones EV would increase to 103, and yours would increase to approximately 137. However, I would assume that this is not accurate as you have the ability to bully steal from the other stacks which should overtake the $13 you spent.
How much more would you be willing to spend in this situation?
Would you still be willing to pay for the chips if instead you only held 1000, while your opponents had 2000,2000, 2000, 3000?
Thanks to anyone who bothered to read this.
Assume that each chip's cost is proportional to another chips. What I mean by this, is if the tournament is 50 to join and get $1000 chips, $1000 gets you 2000 chips, 25 gets you 500 chips etc.
What would be the optimal buy-in? My original thinking that 1/3-> 1/2 would be +EV as other players might not be twice as likely to beat you. But then again if you are 10% ROI+, this probably would not be worth your time as you can make more with a normal stack.
So if starting with normal chips is better than 50% or so of the chips... would more than normal starting chips?
Lorinda has made a post about gambling early in STTs which may support this idea. More chips to outplay your opposition and explains how time may be better spent this way.
But then again, I am a cocky bastard and figure I am better than my average opponent. If I wanted this why not play a strategy that encouraged gambling early? With this you can try to gamble early.
However this would allow yourself"more chips" than you could buy assuming you can get your chips in with the best of it.
This question is confusing, and unfortunately I think it will be one of those it depends answers.
A similar idea, say that 5 handed everyone has equal chips. At this point pretend that you could rebuy for $50 which would be distributed .50/.30/.20 to the top the prizes.
According to ICM everyones EV with 2000 chips, everyones EV is $1000. Suppose you added 50 for another $1000 chips.
Everyones EV would increase to 103, and yours would increase to approximately 137. However, I would assume that this is not accurate as you have the ability to bully steal from the other stacks which should overtake the $13 you spent.
How much more would you be willing to spend in this situation?
Would you still be willing to pay for the chips if instead you only held 1000, while your opponents had 2000,2000, 2000, 3000?
Thanks to anyone who bothered to read this.