Which Tournament Has > EV?

Which of the following tournaments has a greater EV:

1) 3-table/30-entrants.
2) 2-table/20-entrants.

They both have the following in common:

* Payout Structure: 1st=50%, 2nd=30%, 3rd=20%
* Both identical: buy-ins ($20+$2), starting chips (1500), blinds (10/20, 12-minute), freezeout: no-rebuys, no-addons.

My first thought was that the EV would be the same... since the odds of winning in #1 is 1/30, and in #2 is 1/20. However, the # of people that you have to beat isn't really 50% greater, though, since there's another table that will dwindle it's own #s. Would it make a difference if the tourney was a shootout?

[zambonidrivr]

both are about the same imo.
i think you see a lot more donk action in the 3 table as people are not as patient.

[zambonidrivr]

at the end of the day, your going to have to win 1 or 2 flips. period

[Exitonly]

for an average player, they'll have the same EV.
for an above average player the 30 entrant one will have a higher EV because it's more top heavy. (both only pay 3 spots)

[Lloyd]

1) You start with 1500 chips out of a total of 45000. So you have 3 1/3% of the total chips. The total prize pool left (all of it) is $600. Your $EV is $20.

2) You start with 1500 chips out of a total of 30000. So you have 5% of the total chips. The total prize pool left (all of it) is $400. Your $EV is $20.

Makes no difference how many players in terms of EV. Your variance should be larger in the 30-player tournament but EV stays the same.

[ QUOTE ]
for an above average player the 30 entrant one will have a higher EV because it's more top heavy. (both only pay 3 spots)

[/ QUOTE ]
That's what I was thinking, too. I wonder what others will think?

[Lloyd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
for an above average player the 30 entrant one will have a higher EV because it's more top heavy. (both only pay 3 spots)

[/ QUOTE ]
That's what I was thinking, too. I wonder what others will think?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it makes absolutely no difference at all in terms of EV.

[AceofSpades]

yeah, higher number = more EV = higher variance

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
for an above average player the 30 entrant one will have a higher EV because it's more top heavy. (both only pay 3 spots)

[/ QUOTE ]
That's what I was thinking, too. I wonder what others will think?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it makes absolutely no difference at all in terms of EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Top heavy prize pool benefits winning player. He's relatively more likely to finish in a higher percentile. The 30-person is higher EV.

[Exitonly]

Lloyd, an above average player will get the top 3 spots more often, so why wouldn't the one that pays more to the top 3 have a better EV?

for an average player, you're right it wouldnt make a difference.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
Makes no difference how many players in terms of EV. Your variance should be larger in the 30-player tournament but EV stays the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

but better players will place high more than their share. and more chips in play mean that there will probably be more total hands played , which has to benifit the player who has +EV on each hand dealt.

i mean by the reasoning you usued, couldn't you prove that an MTT with $xx buyin has the exact same EV as a STT with $xx buyin?

[Exitonly]

well, for the average player.. they do.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
well, for the average player.. they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, yeah, if its an even field, with N players who all have 1/N chance of winning, then yeah, obviously. it could be a tourney of flippin coins, shooting dice, playin slots, whatever... of course their EV will all be negative whatever the rake is.

but for an average(losing) player their EV would have to be worse in the MTTs, right? since the good players are getting more EV from the same prize pool it must mean that they're getting it from the average/losers, right?

If you're a winning player, then your +EV has to come at the expense of someone else's -EV. So more -EV players means a higher EV for the best players in the tourney. If the extra ten players were better players than you, then it would be -EV to play the larger tournament, because their +EV would mean -EV for you and everyone else worse than them.

[Lloyd]

Isolate what you're trying to analyze. Is it the size of the field or the top heaviness? If it's being top heavy, what's more EV, a 1,000 person field that pays the top 10% or a 1,000 person field that pays only the winner (like a satellite). Assume both fields have identical players.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]

Isolate what you're trying to analyze. Is it the size of the field or the top heaviness? If it's being top heavy, what's more EV, a 1,000 person field that pays the top 10% or a 1,000 person field that pays only the winner (like a satellite). Assume both fields have identical players.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you're constantly playing profitable poker, i think its pretty obvious that the winner takes all would have the most EV.

I think it depends on the payout structure of the 10% one as well.

[pfkaok]

well. i mean it probably wouldn't be highest overall EV for the player long term. since the variance is ridiculous, so the BR requirements would be enormous... but in terms of str8 EV, for that tourney, i have a hard time believing WTA isn't best.

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Isolate what you're trying to analyze. Is it the size of the field or the top heaviness? If it's being top heavy, what's more EV, a 1,000 person field that pays the top 10% or a 1,000 person field that pays only the winner (like a satellite). Assume both fields have identical players.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you're constantly playing profitable poker, i think its pretty obvious that the winner takes all would have the most EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you figure? What if you were a super player and finished 2nd 3 times st8 and walked away with nothing.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you figure? What if you were a super player and finished 2nd 3 times st8 and walked away with nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is why i said not practical, long term EV... b/c playing in these you'd be so likely to go broke. but just b/c you're likely to go broke doesn't mean its not extremely +EV.

if you were offered 10:1 on a coinflip for your entire BR, it might not be a smart play since you'll go broke half the time. but the +EV in that bet would be increadible.