An attempted restatement of PFKs point

[AtticusFinch]

I think that much of the flaming that has gone on with regard to the Red Zone notion is a lack of understanding of what is really being claimed.

I'd like to focus in on El Diablo's post:

[ QUOTE ]

The fact that one way I'm going to end up w/ 12.2BB and the other way I'm going to end up w/ 6.4BB shows exactly why I better not take any unnecessary risks with 12BB that put me in the "red zone" because even if my "EV is better" in the "red zone," where I end up is a much crappier place.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt even PFK would refuse to trade his 6bb stack for a 12bb stack if given the chance. Rather, I think what he's saying (correct me if I'm wrong), is that if your stack is reduced from 20 bb to 6 bb, you haven't really lost 70% of its value. If you accept that your last 6 bb are more valuable than the next 14, then this must be true, as a simple matter of ratios. (I won't comment as to whether your EV % is actually higher -- I defer to better players there.)

This thinking is similar to some earlier threads about my theory that a stack's value as related to its size is not a linear function (although it is a continuous and increasing one.) I was flamed quite thoroughly in that thread, and many of the posts demonstrated nothing more than a lack of understanding of what I was saying. (Which was probably my own fault for not explaining it better.)

Now I still disagree with some of PFKs conclusions about how this should affect your strategy, but that doesn't mean his thinking is completely absurd. It's one thing to point out a flaw in someone's argument. It's quite another to make a sweeping statement that the entire idea is moronic. Rarely are ideas perfect when first conceived.

Try to dig a little deeper before you categorically dismiss an idea. Many folks on here have good intuitive notions, but lack the math background to state them rigorously. Others have the background, but are too lazy or busy to do it. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

I know it feels good to flex nuts, but remember -- to quote the Geto boys, "real gangstas don't flex nuts, 'cause real gangstas know they got 'em."

[AtticusFinch]

It's only human nature to get defensive and cling to an idea when rudely attacked. Some, like MLG, made good, salient arguments. But others were just downright rude.

All a flame does is turn your "opponent" to stone, and reduce the whole discussion to a ridiculous farce.

In other words, "Now, kids -- play nice."

This forum is, after all, supposed to be a team effort. If you want to prove you're the shiznit, do it at the table, not here.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
This thinking is similar to some earlier threads about my theory that a stack's value as related to its size is not a linear function (although it is a continuous and increasing one.)

[/ QUOTE ]

But Atticus! You were talking about probability of winning in that thread! Now you are talking $EV! Of course the relation between stack size and $EV is not linear! It is very trivial, too, and well known, or accepted according to the normal models.

I agree with everything you say in this specific post here, but there is absolutely nothing new about any of the points you make.

[AtticusFinch]

[ QUOTE ]

But Atticus! You were talking about probability of winning in that thread! Now you are talking $EV! Of course the relation between stack size and $EV is not linear! It is very trivial, too, and well known, or accepted according to the normal models.


[/ QUOTE ]

I said similar, not identical /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ QUOTE ]

I agree with everything you say in this specific post here, but there is absolutely nothing new about any of the points you make.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, which is why it's so lame that PFK was flamed so thoroughly.

[KneeCo]

[ QUOTE ]

I agree, which is why it's so lame that PFK was flamed so thoroughly.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you're not saying the same things he and others have been saying, including, but not limited to, the idea that you would take slightly -EV risks in the orange (mid) level to either get a big stack and put yourself in a better position to win, or end up in the red zone and add necessarily to your EV and aggressiveness.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with everything you say in this specific post here, but there is absolutely nothing new about any of the points you make.


[/ QUOTE ] I agree, which is why it's so lame that PFK was flamed so thoroughly.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK this is getting irrational again. PFK was flamed because many of the points he made in many cases were wrong, and his arguments were refuted again and again. You were flamed in that theory thread you made for similar reasons, although not quite identical. Now, in this post here you say nothing that requires any kind of criticism or flaming, because it is all well-known and correct according to our understading of the game. I don't understand where this is going, and I'm really not trying to be hostile, or to flame you, or to be particularly judgemental or anything. It is just getting very very strange.

[pfkaok]

thank you. hopefully your wording will do more juctice to my idea than my own. this was what my friend, br00mcorn, was attempting to do last nite. i explained to her the theory (not mine, but my version of gigs/betgos), and she tried to make the points clearer, as she is a much better writer than me. unfortunately though, i think her status as somebody with no posts caused most to not to take her post as seriously. this was also upsetting to me. i think she did a very good job, and wrote things out more clearly than i had, but obviously got no positive responses.

as far as the theory, i think you captured it pretty well, as i understand it. as far as your numbers though, i think that 20 BB would probably be getting into the Bigger stack zone, esp if there's no antees. finding the exact inflection point would be tough, and would depend on many factors, so it'd vary from tourney to tourney. but i'm guessing that its somewhere in the orange zone, when the parabola of chip value hits bottom. the math to solve for that would be quite complex, and likely beyond what i learned as a math undergrad. it would probably take some sort of simulator, or VERY, VERY large DBs of winning players to either prove or disprove this theory. and so if somebody has the recources and can prove it one way or the other, i think it could be very revealing, and all together interesting to anyone who is serious about learning MTT theory.

[PrayingMantis]

Is this the twilight zone here? Atticus is simply repeating the ACCEPTED THEORY here in a concise way! There is nothing new about it! It has nothing to do with "your idea"!

This is completely crazy. HELP!!

[KneeCo]

[ QUOTE ]
thank you. hopefully your wording will do more juctice to my idea than my own.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying the OP here by AF actually summarizes what you've been saying this week? Cause IMO they're are huge gaps between the two. AF, as far as I can tell, is just describing the accepted notions on which betgo's theory has it's founding, but he is not describing betgo's theory. Far from it in fact.

EDIT: Sorry, redundant. PMantis beat me to it.

[PrayingMantis]

OK maybe I'm going completely crazy here.

I'm reading your OP again to see what excatly you're trying to say here.

[ QUOTE ]
if your stack is reduced from 20 bb to 6 bb, you haven't really lost 70% of its value.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, let's say it's accepted. Now you go on:

[ QUOTE ]
If you accept that your last 6 bb are more valuable than the next 14

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly do you mean by that? I'm sorry, but at first I've read it as "last 6" and "next 6", now I see it's "last 6" and "next 14" (It's gettin late here in the middle-east). I don't see how you get there at all and it looks completely arbitrary and does not follow.

[ QUOTE ]
OK maybe I'm going completely crazy here.

I'm reading your OP again to see what excatly you're trying to say here.

[ QUOTE ]
if your stack is reduced from 20 bb to 6 bb, you haven't really lost 70% of its value.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, let's say it's accepted. Now you go on:

[ QUOTE ]
If you accept that your last 6 bb are more valuable than the next 14

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly do you mean by that? I'm sorry, but at first I've read it as "last 6" and "next 6", now I see it's "last 6" and "next 14". I don't see how you get there at all and it looks completely arbitrary.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he means per chip.

Can we please stop this convo? Everything in these threads is either well-known, wrong, or flaming.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Can we please stop this convo?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no problem with that. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

I'm a bit sorry I got into it...

[Lloyd]

There may be some new points here but I'm putting an end to multiple threads on this topic. Post something original in a new thread (with no reference to betgo or PFK). Post a reply or "restatement" in the original thread.