Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips [Archive]

Exitonly

11-10-2005, 04:59 PM

I'm talking about my friend with it now..

now i agree w/ Matt's point mostly, but one thing i think he neglected, is he talks about 'doubling up' only as going to showdown for all of your chips. In dublin, i was never all in for everything until i was knocked out.. so i got 6x what i started at without ever 'doubling up'

--
a few things my friend said about it (he's playing now so they arent descriptive)

"
Neutraiity: [censored] argument
e x i t o n l y4: it's not perfect, but it's alright
Neutraiity: Nah it's not. He's all about "winning the tournament", not EV
e x i t o n l y4: maximizing winning the tournament, most definitely would maximize EV
e x i t o n l y4: things are so dammn top heavy
Neutraiity: Not at all.
Neutraiity: Let's say I increase my chances to "win" by 1% and diminish my chances to cash at all by 14%. Definitely not maximizing my EV
e x i t o n l y4: where'd you pull those numbers out of?
Neutraiity: It's also overvaluing a big stack. They're nice, but if you can handle a moderate stack well cashing at all becomes damn +EV
Neutraiity: Top of my head. My point's only that maximizing winning ain't the same as maximizing total EV
e x i t o n l y4: They are, because by maximizing winning, you're also getting plenty of other cashes
e x i t o n l y4: and they're really really top heavy
Neutraiity: Nah, you're getting knocked off lots
e x i t o n l y4: .. you're getting knocked off lots regardless
e x i t o n l y4: it's why ITM% doesnt matter much at all, it's all about ROI%
Neutraiity: Right! So "winning %" doesn't matter either. ROI or EV does
Neutraiity: You just restated my point :P
e x i t o n l y4: no i didnt at all
e x i t o n l y4: because the top 3 spots are what make ROI
Neutraiity: I don't agree with that. Ah well, playing now, so don't wanna do a bunch of numbers, but save the article
e x i t o n l y4: alright
Neutraiity: A good NL player has a much bigger edge over his opponents than a good limit player.

thoughts?

A_PLUS

11-10-2005, 04:59 PM

I have a problem with his calculation

When he explains how to find the "necessary edge" that you are waiting for by folding QQ, he uses 22000 as the expected chips stack in the future when you win the first coin flip. But He only uses 10000 as the comparison stack size when you pass.

With blinds as low as they are, shouldnt the 2000 extra chips still be won by someone who passes on the coin flip?

KneeCo

11-10-2005, 05:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Neutraiity: You just restated my point :P

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate hate hate (!) it when people say this or 'you just proved my point' when it isn't true.

The Matros' article is quite good IMO, not complete, there are some follow-up questions and arguments, but I'm sure the author is aware of these. Nevertheless, in terms of addressing the coin flip debate, I think it does a very good job. Way better overall than most Cardplayer articles I've (although I haven't read it religiously).

Good article.

Melchiades

11-10-2005, 05:23 PM

"Calling here doesn’t negate our skill over the field. Calling here is our skill over the field."

Indeed.

illegit

11-10-2005, 05:27 PM

Exitonly's buddy is talking utter nonsense. Not even sure what he's saying. Maximizing your chances to win a tournament almost always simultaneously maximizes your EV and ROI, with only rare exceptions (satellites).

Very good article.

11-10-2005, 06:23 PM

One huge problem with Matt's article / point of view.

Did anyone else notice that HE SAW THE AK of diamonds.

I don't know about you, but the last time I played poker for $10,000... not to many people were showing me their cards.

My point is that if just 1 out of 10... or even 1 out of 20 times... your read is wrong... and it's not a coinflip (turns out your dominated)... it scews all the numbers that he based his thesis on.

I don't know about you... but how many times have you been 100% sure someone has AK... only to see them turn over KK or AA.

So, this "realistic / honest" twist thrown into the mix throws all the number to an unprofitable play.

furthermore... if he really wants to stick to his guns... he has to make this same play with 22 - JJ... not just QQ's. Almost exactly the same odds. The only difference is that you have to tell your friends you went out of a tournament with ducks instead of mop-squeezers.

P.S. if your "coin-flip" reading ability and selections are always 100% on... I would like to back you in the next WSOP circuit event.

Exitonly

11-10-2005, 06:29 PM

That's not as much of a flaw as you think.

w/o seeing the cards, players would muck QQ here every time.
--

The point Matt trries to make is that there are TONS of people that would say to pass up on teh situation even KNOWING that it's a 'coinflip'

KneeCo

11-10-2005, 06:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
One huge problem with Matt's article / point of view.

Did anyone else notice that HE SAW THE AK of diamonds.

I don't know about you, but the last time I played poker for $10,000... not to many people were showing me their cards.

My point is that if just 1 out of 10... or even 1 out of 20 times... your read is wrong... and it's not a coinflip (turns out your dominated)... it scews all the numbers that he based his thesis on.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one is arguing that you wouldn't fold QQ there against a push. It's actually an easy fold (in an event with a WSOP ME type structure of course).

However, there are some players, who even if they saw the AK would actually think: Im one of the best players here, I don't need to win a coin flip to accumulate chips, I'll pick a better spot to push my chips in the middle. This fallacious thinking is what Matt is debunking in his article. Seeing the villains cards is just a device to illustrate his point clearly.

11-10-2005, 06:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Calling here doesn’t negate our skill over the field. Calling here is our skill over the field.

[/ QUOTE ]

End of thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok ... I'll be a flak magnet by saying I lay this hand down in a heartbeat.

Why?

- First off, a guy that makes this kind of play is probably the worst player at the table if not the tournament. I figure to be able to get a decent chunk of this guys chips in better situations anyway. Why rush?

- Second, I'm starting out with 0.1% of the chips. If I double first hand .... ok fine ..... I now have 0.2%. Am I realistically any less or more of a favorite to get to the money or finish high in the money? IMHO, no.

- Third, if I decide to lay that hand down, I make sure to show everyone that I'm laying it down. It is a classic dump, purposely intended to make people fire at will at me. It loosens people up and makes it more likely that they will be trying to outplay me with lesser hands.

IMHO, there is one fatal flaw in the Matros argument. Yes Matros counts down the number of times he has doubled up. He also states correctly that he is doing well by doubling up in the majority of his all-ins. Ok, fine, I'll buy that.

However, what he fails to do is establish any correlation between the points of the tournaments at which he made his doubles, versus the eventual finish in the tournament.

If asked in reality, I would doubt seriously that he would admit to pushing all-in during the first hand or first orbit of a major tournament ....... ever!!

My last question is whether or not this article is written for entertainment value, or as true professional advice from a world-class pro to any amateur who comes across it?

IMHO, this article has entertainment value and little else.

EDIT:
Let's take the argument two steps further.

- Replace the two Queens with two Jacks. Do you still make the call? The odds are almost the same.

- Replace the two Queens with two Tens. Do you still make the call? The odds are almost the same.

If you can't answer yes to the same question for the QQ, JJ and TT, then there is a flaw in the logic. You either call with all 3 or lay down all three. If you follow Matros' logic, then you call with everything down to about 55, or you fold with everything. Who in their right mind would do that?

11-10-2005, 06:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]

IMHO, this article has entertainment value and little else. [ QUOTE ]

I aggree... I respect Matt's research and hit outline... however...

It's a lot easier to grab your balls and "say" your willing to coin-flip for large sums of potential cash than to actually do it.

adanthar

11-10-2005, 07:01 PM

I think 500% ROI is extremely difficult but attainable by a few people and 300% is not horribly out of the ordinary from the numbers I've seen. For me, this particular hand would be a fold...

...but I'd call if he had AKo, so it's pretty close.

woodguy

11-10-2005, 07:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You don’t want to risk your whole tournament on one hand? Then you shouldn’t be in the tournament

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

Regards,
Woodguy

Exitonly

11-10-2005, 07:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think 500% ROI is extremely difficult but attainable by a few people and 300% is not horribly out of the ordinary from the numbers I've seen. For me, this particular hand would be a fold...

[/ QUOTE ]

being 5x better would be a 400% ROI.. wouldn't it?

sorry for being nit-picky. (or stupid, if i'm wrong)

11-10-2005, 07:06 PM

Spree, yours might be the worst post ever.

adanthar

11-10-2005, 07:09 PM

No problem, I suck at math and actually edited 5x to say 500%, lol. I meant 5x/3x.

limon

11-10-2005, 07:20 PM

donk.

nath

11-10-2005, 07:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
First off, a guy that makes this kind of play is probably the worst player at the table if not the tournament. I figure to be able to get a decent chunk of this guys chips in better situations anyway. Why rush?

[/ QUOTE ]

Eight other players at the table are probably thinking the same thing. With all that competition, do you really think you have a better than 54% shot later on to take ALL his chips?
Here is your chance to beat the rest of the table to it. Opportunity has presented itself. Seize the day!

[ QUOTE ]
- Second, I'm starting out with 0.1% of the chips. If I double first hand .... ok fine ..... I now have 0.2%. Am I realistically any less or more of a favorite to get to the money or finish high in the money? IMHO, no.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMHO, you are twice as likely to finish in the money. Do you see why?

[ QUOTE ]
Third, if I decide to lay that hand down, I make sure to show everyone that I'm laying it down. It is a classic dump, purposely intended to make people fire at will at me. It loosens people up and makes it more likely that they will be trying to outplay me with lesser hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

At what point will you be willing to take a stand, though? You won't get AA or KK enough. I'd be willing to bet you end up folding lots of hands "waiting for a better spot" until it's too late.

[ QUOTE ]
IMHO, there is one fatal flaw in the Matros argument. Yes Matros counts down the number of times he has doubled up. He also states correctly that he is doing well by doubling up in the majority of his all-ins. Ok, fine, I'll buy that.

However, what he fails to do is establish any correlation between the points of the tournaments at which he made his doubles, versus the eventual finish in the tournament.

If asked in reality, I would doubt seriously that he would admit to pushing all-in during the first hand or first orbit of a major tournament ....... ever!!

[/ QUOTE ]
He has probably never had a situation where he has seen his opponent's cards after he pushed all-in, though. So what is your point? The example is illustrative of a principle, not a tournament situation one expects to encounter.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's take the argument two steps further.

- Replace the two Queens with two Jacks. Do you still make the call? The odds are almost the same.

- Replace the two Queens with two Tens. Do you still make the call? The odds are almost the same.

If you can't answer yes to the same question for the QQ, JJ and TT, then there is a flaw in the logic. You either call with all 3 or lay down all three. If you follow Matros' logic, then you call with everything down to about 55, or you fold with everything. Who in their right mind would do that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would because I'm not under the delusion that over the course of the tournament I'm going to have a better shot of getting to 20,000 chips in the long run.

But Spee, you and I have been down this road before. I feel as though you treat each tournament individually as a contest to survive as long as possible without looking at the plays that will maximize your ROI in the long run. I actually posted this to specifically address the mentality you (and others) exhibit; Matros has done a clear and concise job of explaining it and backing it up with math. I have attempted to do so in the past with theory and philosophy (and eloquence, I hope), so I feel I have no more to say on the subject.

limon

11-10-2005, 07:26 PM

i call 55 in a heartbeat, then again my tournament entry is pennies to me and life is one long poker game. like doyle i'd bet it all on a coinflip getting 55-45, ive been broke before, its no biggie.

furthermore, he may be the worst player and now you have his sorry ass all to yourself...why give him back to the rest of the table?

and...many top players go broke in the first few orbits because of plays exactly like this...thats why they are top players, theats why you know them and they dont know you.

ask yourself this, would you do it if the buy in was $10 instead of $10,000 of course you would! now go back to the $10 games where you can make good decisions. 10k will be a penny in no time.

limon

11-10-2005, 07:28 PM

deal with the example at hand...dont make up new examples to justify ur bich ass fold....hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Noodles

11-10-2005, 07:33 PM

if you are afraid to go allin when you KNOW you have an edge then why the hell are you playing poker?

gergery

11-10-2005, 07:39 PM

So lets say it’s the same exact situation except you are in the big blind and it’s folded to the small blind who pushes. You see he has JTs. You have 88. you’re edge is now 50.2% and you’re getting better than 50-50 pot odds ---- do you call now? It is EV+ after all.

What’s equity percentage point at which you call vs. fold?

Let's say the 9 other players at your table reveal that they are beginners who won seats in workplace raffles, like the woman from that magazine last year -- does your answer change?

-g

Noodles

11-10-2005, 07:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i call 55 in a heartbeat, then again my tournament entry is pennies to me and life is one long poker game. like doyle i'd bet it all on a coinflip getting 55-45, ive been broke before, its no biggie.

furthermore, he may be the worst player and now you have his sorry ass all to yourself...why give him back to the rest of the table?

and...many top players go broke in the first few orbits because of plays exactly like this...thats why they are top players, theats why you know them and they dont know you.

ask yourself this, would you do it if the buy in was $10 instead of $10,000 of course you would! now go back to the $10 games where you can make good decisions. 10k will be a penny in no time.

[/ QUOTE ]

excellent points,what is all this waste an adge now to find a bigger edge later stuff about.

what if you dont find a bigger edge later,then youll wish to go back in time to the hand where you had a small edge, /images/graemlins/wink.gif

doesnt that stuff come from slanskys bit about forgoing a coinflip today as youll have a better bet tomorrow,
but in poker you dont know for sure if your going to have bigger edges in a tournie later on,
what if you get dealt garbage after this initial hand? youd be kincking yourself.

this leave a small adge stuff is for wimps

11-10-2005, 07:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i call 55 in a heartbeat...

ask yourself this, would you do it if the buy in was $10 instead of $10,000 of course you would! now go back to the $10 games where you can make good decisions. 10k will be a penny in no time.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you're saying... is that if you knew you where 75% better than your opponent... and your EV was positive every time you played him... you would take a 55% coin-flip to beat him? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

I hope people don't back you in heads up tournaments. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

nath

11-10-2005, 07:48 PM

nath

11-10-2005, 07:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i call 55 in a heartbeat...

ask yourself this, would you do it if the buy in was $10 instead of $10,000 of course you would! now go back to the $10 games where you can make good decisions. 10k will be a penny in no time.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you're saying... is that if you knew you where 75% better than your opponent... and your EV was positive every time you played him... you would take a 55% coin-flip to beat him? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Quantifying the % you are better than an opponent is nigh impossible; 75% sounds like a huge stretch. Besides, as mentioned before, you have eight other players to contend with at the table who will also be trying to get his chips.

[ QUOTE ]
I hope people don't back you in heads up tournaments. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a heads-up tournament, where you can let small edges accumulate over time. Why do you think Hellmuth won that but rarely goes deep in big-field events anymore (at least not without loads of bitching and moaning to his mommy and daddy that the mean aggressive players don't play by his rules)?

Exitonly

11-10-2005, 07:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So lets say it’s the same exact situation except you are in the big blind and it’s folded to the small blind who pushes. You see he has JTs. You have 88. you’re edge is now 50.2% and you’re getting better than 50-50 pot odds ---- do you call now? It is EV+ after all.

What’s equity percentage point at which you call vs. fold?

Let's say the 9 other players at your table reveal that they are beginners who won seats in workplace raffles, like the woman from that magazine last year -- does your answer change?

-g

[/ QUOTE ]

i feel like i'm arguing for both sides, i agree about pushing small edges, and i'm not afraid of 'coinflips' (well i guess i am), but i'm folding the 88 here... and i'd probably fold the QQ too.

but like adanthar said, vs AKo i think i'd call. around 55% feels like the turning point for me.

---

If before the tournament started, the tournament director proposed that you flip this coin (literally) if it's heads you start with 20,000, if its tails, you're out. Would you take it?

What matters is your EV at 10k, and your EV at 20k. I don't think it's quite double (atleast for me). If your value goes from 10,000 to 17,500.. then it would be +EV for you starting at a 57% chancec to double up.

11-10-2005, 08:02 PM

I always held to "waiting for a better spot" but I have seen too many situations where I identified a donk such as this, found myself as a probably favorite (>51% but <60%) and folded. After reading that, I think the math is clear that I am letting a good opportunity slip away.

-Gross

11-10-2005, 08:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I always held to "waiting for a better spot" but I have seen too many situations where I identified a donk such as this, found myself as a probably favorite (>51% but <60%) and folded. After reading that, I think the math is clear that I am letting a good opportunity slip away.

-Gross

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of the theory here assumes that we all have to win coin flips in order to win tournaments? I disagree on this fundatmental premise.

of course... in late rounds when everyone has a limited number of blinds, you have to push every little edge.

woodguy

11-10-2005, 08:16 PM

pooh74

11-10-2005, 08:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you follow Matros' logic, then you call with everything down to about 55, or you fold with everything. Who in their right mind would do that?

[/ QUOTE ]

????

God, I see people make this argument all the time..."dude, would you have called me with 22?!?" "You knew I mightve had AK so why not call with 22?" As though they just figured out that day that 22 and QQ are both flips verus AK.

Anwyay, Matros uses the unlikely example of seeing his opponent's cards (AK) so we know we are a flip..so 55 is fine for his example. This has nothing to do with the theory.

illegit

11-10-2005, 08:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you follow Matros' logic, then you call with everything down to about 55, or you fold with everything. Who in their right mind would do that?

[/ QUOTE ]

????

God, I see people make this argument all the time..."dude, would you have called me with 22?!?" "You knew I mightve had AK so why not call with 22?" As though they just figured out that day that 22 and QQ are both flips verus AK.

Anwyay, Matros uses the unlikely example of seeing his opponent's cards (AK) so we know we are a flip..so 55 is fine for his example. This has nothing to do with the theory.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, but.. dude. Cmon. Queens like.. look real big and stuff. just look at how 5s look. I mean, they're FIVES for pete's sake. And queens, are QUEENS. See what I'm getting at?

Exitonly

11-10-2005, 08:38 PM

also, q's are like 3% better.

Proofrock

11-10-2005, 08:47 PM

First, I'd like to say that I enjoyed the post very much, and it echoes a question I've often asked: what future edge are we really looking to press?

That being said, I have two comments / questions about the argument.

1) "Let’s reasonably (conservatively, actually) say that when you double up right away, your stack will be worth $22,000 at that hypothetical future point at which you would’ve found your better spot. It’s time to do the math. If taking the “coin flip” gives you a 53.8 percent chance to have a stack of $22,000 later in the tournament, how likely do you have to be to double up later in order to fold your pocket queens? Well, you can answer that by solving this equation: x(20,000) = (.538)(22,000)."

Unless I am mistaken, this assumes that by passing up the coinflip early on your chip stack is static until you do (i.e., that you'll accumulate chips faster if you have a bigger stack). This assumption seems questionable to me, especially during the early stages of the tournament. In my opinion, a more realistic model (to first order) would have you accumulating chips at roughly the same rate in both instances -- in that case, assuming you are in an all-in situation, the equation would become x*24000 = 0.538*22000, meaning x < 0.538 -- i.e., it would be better to wait and take an even SMALLER edge later on.

2) "I just made the argument that very good players should actually take slightly negative EV situations early in a tournament, because if they win the hand, they get to use their skill with their new stack."

Let's say you double up on the first hand. Your table then has you sitting with t20000, and everybody else sitting with t10000. Until somebody else at the table doubles up, those extra chips aren't usable for anything (except the psychological advantage that you can bust anybody else at the table). How does your "skill" with your new stack come into play early in the tournament?

---

Not to say I disagree with the article, but I'm definitely not sold on these two points.

-J.A.

11-10-2005, 08:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Matros has done a clear and concise job of explaining it and backing it up with math.

[/ QUOTE ]

Respectfully nath, Matros didn't prove anything with the math in his article.

He says that he has won about 53% of his doubles. Ok fine.

What he has not done is demonstrate any correlation between those doubles and his finishes. Further, he has not done any correlation between those times where he lost the chance to double, but did not bust out and still finished in the money or high up in the money.

I will go out on a limb and speculate that in those tournaments where he has finished very highly that those doubles have come at very key points in the tournament, such as right before the money or at the FT.

I would further speculate that he has probably rarely if ever risked a double very early in a big ticket tournament, and then gone on to a high finish or a win.

If you want to restate the conditions and ask do I take this bet later on in a tournament, then sure, I think everyone and their brother fades the bet. But first hand, I don't think so.

Also, with respect to your point about how to treat tournaments, I made a post recently about generally treating tournaments with the same mindset as a single hand.

In all fairness to you and another poster, I can admit that you have a valid point that to me there is a difference between a $30 tournament and a $10K tournament. Perhaps to both of you there is no difference.

But in all fairness to me, at the small entry MTTs that I play in, I see all kinds of nut-cases and supposed internet rated "top players" busting out or doubling up in the first hand or two. For those that did double, I cannot recall a single instance where the player finished high in the money or won.

You can and have demonstrated the linear increase in expectation by an early double. However, you or anyone else has not established an correlation between an early double and higher finish versus a double at some other point.

The real question is whether or not a first hand double is statistically significant or not. To me, it seems intuitively obvious that the larger the tournament, the less significance the early double would have.

Now if you want to change the parameters and say it is now a 10-player single table $10k freezeout, then I say, heck yeah, I'll fade the bet in a heartbeat. But a 1000-player event, I don't think so.

adanthar

11-10-2005, 09:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
ask yourself this, would you do it if the buy in was $10 instead of $10,000 of course you would!

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I wouldn't, because in a $10 I can double up 70% of the time by randomly pushing kings UTG and having AJo call.

Matt might be right on second thought, though, because for that matter I wasn't thinking about having a 300% edge at the WSOP when I made that post. How many total donks are there in the main event?

A_PLUS

11-10-2005, 11:25 PM

I have some further clarity about his use of 22,000 vs 10,000 when comparing the future edge you would need.

Basically, you have 20,000 after a coin flip, after a set number of hands, you can expect to turn that into 22,000.

When you pass, you have 10K. What % of the time can you turn that 10K into 22K? It isnt meant to be read for only all-in situations.

Your chips are expected to increase (b/c you are a winning player). If you played a million tournaments, you would have a good idea of how your chips are expected to grow given a certain number of hands. Forgetting about the benefits of using a big stack. You have some ground to make up to get your 10K distribution to catch up to your 20K distribution.

Will you reach the 20K distribution levels with a greater frequency than you would win the coin flip? If so, pass on the flip. If not, take the flip.

Basically, people overestimate the % of time they reach the level of chips they would have if they started with 20K.

Proofrock

11-11-2005, 02:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I have some further clarity about his use of 22,000 vs 10,000 when comparing the future edge you would need.

Basically, you have 20,000 after a coin flip, after a set number of hands, you can expect to turn that into 22,000.

When you pass, you have 10K. What % of the time can you turn that 10K into 22K? It isnt meant to be read for only all-in situations.

Your chips are expected to increase (b/c you are a winning player). If you played a million tournaments, you would have a good idea of how your chips are expected to grow given a certain number of hands. Forgetting about the benefits of using a big stack. You have some ground to make up to get your 10K distribution to catch up to your 20K distribution.

Will you reach the 20K distribution levels with a greater frequency than you would win the coin flip? If so, pass on the flip. If not, take the flip.

Basically, people overestimate the % of time they reach the level of chips they would have if they started with 20K.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't quite answer the question I raised earlier. The mathematical analysis Matros provided was as follows: in the set amount of time it takes your "better player edge" to double you up to t20,000, if you had doubled up on the first hand you would have t22,000 (by estimate), so from that your edge has to be ~59%. However, if your chip accumulation is limited by minimum(your stack, opponent's stack), then having t20,000 vs. having t10,000 after the first hand should have almost no effect on your ability to accumulate chips.

Thus, by his analysis and this assumption, if you double up early and then continue using your "edge" to play, after a set amount of time you have accumulated x additional chips, leaving you with

(0.538)(20,000 + x).

If you assume the same accumulation rate, fold the first hand and then are offered the EXACT SAME situation at this set amount of time, you will have

(0.538)(20,000+2x) = 0.538(20,000 + x) + 0.538x

which is 0.538x greater than if you had doubled up on the first hand. In the example, x was 2,000, so you'd have an extra 1076 chips if you wait to take the coinflip later on.

This assumption is probably only valid if the amount of time it takes you to accumulate the extra x chips is short compared to the blind schedule, which is more likely in a large buy-in (longer blind level, deeper starting stack) tournament than in the smaller tournaments.

I guess there is a subtle difference in the argument. In Matros's case, he is arguing that your rate of doubling your stack is probably less than is acheived by getting all-in on the first hand. In the argument I'm making, if we figure we'll have a chance of being in a similar situation a little later in the tournament, then we can expect a greater return by passing on this opportunity and making the call later on.

-J.A.

11-11-2005, 06:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
if you are afraid to go allin when you KNOW you have an edge then why the hell are you playing poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who in their right mind considers open pushing all in preflop as playing poker? Pre-flop open push is a betting strategy, not a poker strategy. Out-thinking and out-playing opponents on the flop, turn and river is playing poker. IMHO, there is a difference.

Going all in preflop in cases like this OP, is just two opponents standing at the roulette wheel, one has red and the other has black, and one opponent gets the "0" and the other does not. You're telling me that's poker????

I think CardSharpCook stated it well in another post, something to the effect that all-in preflop is a "vulgar form" of poker.

Honestly, if you had a preference or choice, would you rather push pre-flop when you "think" you might be a 1.1:1 favorite or push on the flop or turn when you are "sure" to be a 5:1 or 10:1 favorite with a committed opponent?

11-11-2005, 07:16 AM

Sklansky, in Tournament Poker for Advanced Players, says that the chipleaders from day 1 in the big event tournaments rarely make it to the final table. I interpret that as empirical evidence against Matros' hypothesis. Being that willing to gamble for all your chips is not the way to win.

Also, if you believe in the ICM model, calling becomes a dubious move. I've done the calculations for a 1-table SnG, 10 players with $1500 stacks and $10/$20 blinds. Prizes of 50%, 30% and 20% for 1st-3rd place. Calling with a 53% edge is a +cEV but a (slightly) -$EV move.

So I'd fold.

yvesaint

11-11-2005, 07:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
One huge problem with Matt's article / point of view.

Did anyone else notice that HE SAW THE AK of diamonds.

I don't know about you, but the last time I played poker for $10,000... not to many people were showing me their cards.

My point is that if just 1 out of 10... or even 1 out of 20 times... your read is wrong... and it's not a coinflip (turns out your dominated)... it scews all the numbers that he based his thesis on.

I don't know about you... but how many times have you been 100% sure someone has AK... only to see them turn over KK or AA.

So, this "realistic / honest" twist thrown into the mix throws all the number to an unprofitable play.

furthermore... if he really wants to stick to his guns... he has to make this same play with 22 - JJ... not just QQ's. Almost exactly the same odds. The only difference is that you have to tell your friends you went out of a tournament with ducks instead of mop-squeezers.

P.S. if your "coin-flip" reading ability and selections are always 100% on... I would like to back you in the next WSOP circuit event.

[/ QUOTE ]

youre arguing a completely different thing than what his article is talking about

its theory

hes saying that if there is a coinflip situation like QQ v. AK, you should take it

theoretically

11-11-2005, 07:42 AM

I've seen players in tournaments of various sizes who rather than avoid the 50/50s (and sometimes even some less favorable odds) actively seek out such situations early in a tournament in an effort to either quickly accumulate chips or bust out and do something else with their time (as opposed to spending several hours to just barely make the money or end up busting out on the bubble b/c of a low chip stack). I agree that this strategy is not quite "pure" poker, but I wonder if by avoiding some of these 50/50 situations, a player is denying him/herself valuable opportunities to acquire a healthy stack of chips which, in the end, gives them a better chance at winning either more money or the entire tournament.

Tiffany

Exitonly

11-11-2005, 07:49 AM

Not quite sure what you mean about 'trying to avoid' them, or 'actively seeking them out'

but yes, if a player is passing up on +EV (not cEV) situations (by avoiding the coinflips or however) then they are hurting themself in the longrun.

Jason Strasser

11-11-2005, 07:55 AM

I want to be you.

11-11-2005, 08:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Not quite sure what you mean about 'trying to avoid' them, or 'actively seeking them out'

but yes, if a player is passing up on +EV (not cEV) situations (by avoiding the coinflips or however) then they are hurting themself in the longrun.

[/ QUOTE ]

By trying to avoid them, I mean when they are presented with what they believe to be a 50/50, they prefer to fold their cards as opposed to playing the hand.

By actively seeking them out, I mean that as opposed to sitting back and waiting for an opportunity to outplay an opponent, they are looking for the first opportunity where they believe they are at least a 50/50 shot to win, in order to double up.

Tiffany

11-11-2005, 08:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Who in their right mind considers open pushing all in preflop as playing poker? Pre-flop open push is a betting strategy, not a poker strategy. Out-thinking and out-playing opponents on the flop, turn and river is playing poker. IMHO, there is a difference.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree completely. Matros makes it sound like poker tournaments are all about getting it all in pre-flop with an edge.
When I sit at a poker table, I usually reckon that I'm one of the better players (maybe I'm deluding myself but there you go!). If the blinds are small relative to stack size, then I say to myself "most of these guys are going to make mistakes, I'm probably going to make mistakes too but these guys will make substantially MORE mistakes, so I've got a very good chance of accumulating chips at this table".
If however the blinds are high relative to stack size, I'm going to take these +EV coinflips because these guys won't make enough mistakes for me to take advantage of .

On the other hand, if I look around and see Phil Ivey, Ram Vaswani, Dan N., and a few other pros, then I'll jump at any +Ev coinflip because that's my best chance of getting chips. These guys are going to outplay me if I get involved.

So, in the scenario given my Matros, I fold.

Koss

11-11-2005, 10:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]

So, in the scenario given my Matros, I fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

He says you only need a 59% chance or better of doubling your stack at some point if you fold here. I don't have the data to back it up, but I think this is definitely possible at a table full of crap players.

A_PLUS

11-11-2005, 11:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]

He says you only need a 59% chance or better of doubling your stack at some point if you fold here. I don't have the data to back it up, but I think this is definitely possible at a table full of crap players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your missing a key point of his analysis.

It isnt that you just have to double up at some point in the tournament. For the situation to be equal you have to catch up to the 20K stack.

Here is a good way of thinking about it.

You clone yourself and enter into a tournament. Both versions of yourself have the QQ vs AK scenario for the first hand. Version A takes the flip, version B folds.

From there both versions go and accumulate chips. As soon as Version A (assuming he wins the flip) increases his stack, version B now has a new target. You not only need to make up for the 10,000 chips you missed out on by the coin flip, but also all of the chips that version A has won in the same amount of time.

Where the 59% came into play in the article was taking into account these 'newly accumulated chips'.

We take any time frame
-1 hand

If Version A of myself failed to accumulate any chips, I would only need a 53% chance to double up to be even with him (in terms of EV)

53% of the time A has 20,000 chips, so EV = 10600
We want to know how often we need to get to 20K
20,000 x X% = 10,600......X% = 53%

-100 hands
Version A is expected to win 700 chips. Now my target is 20, 700 chips. During the same time frame, how often would I need to double to be equal to A in terms of EV?

EV(A) = 20700 x .53 = 10,971
EV(B) = 20000 x X% = 10,971
X% = 54.8%

The longer it will take you to double up, the higher frequency you will have to do it with to be even with the Version A (takes flip) of yourself.

It is easy to pass on a flip, then look back at the 1st break and say "hey, I doubled up anyway, I must have been correct to pass". We forget to think about the fact that if we had taken the flip, we would be at 3x our original stack now, not just double.

hope this helps

twang

11-11-2005, 11:23 AM

Ok, I'll probably make a fool of myself, but I thought about how significant doubling your % of chip total from 0.1% to 0.2% really is. At first glance it seems pretty insignificant in a large field; increasing your % of the chips total from 0.1% to 0.2% seems like nothing. But let's look at an example:

1000 players of the same skill level plays an MTT. Buyin is $30. Prize pool is $30K. (First price is $6500.) Each player start with $1000 in chips.

In other words, you start the tourney with 0.1% of the chip total. This makes your share of the prize pool 0.1% * $30,000 = $30.

Now, assume you play a 50-50 hand all-in the first hand in the MTT. If you lose the flip your share of the total prize pool is 0. If you win the flip, your share of the flop is all of a sudden $60, $30 more than your buyin. I think that this is a likeable bet.

Given that the bet above is good, what about making the same bet further into the tourney? Say you are in 2nd hour and your stacksize is $5000. $5000 is 0.5% of the chip total, which makes your share of the prize pool 0.5% * $30,000 = $150.

Now the same situation comes up again and you're facing another 50-50 bet. If you win the flip, your share of the prize pool is 0. But if you win the flip your share is $300.

If the examples above are valid, the first thing one realizes is that the bigger stack you have when making a flip vs an equally sized stack, the better the payoff (doh!). At these early levels the bets are good, but not overwhelmingly great. But when ITM they are a sweet deal, because losing doesn't mean 0 - it means the bustout prize, whatever that is. And if you win, the payoff is huge, the extreme example being flipping between 1st and 2nd prize. It's a win-win situation, basically.

The other lesson is that the value of an early coin-flip depends of the size of the prize pool. If we would change the prize pool in the example above from $30,000 to $15,000 (everything else stays the same), taking a coinflip in the first hand would not be good.

For some reason, all this reminds me about Ed Miller's "You guys fold too much"-post where the billionaire walked by and dropped an "extra" $1000,000 in the pot. In MTTs the prize pool is the pot and the bigger the potential win, the better the bet. Coinflipping at the FT are the best bet there is.

11-11-2005, 11:37 AM

Simple 50/50 coin-flipping is always a bad idea unless you're head-to-head. Because when you coin-flip, it's win-win for the rest of the people in the tournament.

Let's say that there are three people left in the tournament. Prizes are $500, $300 and $200. You and player B have $4999 in chips and player C has $2 in chips. If you flip a coin with player B, one of you will bust out and take the $200 prize. The other will be in great shape to take the $500 first prize. On average you win $350. If you don't take the flip, player C will almost certainly take 3rd prize and you and B will win $400 on average. So by flipping, you're donating $100 to player C.

Bad move...

A_PLUS

11-11-2005, 11:43 AM

You started off so good....

1.) changing the prize pool, doesn't change anything. We are thinking of things in terms of % of total prizes, so it doesnt change anything if it 1$, or a million

2.) Once we are in the money, the prize you get when you bust out now is completely irrelevant. Everyone gets at least that much, so it doesn't effect decision making if it is 0 or a million, doesnt matter. What matters is the distribution of the rest of the payouts.

3.)Flips make less sense at the final table. Here, your % of total chips does not equal the % of the total prize pool, b/c some of the prizes have already been given out. Also, just surviving has real $ value. Each time someone busts out you make money.

A_PLUS

11-11-2005, 11:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Simple 50/50 coin-flipping is always a bad idea unless you're head-to-head. Because when you coin-flip, it's win-win for the rest of the people in the tournament.

Let's say that there are three people left in the tournament. Prizes are $500, $300 and $200. You and player B have $4999 in chips and player C has $2 in chips. If you flip a coin with player B, one of you will bust out and take the $200 prize. The other will be in great shape to take the $500 first prize. On average you win $350. If you don't take the flip, player C will almost certainly take 3rd prize and you and B will win $400 on average. So by flipping, you're donating $100 to player C.

Bad move...

[/ QUOTE ]

You gave an example of one very specific case when you shouldn't take a coin flip. A little different than proving that you shouldnt take 50/50 flips period.

11-11-2005, 11:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
53% of the time A has 20,000 chips, so EV = 10600
We want to know how often we need to get to 20K
20,000 x X% = 10,600......X% = 53%

[/ QUOTE ]

Respectfully, IMHO there is a problem with this analysis. This is no limit, not limit or pot limit.

53% of the time you double and still have a chance to cash. 47% of the time you are out and have no chance to cash.

In neither case has any financial expectation been reached. And isn't that the whole point, financial expectation rather than tournament chip expectation?

The real questions to be asked and answered for the analysis are:
- On average for 1000 runners all starting at 10K, how many chips are required to cash and to make the final table?
- Does the 1st hand double increase the chances of getting to that point?

Without going back to BurningYen's post for reference, I would speculate for purposes of discussion, that it takes roughly 2% or better of the tournament chips to get to the money and roughly 8% or better to get to the FT.

In the OP example, there are roughly 10M tournament chips in play. You need roughly 2% or 200K to get to the money and roughly 800K for the FT.

Does that first hand double significantly increase your chances of getting to 200K or 800K minimum thresholds? This is the real question IMHO.

I think part of the answer lies in the skill of the player, as another poster hinted at. If I'm the worst player in the tournament, then yeah, maybe I take that shot because I'm going to have to hit the lottery just to cash anyway. Might as well try to get lucky right off the bat.

On the other hand, if I'm one of the top players in the tourney and figure that I'm even money to get to minimum cash and maybe 9-1 to make the FT, then there's no way I take that risk when I know that I have more than a reasonable chance of grinding this player and other players out of their chips.

A_PLUS

11-11-2005, 12:20 PM

No matter which way you slice it, you need to get to the 20K point in chips.

You can start at 20K 53% of the time
or
You can start at 10K 100% of the time

No matter what way you have of measuring $EV, 20K is better than 10K.

It will take you a certain number of hands to reasonably expect to get to 20K from 10K. This will be different for every player.

During the time it will take you to get from 10K to 20K, you also could have been playing with a 20K stack (53% of the time if you took the coin flip).

So, at the end of this time period you have two stacks to analyze, the 20K that you earned from the 10K, and how many total chips you would have if you won the QQ coin flip and played the same way. Lets say it is 30K.

Since 30K is greater than 20K, it must be more valuable. However you want to calculate $EV doesnt matter, more is always better. Since 30K is better, we need to answer the question,

What would I rather have?

A 53% chance of having 30,000 chips
or
a X% chance of having 20,000 chips

No matter how you think chips turn into $ profit, if X% is not greater than 53%, you will never pick the 20,000 chip option. So, you need a greater than 53% chance, that is a mathematical certainty.

The rest is just how much $value you think the extra 10K in chips has. But it is 50% more chips, so it has to have some pretty significant value, or else you are arguing for passing up some seriously large edges.

jacksup

11-11-2005, 12:34 PM

The idea is to compare rewards. So if I pass on the ak/qq spot, the reward is that I'll have a better chance to get to 20k later. I won't necessarily have a better chance to get all my chips in at once. In fact, a lot of players think the main reason to pass on the edge is that they'd rather try to double up by hammering away at small pots.

If I take the ak/qq spot, the reward is that I have a 53.8% chance (or whatever I said the number was) to have 20k right now. 20k right now is worth more than 20k at some point down the road. So Bill Chen had the idea to use something like 21k or 22k as the future stack size in order to account for this difference. There's no way to know what the number should be exactly, but I think anything in the 21k-23k is reasonable. The point is just that if you had, say, a 53.9% to get to 20k at some later time, then you should definitely take the 53.8% shot now, because the chips are worth more if you get them earlier.

Best,
Matt

A_PLUS

11-11-2005, 12:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The idea is to compare rewards. So if I pass on the ak/qq spot, the reward is that I'll have a better chance to get to 20k later. I won't necessarily have a better chance to get all my chips in at once. In fact, a lot of players think the main reason to pass on the edge is that they'd rather try to double up by hammering away at small pots.

If I take the ak/qq spot, the reward is that I have a 53.8% chance (or whatever I said the number was) to have 20k right now. 20k right now is worth more than 20k at some point down the road. So Bill Chen had the idea to use something like 21k or 22k as the future stack size in order to account for this difference. There's no way to know what the number should be exactly, but I think anything in the 21k-23k is reasonable. The point is just that if you had, say, a 53.9% to get to 20k at some later time, then you should definitely take the 53.8% shot now, because the chips are worth more if you get them earlier.

Best,
Matt

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we are saying the same thing, but from different angles. Basically the 2-3K is just a proxy for the value of the number of hands you will have to play to get to 20K, given your skill level.

I am thinking about this graphically, so I may be doing a bad job of putting it into words.

11-11-2005, 12:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I've seen players in tournaments of various sizes who rather than avoid the 50/50s (and sometimes even some less favorable odds) actively seek out such situations early in a tournament in an effort to either quickly accumulate chips or bust out and do something else with their time (as opposed to spending several hours to just barely make the money or end up busting out on the bubble b/c of a low chip stack).
Tiffany

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't be serious. If that "logic" is true, then the player should take his buy-in to do the whatever is better option , skipping the tournament completely

11-11-2005, 01:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've seen players in tournaments of various sizes who rather than avoid the 50/50s (and sometimes even some less favorable odds) actively seek out such situations early in a tournament in an effort to either quickly accumulate chips or bust out and do something else with their time (as opposed to spending several hours to just barely make the money or end up busting out on the bubble b/c of a low chip stack).
Tiffany

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't be serious. If that "logic" is true, then the player should take his buy-in to do the whatever is better option , skipping the tournament completely

[/ QUOTE ]

I am serious as I have seen people do it (or at least this is the explanation they've given at the time). In reading the posts here I can see arguments for taking on the 50/50 chances and arguments against risking your entire tournament on such situations. I'm not sure which is better/correct; it may be as previously suggested that it all depends on the player's skill level. The more highly skilled players will probably be capable of grinding their way through the less skilled players in the tournament; but I do see the "logic" (or thinking) of people who prefer to take a 50/50 early in a tournament, even if it means their tournament life is on the line, in order to acquire the chips they believe necessary to allow them to place higher or ultimately win the tournament.

Tiffany

11-11-2005, 01:48 PM

Thing is, people have argued about passing up on edges ranging from 60/40(common) to as ridiculous as 80/20 (GambleAB post), and by doing that the only person you are going to "outplay" is yourself. A GENUINE 50/50 situation has been debated before, and Mat shows us how much of an edge you really shouldn't ever be willing to pass up on, no matter your skill level. People don't realize how big those "small" edges actually are.

11-11-2005, 02:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, if I'm one of the top players in the tourney and figure that I'm even money to get to minimum cash and maybe 9-1 to make the FT, then there's no way I take that risk when I know that I have more than a reasonable chance of grinding this player and other players out of their chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Ship it!!!

11-11-2005, 02:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Spree, yours might be the worst post ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. The point of the article isn't calling an all-in when you don't know what the person has...it's a hypothetical on whether it's worth it to risk all your chips when you have a small edge.

The argument has been debated endlessly on these forums as to whether you would risk your tourney life with a small edge if you think that by passing up on this small edge you might be able to gain more chips and avoid the risk of ruin when you have a bigger edge later in the tourney.

I for one am all for pushing any small edge I have in a tourney as I am working on being an accummulator as oppossed to a survivor.

In Erick Lindgren's new book he says he always pushes his small edges whenever he can. I think his results means 'nuff said.

SoloAJ

11-11-2005, 02:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i call 55 in a heartbeat...

ask yourself this, would you do it if the buy in was $10 instead of $10,000 of course you would! now go back to the $10 games where you can make good decisions. 10k will be a penny in no time.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you're saying... is that if you knew you where 75% better than your opponent... and your EV was positive every time you played him... you would take a 55% coin-flip to beat him? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

I hope people don't back you in heads up tournaments. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to remember that we aren't heads up, so don't bring that into the conversation. You are at a table with 8 other guys thinking the same thing you are. So even if you are 75% to beat him overall, you really are only about 11% to even get the chance to be the one who takes him out.

So yes, you should call as a 55% even if you are 75% better. Because that 75% really translates into about 9%. Hope that helps.

-Solo

Exitonly

11-11-2005, 03:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

He says you only need a 59% chance or better of doubling your stack at some point if you fold here. I don't have the data to back it up, but I think this is definitely possible at a table full of crap players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your missing a key point of his analysis.

It isnt that you just have to double up at some point in the tournament. For the situation to be equal you have to catch up to the 20K stack.

Here is a good way of thinking about it.

You clone yourself and enter into a tournament. Both versions of yourself have the QQ vs AK scenario for the first hand. Version A takes the flip, version B folds.

From there both versions go and accumulate chips. As soon as Version A (assuming he wins the flip) increases his stack, version B now has a new target. You not only need to make up for the 10,000 chips you missed out on by the coin flip, but also all of the chips that version A has won in the same amount of time.

Where the 59% came into play in the article was taking into account these 'newly accumulated chips'.

We take any time frame
-1 hand

If Version A of myself failed to accumulate any chips, I would only need a 53% chance to double up to be even with him (in terms of EV)

53% of the time A has 20,000 chips, so EV = 10600
We want to know how often we need to get to 20K
20,000 x X% = 10,600......X% = 53%

-100 hands
Version A is expected to win 700 chips. Now my target is 20, 700 chips. During the same time frame, how often would I need to double to be equal to A in terms of EV?

EV(A) = 20700 x .53 = 10,971
EV(B) = 20000 x X% = 10,971
X% = 54.8%

The longer it will take you to double up, the higher frequency you will have to do it with to be even with the Version A (takes flip) of yourself.

It is easy to pass on a flip, then look back at the 1st break and say "hey, I doubled up anyway, I must have been correct to pass". We forget to think about the fact that if we had taken the flip, we would be at 3x our original stack now, not just double.

hope this helps

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't a better way of comparing it, be that Player A has to catch up to Player B's EXPECTED value.. so it's not 20,000.. it's 10800.

So if player A can get to 10800 chips, 60% of the time, then it would be good.

pooh74

11-11-2005, 03:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've seen players in tournaments of various sizes who rather than avoid the 50/50s (and sometimes even some less favorable odds) actively seek out such situations early in a tournament in an effort to either quickly accumulate chips or bust out and do something else with their time (as opposed to spending several hours to just barely make the money or end up busting out on the bubble b/c of a low chip stack).
Tiffany

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't be serious. If that "logic" is true, then the player should take his buy-in to do the whatever is better option , skipping the tournament completely

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats not what she means.

I am not sure I agree, but what she is saying has less to do with hourly rate considerations and more to do with what acquiring a big stack early does for you.

IOW, a good player feels that their edge might come from covering the table where their edge is magnified. In order to do this, they might feel it is worth risking their "life" (sigh, sorry) on getting this edge. Because "you", as the better player, will be able to put those extra chips to better use than the other guy if he were to collect those extra chips.

On the other hand, being an average stack early is like being superman on crypton...not worth your time.

Again, not saying I agree, but i think thats what Tiffany was getting at.

Exitonly

11-11-2005, 03:12 PM

Yep, i've officially changed sides...

I'm definitely folding here, and i like it.

In an incredibly slow structure, in a tournament FILLED with idiots. Theres no way that this +800 chip (8% of our stack) move is worth the ginormous variance. And, i don't think it's +EV. My value doesn't quite double (as Mason's big ole post has been suggesting), i'd guess i'm worth between 60-80% more. So i'd need a 60%+ chance (in one shot) to double up for me to feel right doing it.

And the stats Matt quoted at the end, about how he countned that he double dup in 55% of his tournaments or somethign... that was online tournaments right? with fast structures/low chips? In a tournament like this it's gotta be more likely to double up. Maybe i'm just an arrogant prick though.

gergery

11-11-2005, 03:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]

In Erick Lindgren's new book he says he always pushes his small edges whenever he can. I think his results means 'nuff said.

[/ QUOTE ]

rotfl, can you think of any reasons why Matt Matros' thoughts and those expressed in Lingren's book might be very similar?

-g

A_PLUS

11-11-2005, 03:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't a better way of comparing it, be that Player A has to catch up to Player B's EXPECTED value.. so it's not 20,000.. it's 10800.

So if player A can get to 10800 chips, 60% of the time, then it would be good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I looked at it like a probability distribution of different stack sizes. Since the EV of A = 10800 isnt a possible value, you should look at it the other way.

I give Player A a 10,000 chip head start. Does player B catch him > 53% of the time?

In order for Player B to make more money, at the very least he will have more chips than player A at the time that A goes broke.

The longer that you expect to last in the tournament, the more the two player's converge, and the less you should be willing to call the QQ vs AK bet.

How we view our distributions is really the only question that needs to be answered. I dont think I would catch player A often enough to fold.

twang

11-11-2005, 04:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
1.) changing the prize pool, doesn't change anything. We are thinking of things in terms of % of total prizes, so it doesnt change anything if it 1$, or a million

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I'm following here. Let's say the total prize pool is $2500 and the rest is the same (buy-in $30, 1000 players, $1000 in chips, sick tourney, I know). Your share of the prize pool is 0.1% * $2500 = $2.5. Going all in on a coinflip and winning would increase your share of the prize pool to... Well, not much and a lot less than the buy-in.

On the other hand, if the prizepool was sweetened with a billion or so your initial share of the PP would be rather big (and so it would be for everyone else, obviously), way bigger than your $30 buy-in.

[ QUOTE ]
2.) Once we are in the money, the prize you get when you bust out now is completely irrelevant. Everyone gets at least that much, so it doesn't effect decision making if it is 0 or a million, doesnt matter. What matters is the distribution of the rest of the payouts.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. I just used the ITM-example to illustrate that flipping higher in the tourney is a better deal than flipping early.

[ QUOTE ]
3.)Flips make less sense at the final table. Here, your % of total chips does not equal the % of the total prize pool, b/c some of the prizes have already been given out. Also, just surviving has real $ value. Each time someone busts out you make money.

[/ QUOTE ]Hrm...yeah. Those tiny factors slipped my mind /images/graemlins/blush.gif. Yes, I think this is a confusing subject. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

chuddo

11-11-2005, 04:10 PM

as i read his article i was thinking "i do not really agree with this", and then i got to:

[ QUOTE ]
If, after a thousand tournaments, you find that you're doubling up more than 59 percent of the time or so, congratulations; you might be good enough to fold queens in the above situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

and i realized yes, that sounds about right. i fold.

burningyen

11-11-2005, 06:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Without going back to BurningYen's post for reference, I would speculate for purposes of discussion, that it takes roughly 2% or better of the tournament chips to get to the money and roughly 8% or better to get to the FT.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you have me confused with someone else.

11-11-2005, 07:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think you have me confused with someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apologies. I was trying to recall back from the pinned Wisdom threads. Thought it was you. My bad.

pfkaok

11-11-2005, 08:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yep, i've officially changed sides...

I'm definitely folding here, and i like it.

In an incredibly slow structure, in a tournament FILLED with idiots. Theres no way that this +800 chip (8% of our stack) move is worth the ginormous variance. And, i don't think it's +EV. My value doesn't quite double (as Mason's big ole post has been suggesting), i'd guess i'm worth between 60-80% more. So i'd need a 60%+ chance (in one shot) to double up for me to feel right doing it.

And the stats Matt quoted at the end, about how he countned that he double dup in 55% of his tournaments or somethign... that was online tournaments right? with fast structures/low chips? In a tournament like this it's gotta be more likely to double up. Maybe i'm just an arrogant prick though.

[/ QUOTE ]

no offense exit, but i think since you ran quite well in the EPT event you're overestimating a good players ability to double up without taking big risks.

when matros says almost nobody can double up before they bust 59% of the time, he's talking about these big field 10k buyins.

everyone rips on these theoretical examples b/c they're unrealistic, like to actualy see the other guys' cards. but the fact is, part of being an expert player is having the ability to process more info than others. so at time you can tell that you're 55% or so vs. their range to double up. if you're good enough to deduce that you're in a 55% spot like that, and knowingly pass it up, you simply won't do as well in MTTs as somebody witht the same ability who takes those chances.

AAmaz0n

11-12-2005, 12:19 AM

I agree with the notion that it depends on your skill level relative to the rest of the table, and the value of your time.

Consider if you are unfortunate enough on Day 1 of the WSOP to be seated at a table with Ivey, Lederer, Matasow, Helmuth, and Negreanu and Brunson. Very few of us are going to survive playing post-flop with that lineup; a coin flip looks like just lovely in that situation.

On the other hand, if you happen to get an entire table of folks that can't even spell "pokur" taking a coin flip looks much less attractive.

I know that Matros does the math and shows that the coin flip should still be right in the latter situation, but I still would rather get into a post-flop match with folks that I feel I have that strong of an edge on. If I'm going to take a coin flip with folks that I think that I have a good shot outplaying, I at least want to be the one pushing rather than calling so that they have a chance to make more bad decisions.

Tiffany makes a good point about the value of time; if you are taking time from playing a ring game where you have a favorable hourly rate, that should be factored in if you are considering a "double up quick or bust" strategy. It may be much more +EV to either put yourself in a situation where you can take control of the table early with a big stack if you are missing substancial earnings from a cash game by continuing to play.

Shauna

11-12-2005, 05:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about you... but how many times have you been 100% sure someone has AK... only to see them turn over KK or AA.

[/ QUOTE ]

But combine that with the times they throw over JJ and TT

nath

11-12-2005, 06:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I still would rather get into a post-flop match with folks that I feel I have that strong of an edge on. If I'm going to take a coin flip with folks that I think that I have a good shot outplaying, I at least want to be the one pushing rather than calling so that they have a chance to make more bad decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Spee expressed a similar idea in an earlier post. Here's the thing: Just because you want to play that way doesn't mean it's going to work the most often or give you the most success. Spee's post mentioned "getting it all in on the turn or a river as a 4 to 1 or 5 to 1 favorite." Yes, we would all rather wait for those spots; however, they don't come often enough and there is less of a chance your opponent will go along with you in those spots. It's not that we can't play postflop poker, it's that we need to take advantage of the situations as they arise, even if we don't "like" them or they aren't the most comfortable way for us to play.

11-12-2005, 07:01 AM

i read the article and it made alot of sense i have to say.
just one thing that i dont understand.
how come when talking about coin flip situation he only says earlt in the tourny.the argument and tha calculations that were made,seem to be good at any stage of the tourny and not just the earlt stages.

Mason Malmuth

11-12-2005, 07:22 AM

Hi Everyone:

I haven't read this thread but I did read the Matros article. I believe he is correct for the vast majority of players but wrong for extremely good ones. That's because, in my opinion, he under estimates the expectation of a really top player.

Here's what Dan Harrington says in Harrington on Hold 'em: Volume I:

[ QUOTE ]
Professionals rank the different forms of poker by how much they consider their entry fees in a tournament to be worth. Top seven-card stud players, for instance, think that the true value of an entry into a seven-stud tournament is about twice the entry fee. (Paying $1,000 to enter a seven-stud tournament should yield, over a long run of tournaments, about $2,000 in prizes.) An entry to a razz or Omaha tournament yields about the same value. But the best no-limit hold ’em players think that a $1,000 entry fee is worth $4,000 to $5,000, and in huge events like the World Series of Poker, with many beginners in the field, perhaps as much as $7,000 to $8,000.

[/ QUOTE ]

Matros seems to indicate that estimates like this are way too high. But if Dan is correct, it's my opinion that Matros is wrong for this small select group. However, if it happens to be me he's talking about, then I agree with him.

best wishes,
Mason

JustPlayingSmart

11-12-2005, 07:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
i read the article and it made alot of sense i have to say.
just one thing that i dont understand.
how come when talking about coin flip situation he only says earlt in the tourny.the argument and tha calculations that were made,seem to be good at any stage of the tourny and not just the earlt stages.

[/ QUOTE ]

He only is talking about early in the tourney because that is the time when some people say you should pass up small edges because you can get bigger edges later. They think that with small blinds, they can increase their stack without risking all of their chips. Most people agree that when the blinds get higher, you have to take any edge you can get.

Mason Malmuth

11-12-2005, 07:27 AM

Hi Proof:

One possible flaw here is that if you do play the queens and now it's a little later and you have that $22,000 and the opportunity presents itself to double up again, you probably can't do it even if you wanted to since your opponent is most likely to have less than you.

In the initial example with the queens, since it's the first hand your opponent has the chips so that you can get all in. But I don't think that will usually be the case shortly after you have doubled up.

Best wishes,
Mason

Mason Malmuth

11-12-2005, 07:35 AM

Hi Spee:

[ QUOTE ]
Who in their right mind considers open pushing all in preflop as playing poker? Pre-flop open push is a betting strategy, not a poker strategy. Out-thinking and out-playing opponents on the flop, turn and river is playing poker. IMHO, there is a difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're absolutely right, but so what. One of the criticisms that top side game players have of tournaments is precisely what you say. That is it's a betting exercise as opposed to a poker exercise.

Now while this is certainly an oversimplification, it's also somewhat true, especially late in the tournament where the Ms (see Harrington: Volume II) are low.

However, that's the way it is, and that's why the Matros article is interesting. He's essentially asking the question: When do I quit playing poker and just concentrate on the betting?

Best wishes,
Mason

triplc

11-12-2005, 10:20 AM

First of all, awesome thread. If nothing else it has given us some real meat to chew on for a change. In fact, it brought me out of posting retirement (which some I'm sure will regret).

One point that no one (I apologize if I'm repeating anyone, as I've skimmed some parts of the thread) has addressed is the value those extra chips have in giving you the ability to push small edges effectively later in the tournament.

Let's say you fold a 55-45 in the first hand as the example states. Then you hit a bad run of cards, get picked off on a bluff, or some other scenario that drains your chips to 5000 and you are the short stack at the table.

Now, suppose this exact same situation presents itself not once, but twice (hey, if we're going to use hypotheticals, why not go crazy).

Now I'm 55% to win the first one to get back to 10k and 55% again to win the second and get to the 20k I could've been at on the first hand. But now, I only have a (.55 x .55) 29.75 chance of being where I would've been at 55% in the first hand.

Also, with the biggest stack, I am going to be more comfortable pushing small edges because my chance of being busted on a given hand is zero. I want to be the guy with 55 putting a decent sized stack to a decision for all of his chips.

I am not a multi tourney expert by any means, in fact I consider myself a fair mtt player (more experience in SnGs or ring games). And I think this article helped me discover why. I am a very tight player, especially early, and I am usually frustrated by getting bounced in the middle rounds as a favorite by a big stack who pushed either a small disadvantage or sometimes sucks out as a big underdog. Or, I am forced to push with marginal hands as my stack dwindles to lt 10XBB.

Finally, am I missing the point when Matt says keep track of the number of times you've doubled up in a tourney. Is he counting the times he got drained to 1k in chips and double to 2k, or is he counting the number of times he accumulated double the starting chips. That's a big difference.

OK...fire away.

CCC

Proofrock

11-12-2005, 03:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Proof:

One possible flaw here is that if you do play the queens and now it's a little later and you have that $22,000 and the opportunity presents itself to double up again, you probably can't do it even if you wanted to since your opponent is most likely to have less than you.

In the initial example with the queens, since it's the first hand your opponent has the chips so that you can get all in. But I don't think that will usually be the case shortly after you have doubled up.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I was clear in my original post. Let's say you chose to fold the first hand. Matros assumes that you then sit with t10000 until you double up at time T. However, if you had doubled up, the assumption is that your stack will have grown to t22000 at time T. Now, if you have twice the stack of anybody else at the table, the extra t10000 are of no use as far as cEV is concerned, so I can only assume that whatever you had done to accumulate the extra 2000 chips by time T you would have been able to do with a t10000 stack. So I then proposed that it would make more sense to assume that you would have t12,000 at time T if you folded QQ on the first hand. So then, using Matros's own argument, "you can answer that by solving this equation: " x(24,000) = (.538)(22,000). By Matros' argument, this implies that you can pass up QQ the first hand, then get all-in as a dog (49.3% to win) at time T to equal the expecation from calling the first hand.

Thanks to your post, however, I've revisited this and have since come to believe that Matros's attempt to use this argument to support his claim is logically flawed: it assumes that there would be a situation where you would double up with a t10000 stack whereas you would fold preflop with the t22000 stack -- otherwise the comparison of what happens at time T via the equation x(20000)=(0.538)(22000) makes no sense.

Thankfully, though, the original article doesn't rest entirely on the shoulders of this argument.

-J.A.