The "winner take all" dogma

[eastbay]

"Winner take all plays like a ring game"

Spoken regularly and accepted as truth by most.

The only evidence I've ever seen, imperfect as it may be, says this is not true. That was the result of a simplified call/fold model for poker.

Any evidence that it is true? Other than argumentation by authority?

eastbay

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
The only evidence I've ever seen, imperfect as it may be, says this is not true

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you please specify what kind of evidence? You mean - hands that were played in winner-takes-all as if it was ring, and by that not maximizing $EV? In order to claim that, you must assume *first* that CEV is *not* equal to $EV in winner-takes-all, but that's actually what you're trying to find out. So, there's a bit of a contradiction here, if I get it right.

In other words: I cannot see how the concept that winner-takes-all should be played as a ring game (or not), can be "proved" by actual play. I can only see how it can be "proved" theoretically.

PrayingMantis

[AleoMagus]

I don't know about evidence, but I'll try giving a rationalle why this is so.

The big reason why survival is important in a regular tourney is that your chip value does not directly equate to real dollar value. This is because % paybacks to more than first place make holding all the chips worth less than 100% of the total prize pool. If, for example I win a Party $10+1 sng, my 8000 chips are not worth $100, but only $50. On the other hand, with three players left, the short stack's chips are worth more than $20, even if he only has 1 chip left. This makes winning chips an almost secondary concern to not going broke early. This is also a clear exampe of where chips decrease in value as your stack gets larger.

Sklansky gives a great example in TPFAP by pointing out that you could win 2nd place prize money without ever increasing your initial stack. In fact, every money finisher but the eventual winner will make money by LOSING their stack. This is what makes ring games different from tourneys, and why it is said that winner take all plays like a ring game. You cannot win without actually increasing your stack (and winning all the chips).

All that said, I think that if you are interested primarily in the results of one tourney, survival consideration are still present in winner take all. The reason for this is that you are still finished the moment you lose your stack. If you are much better than your opponents, taking small edges with your whole stack can be a mistake, because there might be better spots to gamble later and if you bust yourself early, you will never see them.

If you can always get into another winner take all tourney though, busting and buying into another is a lot like reloading in a ring game and you will still maximize your profit by taking any edge that you get.

This is a simple explanation, but I hope it makes some sense

Regards
Brad S

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only evidence I've ever seen, imperfect as it may be, says this is not true

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you please specify what kind of evidence? You mean - hands that were played in winner-takes-all as if it was ring, and by that not maximizing $EV? In order to claim that, you must assume *first* that CEV is *not* equal to $EV in winner-takes-all, but that's actually what you're trying to find out. So, there's a bit of a contradiction here, if I get it right.

In other words: I cannot see how the concept that winner-takes-all should be played as a ring game (or not), can be "proved" by actual play. I can only see how it can be "proved" theoretically.

PrayingMantis

[/ QUOTE ]

I already said it was by simulation of a simplified call or fold model. In this model, the EV is known, and the player decides to fold or call based either on pure EV, or on a combination of EV and risk. In this model, the player that considers both risk and EV wins more tournaments. The player that only considers EV (as is appropriate for a ring game), loses more tournaments.

So it is a theoretical result, just not one derived directly from full scale NLHE.

Look up "call/fold model" for all the details.

eastbay

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]

All that said, I think that if you are interested primarily in the results of one tourney, survival consideration are still present in winner take all.


[/ QUOTE ]

Agree so far.

[ QUOTE ]

The reason for this is that you are still finished the moment you lose your stack. If you are much better than your opponents, taking small edges with your whole stack can be a mistake, because there might be better spots to gamble later and if you bust yourself early, you will never see them.

If you can always get into another winner take all tourney though, busting and buying into another is a lot like reloading in a ring game and you will still maximize your profit by taking any edge that you get.

This is a simple explanation, but I hope it makes some sense

Regards
Brad S

[/ QUOTE ]

I either misunderstand your reasoning, or it is absurd. You want to win the most tournaments, and therefore you should act to maximize your winning chances in any given tournament. Thefore, whatever is correct for any one tournament is correct for every single tournament.

eastbay

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Look up "call/fold model" for all the details.



[/ QUOTE ]

I remember that thread now. It was very interesting.

However, I'll suggest looking at it this way:

You can find quite easily examples, that can occure during real or simulated tournies (not winner takes all!), in which CEV was clearly different from $EV, for either side.

Can you think of *one* example, in which $EV is not equal to CEV, in winner-takes-all tournament? I mean - real holdem (for that matter) situation. To make it even more simple - can you think about a situation like this HU? with equally competent opponents?

Logically, even *one* example that contradicts the "winner-takes-all" dogma, should be enough to negate it. No other evidence will be needed.

PrayingMantis

[AleoMagus]

[ QUOTE ]
You want to win the most tournaments, and therefore you should act to maximize your winning chances in any given tournament. Thefore, whatever is correct for any one tournament is correct for every single tournament

[/ QUOTE ]

Strictly speaking, yes, if everything was the same about these tournaments. Bankroll considerations and your opposition often make some risks undesirable, no matter how good they are.

Consider: If you only have $100, what would the better gamble be?

$100 bet that you will roll a 6 on a six sided die. If you win, you will get paid $1500?

$100 bet that you will roll a 1-5. If you win, you will get paid $200?

The first gamble has a higher EV, but do you really wanna risk going broke on a 5-1 shot?

This becomes an even more telling example if you know that tommorrow you will be offered a $100 bet that will pay you $1500 on a roll of 1-5. Why would you risk busting yourself for more EV when you might miss out on this bet the next day. If my bankroll was $20,000 then I'd take the 5-1 shot in a second, but if It is only $100 then staying alive is my priority.

There is also the psychological impact of swings that can reduce your actual edge in further gambles. I know of nobody who plays their best game when on a huge negative swing and it can be wise to pass up good bets to avoid big swings for this reason.

Many players hate the "there is always another sng" mentality for this reason. They are not satisfied with finishing tenth with a small edge against a total fish. It might be good for their hourly rate, but that is not always the most important thing. A string of good finishes (even if some 3rds could be traded for an equal number of 10ths and 1sts.) can often improve long term ROI by providing a player with confidence and experience, not to mention it is more enjoyable.

Also, your opposition plays a big part in these decisions as well. Why make a gamble with a small edge when you are effectively risking passing up that great bet tommorrow? This is what is happening when we take a coin toss gamble against a fish who we know will give us a better shot eventually.

There is a good excerpt from TPFAP on this site in the 'books' link that talks a little more about this. I am assuming you have not read this book or you would probably not be asking this question in the first place.

So back to your initial question... Yes, Winner take all plays like a ring game with respect to chip values (survival is less important than maximizing EV), but it is still a lot like a tournament when you consider that if you bust - you're done.

Regards,
Brad S

[Iceman]

"Winner take all plays like a ring game"

If you have a possible all-in situation with only a very small advantage, in a ring game you should take it (ignoring risk preference and bankroll issues). In a winner-take-all SNG, you should pass if you know you'll get better opportunities later.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
In a winner-take-all SNG, you should pass if you know you'll get better opportunities later.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't quite understand. What do you mean by "know"? How could you ever *know* you'll get better opportunities later (pattern maps not included)? If it is so because your opposition is weaker than you, then we're talking about something else.

However, the real question is, IMO: Do winner-takes-all tournies play like ring games when *all opponents are equally competent*? I believe that the one diffrence you've mentioned here, is not relevant to the question.

Edit: coming to think of it, what's the point in playing a tourney when *all opponents are equally competent*? or any kind of poker?? it's a complete crap-shoot... So I really don't know now... /images/graemlins/confused.gif


PrayingMantis

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Look up "call/fold model" for all the details.



[/ QUOTE ]

I remember that thread now. It was very interesting.

However, I'll suggest looking at it this way:

You can find quite easily examples, that can occure during real or simulated tournies (not winner takes all!), in which CEV was clearly different from $EV, for either side.

Can you think of *one* example, in which $EV is not equal to CEV, in winner-takes-all tournament? I mean - real holdem (for that matter) situation. To make it even more simple - can you think about a situation like this HU? with equally competent opponents?

Logically, even *one* example that contradicts the "winner-takes-all" dogma, should be enough to negate it. No other evidence will be needed.

PrayingMantis

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a nonsense question from which you'd like to draw a logical fallacy of a conclusion from the answer. Any given hand in a tournament typically has 0 $EV (you didn't win or lose on that hand), so it's a silly comparison. Apples and oranges.

You can only compare the result of the strategy for the probability of winning the tournament, vs. the results of the same strategy in a ring game, where I think we can all agree playing for $EV is the correct strategy.

So, slightly adjusting your question, it seems to be more like "I don't believe your simulation results unless you do full-scale hold 'em." Is that what you're saying?

eastbay

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In a winner-take-all SNG, you should pass if you know you'll get better opportunities later.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't quite understand. What do you mean by "know"? How could you ever *know* you'll get better opportunities later (pattern maps not included)? If it is so because your opposition is weaker than you, then we're talking about something else.

However, the real question is, IMO: Do winner-takes-all tournies play like ring games when *all opponents are equally competent*? I believe that the one diffrence you've mentioned here, is not relevant to the question.

Edit: coming to think of it, what's the point in playing a tourney when *all opponents are equally competent*? or any kind of poker?? it's a complete crap-shoot... So I really don't know now... /images/graemlins/confused.gif


PrayingMantis

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's a terrible assumption (all players equal in skill) to make in this discussion for exactly the reason you give. If you don't expect to have an edge on your opponent, the correct strategy is not to play, and then there's not much to talk about.

eastbay

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]

There is a good excerpt from TPFAP on this site in the 'books' link that talks a little more about this. I am assuming you have not read this book or you would probably not be asking this question in the first place.


[/ QUOTE ]

Give me a break. I have every reason to ask this even though I've read the book. The book has no convincing result one way or the other.

[ QUOTE ]

So back to your initial question... Yes, Winner take all plays like a ring game with respect to chip values (survival is less important than maximizing EV), but it is still a lot like a tournament when you consider that if you bust - you're done.

Regards,
Brad S

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you're saying is that it is, except that it isn't.

Seriously, though, when people say that, they appear not to mean "it is somewhat close," they appear to mean "it is identically the same." If you want to say "ok, maybe it is not really the same, but it is close enough to be a decent way to play" I'm certainly not going to argue much against that. I just don't like when people say it is "the same," because that appears to mean it is, well, the same. And I don't believe that's true. You appear not to, either, according to your last sentence.

eastbay

[Bozeman]

It is difficult (except in the heads up case) to prove that chance of winning scales as number of chips, but there is abundant evidence and there are suggestive arguments. No worthwhile alternative has been presented. If this is accepted, $EV=CEV in winner take all follows.

The difference between your results and the C=$ theorem comes not from a difference between chips and dollars, but from the denominator: the difference between hands or time and tourneys.

If you are trying to maximize $/hour (and you are a winning player), then you should take any +CEV situation. However, if, like your model, you are trying to maximize your $/tourney, then it can change the math. Now you are trying to maximize your $/tourney which will scale exactly with chips/tourney, but if chips/tourney is large, then you need to pass on oportunities where chips/hand are small, if they decrease hands/tourney.

This does not, in itself, make the tourney different than a ring game: in a ring game there are plenty of examples where you would pass up a +EV situation if it rendered greater +EV in the future. For example, suppose a weak player goes allin with AK. You have a low pocket, but you think that if this player wins or loses big here, he will leave, so you let him win, confident he will lose a significant fraction of his stack to you if he stays. Or heads up, you may want to play low variance so that it takes longer but you are more certain to bust your fishy opp.

In general, proper winner-take-all strategy is to maximize your CEV, but may depend on whether you look at CEV over the whole tourney or for each individual hand. The only case where you should definitely look at CEV/tourney (for this tourney) is when the opposition in this particular tourney is significantly more likely to make big mistakes later than the average for this type of tourney.

Hope this clears up the confusion,
Craig

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
It is difficult (except in the heads up case) to prove that chance of winning scales as number of chips, but there is abundant evidence and there are suggestive arguments. No worthwhile alternative has been presented. If this is accepted, $EV=CEV in winner take all follows.


[/ QUOTE ]

Given the premise, that conclusion seems nontrivial. Demonstration?

And the premise seems like it would have to be a function of the players' strategy. It seems trivial to show that. Just choose a strategy that has some function of absolute stack.

eastbay

[AleoMagus]

Even if all opponents are equally skilled, I am still going to want the best expectation I can get.

The 'equally skilled' assumption is not terrible becasue sometimes we realize too late that it is true. Also, we sometimes have so small an edge in skill that the 'know you will get better opportunities later' phrase doesn't apply. The small edges may be the best our superior play is going to give us.

I think what is being confused in this thread is the notion that winner take all tourneys play like ring games with respect to chipEV/$EV and the notion that they play like ring games PERIOD.

Survival is important in tourneys for two reasons.

The first is the differing values of chips. Winner take all tourneys are just like ring games in this respect.

The second is that we may want to stay alive to maximize our edge against weaker opposition if we are going to get better chances later. Of course winner take all tourneys are no different than regular tourneys in this respect.

BUT... this second point implies that there isn't another similarly weak tourney waiting for you to buy into. If the potential future 'better bets' are waiting for you there just as much as they are in your current tourney, then you should not worry about busting with early gambles where you have the best of it. This applies to regular tourneys as much as it applies to winner take all (or ring games where you can just reload, for that matter).

Regards,
Brad S

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]

I think what is being confused in this thread is the notion that winner take all tourneys play like ring games with respect to chipEV/$EV and the notion that they play like ring games PERIOD.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this thread is where it's being confused. It's being confused every time it's said, which is why I brought it up in the first place.

eastbay

[PrayingMantis]

I think we are moving in circles, although it's quite apparent you don't like any of the replies to your original post.

OK. You are saying my question is nonsensical, and then say:

[ QUOTE ]
Any given hand in a tournament typically has 0 $EV (you didn't win or lose on that hand), so it's a silly comparison. Apples and oranges.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is quite a bizzare statement. Your play in a specific tourney is by definition a series of decisions taking place over a series of particular hands. Therefore, saying that " Any given hand in a tournament typically has 0 $EV", is saying that your whole play in the tournament is 0 $EV, becuase a series of 0 $EV decisions add up to 0 $EV play, no matter how you look at it. *That* is nonsensical.

You can not distinguish between "strategy" and "a sequence of decisions taking place over a series of particular hands". Your occuption with "strategy", as being opposed (or completely different from) "particular hands", is very questionable, IMO.

PrayingMantis

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
I think we are moving in circles, although it's quite apparent you don't like any of the replies to your original post.


[/ QUOTE ]

Craig's reply was excellent and got to several of the critical issues, I think.

And I think what we're converging on here is that "plays like a ring game" is often said when what is really meant is "plays like a ring game in some respects, and maybe approximately even then."

[ QUOTE ]

OK. You are saying my question is nonsensical, and then say:

[ QUOTE ]
Any given hand in a tournament typically has 0 $EV (you didn't win or lose on that hand), so it's a silly comparison. Apples and oranges.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is quite a bizzare statement. Your play in a specific tourney is by definition a series of decisions taking place over a series of particular hands. Therefore, saying that " Any given hand in a tournament typically has 0 $EV", is saying that your whole play in the tournament is 0 $EV


[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, no. This is quite easy to see. You are in hand 27 of a tournament. You didn't win or lose the tournament on that hand. How much money did you win or lose in that situation? If you played that situation a billion times, how much money did you win or lose? The answer is always $0. Therefore the $EV of that play is zero dollars. This is just the definition of $EV. To say anything else would be bizarre.

Of course, the results of that hand change the situation that you're in. But the $EV for that hand is clearly 0.

[ QUOTE ]

becuase a series of 0 $EV decisions adds up to 0 $EV play, no matter how you look at it. *That* is nonsensical.


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, come on now. The hand on which you win or lose has the non-zero $EV in a tournament.

The strategy has $EV in that it applies to the tournament as a whole, not just a single hand.

[ QUOTE ]

You can not distinguish between "strategy" and "a sequence of decisions taking place over a series of particular hands".


[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't, wouldn't, and didn't.

eastbay

[AleoMagus]

Sorry didn't mean that part about the book as any kind of slight - I just thought that it cleared this issue up pretty well for me.

As for the it is, but it isn't - Let me try to make this clear...

It is exactly like a ring game with respect to CEV vs $EV

It is exactly like a tournament with respect to survival to get better bets later.

BUT... If other availiable tournaments offer the same 'better bets later' then all tournaments are exactly like ring games (in this respect). Buying into another is just like reloading.

So, the only way in which a winner take all is not like a ring game is if there is something particularly juicy about the tourney you are in that you will not be able to find elsewhere. Busting here might be bad and so it might be in your interest to think about survival.

Again though, similar types of situations do arise in ring games. An example of this might be an inability to reload or a fish who will leave if he books a big win.

So yeah - I think the dogma is right

Regards,
Brad S

[Bozeman]

"Uh, no. This is quite easy to see. You are in hand 27 of a tournament. You didn't win or lose the tournament on that hand. How much money did you win or lose in that situation? If you played that situation a billion times, how much money did you win or lose? The answer is always $0. Therefore the $EV of that play is zero dollars. This is just the definition of $EV. To say anything else would be bizarre.

Of course, the results of that hand change the situation that you're in. But the $EV for that hand is clearly 0."

Yes, you don't win or lose all the money on a particular hand.

HOWEVER, if you think this means you don't have finite $EV on a particular hand, you don't understand what EV is.

Craig

[eastbay]

I guess I don't understand it then. My understanding of $EV is the amount of $ you have after the "event" minus $ you have before the "event", taken in the limit of an infinite number of the same events.

The way I calculate $N - $N, I always get $0.

I guess your definition is somehow different. What is it?

eastbay

[Iceman]

"The 'equally skilled' assumption is not terrible becasue sometimes we realize too late that it is true."

I prefer the assumption that your opponents have a range of skills. It helps to consider a likely field involving both better and worse players, in order to plan your strategy accordingly. (For example, if the worse players are likely to go bust on the first three levels, then it might not make sense to play very tight on those levels and miss out on +EV opportunities, yet many otherwise good SNG players do exactly that.)

Also, there are shootout tournaments, where ten tables of ten each play down to one winner, and those ten winners then play down to one. If you're at the final table of a shootout, then you will presumably be against mostly very tough opponents, and there's nothing you can do about it if you're negative "chip EV" at that point.

"Also, we sometimes have so small an edge in skill that the 'know you will get better opportunities later' phrase doesn't apply. The small edges may be the best our superior play is going to give us."

Then you take a 51% shot and be glad for it. I was referring to situations when many of your opponents are so weak that you know you'll have better spots later.

"I think what is being confused in this thread is the notion that winner take all tourneys play like ring games with respect to chipEV/$EV and the notion that they play like ring games PERIOD."

If your opponents are treating them differently than ring games, then that's enough for them not to play like ring games. (For a similar example, the very early rounds of large tournaments should play like ring games in theory, but don't in practice.) If they're overly risk averse in an attempt to avoid early elimination, you have to take advantage of that.

"Survival is important in tourneys for two reasons. The first is the differing values of chips. Winner take all tourneys are just like ring games in this respect."

Agreed.

"The second is that we may want to stay alive to maximize our edge against weaker opposition if we are going to get better chances later. Of course winner take all tourneys are no different than regular tourneys in this respect."

I agree with that.

"BUT... this second point implies that there isn't another similarly weak tourney waiting for you to buy into. If the potential future 'better bets' are waiting for you there just as much as they are in your current tourney, then you should not worry about busting with early gambles where you have the best of it. This applies to regular tourneys as much as it applies to winner take all (or ring games where you can just reload, for that matter)."

There's a 51% chance you have 2x the stack, and a 49% chance of being eliminated, and just immediately buying into another such tournament. If you wait, you'll have all kinds of 56%, 61%, 58% chances. A player who keeps jumping on 51% chances won't do as well as one who waits for opportunities in the original WTA SNG.

Of course, once you're no longer better than your opponents (all the fish are gone and only good players are left), then you gladly bet your stack on a coinflip, or maybe even on a slightly -EV chance in the right conditions if the field is much better than you, since there are better prospects elsewhere.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
My understanding of $EV is the amount of $ you have after the "event" minus $ you have before the "event", taken in the limit of an infinite number of the same events.

The way I calculate $N - $N, I always get $0.


[/ QUOTE ]

Craig will probably give a much better definition of EV, as related to tournament play, than anything I could ever give.
But I will tell you one thing: I truely cannot understand how can you play (and win, I assume) tournaments, with such a peculiar concept of $EV.

To put it shortly: according to your definition of it, there's only *one* hand in a tourney in which your decision (or move) might have any $EV (other than 0). That's your last hand: the hand you bust, or win the tourney with.

Oh, and another thing: -$EV decisions are not possible. Which is nice.

PrayingMantis

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My understanding of $EV is the amount of $ you have after the "event" minus $ you have before the "event", taken in the limit of an infinite number of the same events.

The way I calculate $N - $N, I always get $0.


[/ QUOTE ]

Craig will probably give a much better definition of EV, as related to tournament play, than anything I could ever give.
But I will tell you one thing: I truely cannot understand how can you play (and win, I assume) tournaments, with such a peculiar concept of $EV.

To put it shortly: according to your definition of it, there's only *one* hand in a tourney in which your decision (or move) might have any $EV (other than 0). That's your last hand: the hand you bust, or win the tourney with.

Oh, and another thing: -$EV decisions are not possible. Which is nice.

PrayingMantis

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep.

Let me put this another way. And I'll start a new thread about it, because I think it's important.

eastbay

[rodeoclown]

I think maybe you are taking the statement
"plays like a ring game" too literally. I think
what the fundamental logic behind the statement
seeks to compare is multi-pays with winner-takes-all,
not tournaments with ring games. Therefore, I think
the key concept is that, in a multi-pay, you only
need one chip to make money, and in winner-take-all,
you need all the chips. Therefore, the concept that
"each chip you win is worse less" does not apply in
a winner-take-all. Each chip you win is worth
exactly the same as every other chip in play. Therefore,
when you make CEV calculations, you do not have to
discount for the fact that future chips < current chips.
As a result, CEV calculations will tend to equal $EV
calculations, as hands played approaches infinity
(i.e. over the long term). What you seem to have your
panties in a bunch over, as was pointed out by someone
else, is maximizing $EV/tournament as opposed to $EV/hour.
Since poker is not nearly as rare as getting 15-1 on a
dice throw, there is always another S&G, so you should
seek to maximize $EV/hour and not worry too much about
those tenth place finishes.

Here's an example. You have
AA on the BB in the first hand of a ten person tourney.
Every other player goes all-in in front of you. What
is your play if:
1) payoffs are (50, 30, 20)
2) winner-takes all
At this point, skill level should play little part in your
decision, as it is most likely you will either win the
tourney or be heads-up even stacked if you call and win,
obviously bust if you call and lose, and 1 vs 9 or
1 vs 4.5 vs 4.5 if you fold.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
I think maybe you are taking the statement
"plays like a ring game" too literally.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently so. I took that to mean an equivalence when apparently people mean "something in the ballpark in some respects." That's fine.

eastbay

[rodeoclown]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think maybe you are taking the statement
"plays like a ring game" too literally.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently so. I took that to mean an equivalence when apparently people mean "something in the ballpark in some respects." That's fine.

eastbay


[/ QUOTE ]

I know a good proctologist if you want that stick removed.
:-D

You are missing some of the very fine explanations given
by some very intelligent posters. I can only assume you
did not post your question in hopes of educating yourself.

[Bozeman]

Considering the difference between possible ring games, exactly like a ring game can only mean somewhere in the broad center of the distribution of ring games. Which these tourneys do fall into. No one is advocating playing some set strategy, they are advocating playing the strategy correct for the players you are against. And that risk of busting out has no additional significance.

Craig