Theoretical question that's driving me nuts

[parappa]

A hypothetical player playing sngs:

a) has unerring judgment and only puts chips into the pot when he has positive ev, but;
b) goes all-in every single time he has +EV, even if his +EV is 1 tournament chip.

I'm assuming that this player must be a winner over the long-term in a cash game, but will have huge variance. Is the same true of Sngs? Is it possible for him to actually be a losing player even though he makes only +EV bets, because he busts himself out more often? Or will his results simply take a longer time to even out?

[PrayingMantis]

interesting post. But there's something that bothers me about this player.

[ QUOTE ]
a) has unerring judgment and only puts chips into the pot when he has positive ev, but;
b) goes all-in every single time he has +EV, even if his +EV is 1 tournament chip.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that it's not so simple. In other words, these two criteria do not really help to understand how he plays. Let's take b first. Saying that he pushes every time he's +EV (do you mean CEV or $EV? it's very imporant), you assume that he takes in folding-equity, for instance. Otherwise it's not a complete EV assessment. So for b to be true, this player must have a PERFECT read: he should know exactly what cards everybody holds AND how they will react in any situation. Otherwise he can't make these decisions you say he makes.

Now, if we take a, a means that he also makes CALLS (not only pushes), if it's even slightly +EV. Again, he must know exactly what the cards are AND have a perfect knowledge of how players will react on next streets, for instance. Perfect information (except of the outcome of the cards).

SO, if this opponent must have perfect information in order to play as described in a and b, why would he act in such a way as described (specifically) in b, but not in a MUCH more adjusted way, that will allow him to maximze all the possible edges, he's aware of?

In other words, for this particular player, pushing in every +EV situation will be EXTREMELY stupid, and highly -EV, in regard to other options. And therefore, if you say that he has a perfect judgement (a) and only put chips in when it's +EV, it's in (some) contradiction with (b), according to which he's not playing a perfect game, but VERY far from it. So where did his "perfect judgement" go?

In a way, it's like saying someone is very short, but also very tall.

I'm not sure this answers your specific questions, but these are some thoughts.

BTW, a few months ago, a poster called Hood (if I remember correctly), started a thread about similar matters. It was in regard to the FTOP, and why it doesn't mean much in real poker, and specifically in SNG. Some of the thinking was similar to what you want to discuss here, I think.

[Irieguy]

If I somehow acquired the ability to know for certainty when I was ahead 100% of the time... I would push all-in every time too.

This hypothetical player would destroy the SNGs. Besides always being ahead, he would get people to fold coin flips often, and would never lay down the best hand.

Imagine playing somebody who would only bet with the best of it, and whom you could never push off of a hand. He's super tight-aggressive and unbluffable. I would tag him with a note and never play with him.

Irieguy

[parappa]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that it's not so simple. In other words, these two chriteria do not really help to understand how he plays. Let's take b first. Saying that he pushes every time he's +EV (do you mean CEV or $EV? it's very imporant), you assume that he takes in folding-equity, for instance. Otherwise it's not a complete EV assessment. So for b to be true, this player must have a PERFECT read: he should know exactly what cards everybody holds AND how they will react in any situation. Otherwise he can't make these decisions you say he makes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean ChipEv. Whether it's possible to make all positive ChipEV plays in such a manner as to get a negative $EV is the question I'm asking.

The sense in which I meant "only positive EV plays" was in the sense of some preflop plays being +EV even if you know your opponent will only call when he has a better hand, but it's really just a (bad) means to an end of asking the question above.


[ QUOTE ]
Now, if we take a, a means that he also makes CALLS (not only pushes), if it's even slightly +EV. Again, he must know exactly what the cards are AND have a perfect knowledge of how players will react on next streets, for instance. Perfect information (except of the outcome of the cards).

SO, if this opponent must have perfect information in order to play as described in a and b, why would he act in such a way as described (specifically) in b, but not in a MUCH more adjusted way, that will allow him to maximze all the possible edges, he's aware of?

In other words, for this particular player, pushing in every +EV situation will be EXTREMELY stupid, and highly -EV, in regard to other options. And therefore, if you say that he has a perfect judgement (a) and only put chips in when it's +EV, it's in (some) contradiction with (b), according to which he's not playing a perfect game, but VERY far from it. So where did his "perfect judgement" go?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I meant "perfect judgment" only to apply to his assessment of whether his play is +EV or not. Otherwise he's an idiot. The real question that I'm trying to ask is whether Chip Variance in an Sng, assuming (I know there are problems with this assumption) only +ChipEV plays, can make $EV negative.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
The real question that I'm trying to ask is whether Chip Variance in an Sng, assuming (I know there are problems with this assumption) only +ChipEV plays, can make $EV negative.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, now it's a more clear. but then, why not ask it "backwards?". I'll try:

Let's say player X has played N (pretty big number. How big? who knows. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] ) number of SNGs.

Now, is it possible that in retrospect ALL his decisions were +CEV, and still he has lost money?

I think this might be an easier way to ask it.

However, before trying to answer this very complicated question, I just wanted to note, again, that for judging whether a decision is +CEV or not, you need to take into calculation SO MANY factors, about how people actually reacted or would react, "now" and on next possible streets, that it's actually pretty much impossible to judge whether EVERY decision was indeed +CEV. This is true especially for marginal situations, which are very very common (you don't know if it's somewhat +CEV, or somewhat -CEV. Making a lot of somewhat -CEV, could be catastrophical, but you might have VERY difficult time realizing you're making somewhat -CEV decisions).

I know I'm making things difficult, but when asking theoretical questions, I believe we must understand exactly what we are talking about, because we don't have much else... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[parappa]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say player X has played N (pretty big number. How big? who knows. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] ) number of SNGs.

Now, is it possible that in retrospect ALL his decisions were +CEV, and still he has lost money?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes! That's the one! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


[ QUOTE ]
However, before trying to answer this very complicated question, I just wanted to note, again, that for judging whether a decision is +CEV or not, you need to take into calculation SO MANY factors, about how people actually reacted or would react, "now" and on next possible streets, that it's actually pretty much impossible to judge whether EVERY decision was indeed +CEV. This is true especially for marginal situations, which are very very common (you don't know if it's somewhat +CEV, or somewhat -CEV. Making a lot of somewhat -CEV, could be catastrophical, but you might have VERY difficult time realizing you're making somewhat -CEV decisions).

I know I'm making things difficult, but when asking theoretical questions, I believe we must understand exactly what we are talking about, because we don't have much else... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I agree. The above is a much clearer formulation of the question that's driving me bananas. I'm comfortable with the answer for something like craps, and even something like a ring game and I want the answer to be the same in an Sng, but it just doesn't feel right and I can't get a handle on where to start figuring out an answer.

[PrayingMantis]

Some more thoughts:

I think that if all the decisions a player is doing are indeed +CEV (regardless of how we judge whether something is +CEV or not), this player is by definition killing the games. Absolutely killing them (Edit: even if some of his +EV decisions are actually -$EV in some way). So if he has lost money over a long stretch, it's only some VERY VERY bad luck. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[parappa]

[ QUOTE ]
Some more thoughts:

I think that if all the decisions a player is doing are indeed +CEV (regardless of how we judge whether something is +CEV or not), this player is by defintion killing the games. Absolutely killing them. So if he has lost money over a long stretch, it's only some VERY VERY bad luck. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I can't go along with this, because it assumes an answer to the question that I'm trying to ask. He could, perhaps, be making tons of marginally +ChipEV pre-flop allins repeatedly and going out of tournaments out of the money often enough to make him a net money loser. Or at least that's what I'm wondering.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
No, I can't go along with this, because it assumes an answer to the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I understand what exactly you mean here. What "question"? The one about judging whether a move is indeed +CEV? Please explain.

[ QUOTE ]
He could, perhaps, be making tons of marginally +ChipEV pre-flop allins repeatedly and going out of tournaments out of the money often enough to make him a net money loser.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you should look for a post by eastbay, about some simulations he did recently (from 3 weeks ago?). I'll try to find it. His simulation showed in an extremely clear way, that even a very small (repeated) advantage, while going all-in, of even a few %, results in a HUGE difference in ROI for different opponents. For instance, the player that always had the PP's against the over-cards, was winning at about 40% ROI IIRC, while the one who holds the overcards was a huge loser (The structure is of an SNG, not a ring game, so it's not about simply accumulating chips. "Busting early" is completely a part of it. )

It's only a simulation, very far from real SNG, and I don't know too much about it, but the results are very relevant to the theoretical question you're asking, IMO.

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
A hypothetical player playing sngs:

a) has unerring judgment and only puts chips into the pot when he has positive ev, but;
b) goes all-in every single time he has +EV, even if his +EV is 1 tournament chip.

I'm assuming that this player must be a winner over the long-term in a cash game, but will have huge variance. Is the same true of Sngs? Is it possible for him to actually be a losing player even though he makes only +EV bets, because he busts himself out more often? Or will his results simply take a longer time to even out?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know the answer to either, parappa, although I agree it's a very interesting question.

My guess is that a player who pushed a lot of all-in edges in sng's would be a losing player - just based on simple math. IE, pushing two 51% edges in one tournament gives you a little better than 25% ITM.

I'd be interested to know the answer, since in my experience, one of the keys to being a winner is avoiding close situations.

Of course, if the perfect player were playing against people who more likely to fold, he'd do better than against looser players.