Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
Lots of times the easiest way to see the flaws in a theorey are to create an extreme example.

Assume you are in a limit tourney and have 1 chip left after preflop betting with HUGE blinds. The flop comes 992 2 hearts, and you hold JhTh. Your opponent doesn't see your last remaining chip and flips up his black AK, under your theorey (since this is a 50/50 and we should ignore pot odds) you fold? Obviously this is obsurd, but if this is a correct call (if you don't see this, quit poker) then PP's decision is also correct, just not quite as easy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, no one is such a strict survivalist that they would claim "I never make a call unless I think I'm a favorite to win the hand". On the other side, I it seems like some people are strict accumulaters - making any call that is +EV from a chip perspective, except possibly around the button.

I don't play a whole lot of MTTs, but I'm really curious as to whether taking every possible +EV situation is actually optimal from a maximizing $EV POV.

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

I am surprised by the zealousness of many of the posts. It should not come as a surprise to anyone that pros are also willing to gamble. Was Aron Katz gambling when he made a move on Gavin with 44 in the WSOP PL tourney?

If PP decides he is ~50% in the hand, sitting at the table, playing with his own money; he is probably more accurate than we are trying to work a range of hands from much more limited information. As it turned out he was correct and it was a very favorable situation for him given the pot odds. If the pot was 1:1 and the hand was 3:2 in PP favor we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Perhaps it comes from a disbelief that PP was able to work the hand to ~50%. I believe it, and I think it shows some of the limitations of online poker versus live play.

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
If the pot was 1:1 and the hand was 3:2 in PP favor we wouldn't be having this discussion.


[/ QUOTE ]

unfortunately, we still would.

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

I'd probably make this call...however I honestly believe I would've been the one to push first. I like picking up that pot without a showdown and if you're called, you've got a great shot to win. You have to accumulate to win the tourny and Paul is obviously trying to win here. I'd put the guy on an underpair, AK, AQ, and I'm hoping no, AJ/10...knowing that he may have one and possibly two of my hearts doesn't make me happy but it's a chance you have to take if you're willing to make the call.

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
I admit I get a lot of pleasure out of seeing people use such a wide range of superlatives to characterize the incredible horribleness of the call. This is really just a math problem and not one that requires an advanced degree.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is such an easy math problem, provided we get to the real crux of the issue. You're asserting that EV is (roughly) linear at this point in the tournament, so making a call that is +Chip_EV is always +Tournament_EV.

Others are asserting that Tournament_EV isn't as linearly tied to Chip_EV. This isn't because It's not a +Chip_EV call - it unquestionably is. It is because they think that folding and playing on with your reduced stack will provide lots of future opportunities that are +Chip_EV. This means that your Tournament_EV isn't as impacted by the fold as your analysis indicates, and the call may not be +Tournament_EV.

Of course, they articulate this through "you're a donk, paul".

Jerrod Ankenmann & Bill Chen had an article in the latest Intelligent Gambler that addressed this issue, but I haven't seen anyone doing some form of Monte Carlo analysis that I think is the only way to rigorously answer the question.

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
Others are asserting that Tournament_EV isn't as linearly tied to Chip_EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

20% of the field is still in! I think it's crazy to invoke that argument at such an early stage.

[ QUOTE ]
Jerrod Ankenmann & Bill Chen had an article in the latest Intelligent Gambler that addressed this issue, but I haven't seen anyone doing some form of Monte Carlo analysis that I think is the only way to rigorously answer the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I know the question can only be answered rigorously subject to numerous assumptions, which would then turn the discussion to those. But that would at least be a lot more interesting to read than "you're a donk, paul."

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I admit I get a lot of pleasure out of seeing people use such a wide range of superlatives to characterize the incredible horribleness of the call. This is really just a math problem and not one that requires an advanced degree.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is such an easy math problem, provided we get to the real crux of the issue. You're asserting that EV is (roughly) linear at this point in the tournament, so making a call that is +Chip_EV is always +Tournament_EV.

Others are asserting that Tournament_EV isn't as linearly tied to Chip_EV. This isn't because It's not a +Chip_EV call - it unquestionably is. It is because they think that folding and playing on with your reduced stack will provide lots of future opportunities that are +Chip_EV. This means that your Tournament_EV isn't as impacted by the fold as your analysis indicates, and the call may not be +Tournament_EV.

Of course, they articulate this through "you're a donk, paul".

Jerrod Ankenmann & Bill Chen had an article in the latest Intelligent Gambler that addressed this issue, but I haven't seen anyone doing some form of Monte Carlo analysis that I think is the only way to rigorously answer the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

To paraphrase Paul from a while back:

There are still a lot of theories in tournament poker still up for debate, but chipEV and tournamentEV being nearly equal when still far from the money isn't really one of them.

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Others are asserting that Tournament_EV isn't as linearly tied to Chip_EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

20% of the field is still in! I think it's crazy to invoke that argument at such an early stage.


[/ QUOTE ]


Even more reason to fold!

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Others are asserting that Tournament_EV isn't as linearly tied to Chip_EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

20% of the field is still in! I think it's crazy to invoke that argument at such an early stage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also copying in SossMan's comments:

[ QUOTE ]

To paraphrase Paul from a while back:

There are still a lot of theories in tournament poker still up for debate, but chipEV and tournamentEV being nearly equal when still far from the money isn't really one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true in a field where all players are equal, but not at all the case when you have disparate skill levels. There is a minimum EV edge required for a good player, because busting out now means that you forego future opportunities.

This minimum edge requirement means that when you are far from the money, it's +Tournament_EV for you to pass on +Chip_EV opportunities that have a high likelihood of a bustout. Ankenmann and Chen put some numbers against this in their recent article.

Note also that I'm not arguing that Paul made a bad call. That depends on his perception of his relative skill, blinds, etc. But i'm not at all convinced that the only factor involved in making these decisions is whether it is +Chip_EV.

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Others are asserting that Tournament_EV isn't as linearly tied to Chip_EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

20% of the field is still in! I think it's crazy to invoke that argument at such an early stage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also copying in SossMan's comments:

[ QUOTE ]

To paraphrase Paul from a while back:

There are still a lot of theories in tournament poker still up for debate, but chipEV and tournamentEV being nearly equal when still far from the money isn't really one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true in a field where all players are equal, but not at all the case when you have disparate skill levels. There is a minimum EV edge required for a good player, because busting out now means that you forego future opportunities.

This minimum edge requirement means that when you are far from the money, it's +Tournament_EV for you to pass on +Chip_EV opportunities that have a high likelihood of a bustout. Ankenmann and Chen put some numbers against this in their recent article.

Note also that I'm not arguing that Paul made a bad call. That depends on his perception of his relative skill, blinds, etc. But i'm not at all convinced that the only factor involved in making these decisions is whether it is +Chip_EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

if your idea of a "marginal +EV" situation is over a 12% overlay and your idea of "high probability" of busting out is 50%, then you would virtually never play a hand.