Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

Read it here.

It might do a good job of putting to rest the myth of avoiding races for your tournament life bigger advantages later blah blah blah.
(But hopefully not TOO good. I still want tournaments to be profitable...)

Re: Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you could consistently have a 59.18 percent chance of doubling up, you’d win a 1,024-player tournament more than five times as often as an average player. Trust me, you’re not that good. I don’t think it’s possible to be that good. I’m certainly not that good.

[/ QUOTE ]


One oddsmaker for EPT Dublin, was paying 49:1 on Ram Vaswani winning the event. (Better than 5:1)

good article so far.

Re: Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

Good article.

Re: Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

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


[/ QUOTE ]

End of thread.

Re: Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

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?

Re: Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

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?

Re: Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

[ 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.

Re: Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

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

Indeed.

Re: Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

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.

Re: Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

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.

Re: Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

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'

Re: Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

[ 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.

Re: Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

[ 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?

Re: Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

[ 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.

Re: Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

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.

Re: Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

[ 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

Re: Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

[ 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)

Re: Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

Spree, yours might be the worst post ever.

Re: Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

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

u fold u lose baby!
 

donk.

Re: Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

[ 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.

Re: Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

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.

Re: Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

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

Re: Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

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

Re: Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

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

Re: Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

[ 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, [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

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

Re: Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

[ 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? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

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

Re: Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mmm... yeah I think so, tough as it might be at the time to actually pull the trigger.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

He Who Must Not Be Banned suggests he would take a "true coinflip: "You move all-in blind in the small blind, I call blind in the big blind." At that point it's +EV by a small blind. Again, I say I would and feel it is right. It does take some courage to pull the trigger, but if you don't have that, tournament poker probably isn't for you.

Re: Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

[ 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? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ 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. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ 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)?

Re: Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

[ 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.

Re: Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

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

Re: Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

[ 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.

Re: Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

[ 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 ]

Nice.

You should post here more often, not just in NL/PL.

This forum would be better for it.

Regards,
Woodguy

Re: Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

[ 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.

Re: Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

[ 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?

Re: Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

also, q's are like 3% better.

Re: Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

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.

Re: Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

[ 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.

Re: Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

[ 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?

Re: Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips
 

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.