[AtticusFinch]

[ QUOTE ]

I just dont get this formula at all? Why should it be true at all in a winner take all format. If you double up the first hand, your chances should double exactly, from a theroetical standpoint. If you are tripled up, your chances should triple. What reason in the world is there to say that they haven't tripled?


[/ QUOTE ]

There are a number of reasons. The simplest one is that the other players benefit from the elimination of a player. The more important reasons are:

1) Blinds go up exponentially. You must keep up with the blinds, so you must grow your stack exponentially.
2) The minimum of the size of your stack and the size of your opponents' stacks determines how much you can gain at any one time.
3) As the blinds go up, people drop out, and the average stack (q) grows.

[ QUOTE ]

That's like saying that when you win 100% of the chips you have a 99.2% chance of winning the tournament. Either I'm completely misreading this theory (likely) or it makes zero sense to me.


[/ QUOTE ]

Run my formula. You will find that when you have all the chips, it
returns 100%, and when you have 0 chips, it returns 0. Furthermore, when you have the average number of chips, it returns Q/T.

Every major poker book out there says the same thing. Your next X chips is not worth as much as your first X chips. But it is worth something. That pretty much describes logarithmic growth.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, but unless someone convinces me otherwise, I see no convincing data in the original post.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no data, only theory. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]