Re: empirical equity study
Interesting.
If ICM is to be trusted, I suppose your extra equity can be accounted for by difference in playing ability.
What I'm really wondering though, is if your results seem to indicate a different model would be more appropriate.
[ QUOTE ]
This is an effect that is completely missing from the ICM, which takes no heed of position.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm thinking about this, and I am not sure that this is missing from ICM. After all, ICM assumes equal playing ability and I'm thinking that this position related difference in equity might have everything to do with you, and the fact that you have an equity edge.
I think these results might mean more if you only ran them on bubble histories that you were actually not involved in. In this way, it would always be different players and might more accurately reflect the equal skill assumption. Then again, it could be even more important to look at the advantage biased results.
...Already I'm thinking I'm wrong about the position differences being a factor of your advantage. It would make sense that these positional distances from the big stack would affect equity.
Can you run this and calculate equity actual/predicted for the other three positions as well?
I have a feeling this is going to become a very important thread. I can't wait to see where this goes. Very ambitious putting this all together. Has the potential for a major contribution to tourney theory as a whole.
Regards
Brad S
|