Hypothetical question about EV and teams

sirio11 · #1 09-25-2005, 05:33 PM

Lets suppose you have 3 or 4 good players with a 100% ROI in the $200 tournaments.

These players use to play all the big online tourneys. Lets suppose they make a deal. Whatever somebody wins is going to be splitted 4 ways.

Up to here, looks like the ROI should not be affected, right? and the only benefit would be to reduce the variance.

But now, suppose these 4 players will be connected via AIM, and observing each others games, and when faced with a difficult decision, all give their opinion about the best way to play the hand and the final decision is up to the player involved in the hand.

With such a deal, what percentage do you think the ROI will be increased?

Dave D · #2 09-25-2005, 05:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Lets suppose you have 3 or 4 good players with a 100% ROI in the $200 tournaments.

These players use to play all the big online tourneys. Lets suppose they make a deal. Whatever somebody wins is going to be splitted 4 ways.

Up to here, looks like the ROI should not be affected, right? and the only benefit would be to reduce the variance.

But now, suppose these 4 players will be connected via AIM, and observing each others games, and when faced with a difficult decision, all give their opinion about the best way to play the hand and the final decision is up to the player involved in the hand.

With such a deal, what percentage do you think the ROI will be increased?

[/ QUOTE ]

If they're good players, they probably agree on the right move most of the time, so ROI shouldn't really be affected. Also, I think you're overvaluing the affect of AIM, it'd be different if they were all in the same room. I think you're also assuming theoretically they're all playing tournaments at once, which really cuts down on how much attention they could pay each other's tournaments.

So basically, given that there's basically an infinite number of tournaments at any given time, if they can handle the load of another tournament, they should be playing it themselves.

Though I may not be a "good" player, I've definatly had like 4 people sweating me late in a tourney, and often everyone agrees w/ my moves pretty much.

curtains · #3 09-25-2005, 05:47 PM

I think it would help very little. Personally I don't like having anyone speak to me or give advice while Im playing, because all it can do is muddy my own instincts/ideas which I trust very much. I suspect that a lot of other strong players would feel the same way.

Roman · #4 09-25-2005, 05:48 PM

10-15%

pfkaok · #5 09-25-2005, 05:54 PM

yeah, i doubt the ROI would be affected much if any, unless a few members of the team were prone to tilting, or not playing their absolute best after taking a bad beat, losing a big pot, ect. if that were the case though then their ROI increase could be pretty big.

the reduce in variance would be huge though, and its pretty much why i prefer playing lots of online tournies, even though i enjoy live tournies more.

curtains · #6 09-25-2005, 05:55 PM

I just don't think there is enough time for the observing players to play as well as the one whom is actually playing the game. Hard to explain, but I would never trust anyone to give me advice on the spur of the moment in a serious $$ situation.

It's similar to speed chess, in which a lot of top players play WORSE when there are 2 strong players sitting next to each other talking about the game. This is mainly in fast time controls such as 3-minute and 5-minute, where very quick decisions have to be made. The extra input often slows down the first player and also creates a lot of confusion which leads to overall weaker and slower moves.

justT · #7 09-25-2005, 06:27 PM

I tend to agree that it wouldn't help very much most of the time.... "too many chefs"

However, if you use those resources correctly it could definitely increase ROI. Imagine being in a tourney with just 3 tables left and your 3 teammates busted and are at your disposal. Okay, first question "have any of you played with any of the guys at my table?" One teammate says "yes, played with player X at a final table last week" Okay, go replay those hands and tell me everything you can about him. The other two teammates watch the other tables and try to learn as much about the players as possible. At the final table, each picks a couple of players (hopefully ones they've already observed for a while) and tries to get into their heads.

The general idea is the mates aren't helping make decisions, but they are gathering and feeding you information which will help you make a better decision. I don't see how that wouldn't be +ROI.

pfkaok · #8 09-25-2005, 06:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Hard to explain, but I would never trust anyone to give me advice on the spur of the moment in a serious $$ situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, if all members are familiar with most of the regular tough opponents, and the weaker ones can easily be summed up by their type, then i think a lot of decisions aren't really that close in MTTs. maybe i'm not sophisticated to be making really advanced plays all the time, but i feel like the past few weeks since i've been playing a lot better i've had WAAY less tough spots. basically i try to constantly make bets and plays in such a way that once i decide to play the pot i'll make them make a decision for a lot of their chips and most of the time leave myself with an easy decision one way or the other. of course tough players will make you make tougher decisions, which is why i'm much more careful getting into pots with them.

TomHimself · #9 09-25-2005, 06:58 PM

is this question really hypothetical? heh

i guess it could improve their ROI by 5-10% maybe alot more FWIW

CardSharpCook · #10 09-25-2005, 07:16 PM

I forsee a significant EV increase on the order of 2X. Remember, all it takes is 1 key tidbit to turn a OTM into a FT. Observe.

Hero has A [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]K [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] and bumps it up to 600 at the 1/2 level from the CO. The BB flat calls.

Flop: 2 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]2 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]6 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]
Hero bets 1000, which the BB calls.

(1300)Turn: 7 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]
BB checks, hero bets 2500, BB pushes for 8k total.

There is 10800 in the pot and it is to you for 5500 and you have 7500 in your stack.

[aim chat room]
Hero: well, that sucks. Guess I gotta fold.
Cohort1: Yeah, man, he has a 2. What does he call on the flop with and then check the turn?
Cohort2: You can find a better situation than this.
Cohort3: NO!!! I KNOW this guy!!! He just doesn't play a pair like this and he DOES like to push bluff EXACTLY like this. If he had the 2, he bets out the flop. That's just what he does. If he has the 6 or a low PP, he chk/raises the flop - SWEAR TO GOD - always. Now he MIGHT have the 7 or the the diamonds, but I'll give 4:1 that he's got nothing. Seriously. If I'm wrong, I'll give you $400.

So Hero calls, and sure enough, villian shows JTo and the river falls a useless Q [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. Instead of 7500, you now have 18200 and go on to finish 4th in the tourney for a cool $3500.

Outside of an example such as this, there are countless situations where we make minor -EV decisions, (folding 83o in the BB getting 4:1 to call an AI) that having a council of 4 would catch. Also add the value of playing as a team. Studies have shown that people engaged in cooperative activities preform better than in the same tasks solo. The desire to succeed is magnified. Teamwork rocks. It just happens to be unethical in poker.