Why they should Attack Tomko

[Vince Lepore]

In one of the last responses to my A,Q thread the poster said "nobody here agrees that both big stacks should attack the small stack". If it is true that correct tournament strategy at this point in a multi payout tournament is something other than that the big stacks should aggressively attack the small stacks then I am totally wrong an apologize to you all for wasting your time.

I will make my point and wait for replies before I officially apologize.

Let's look at this tournament between Hansen, Tomko and Phillips.

The payout stucture was something like this, not exact, but not important.

1st - $1.1 million
2nd - $ 600k
3rd - $ 275k

So the EV is:

third = $0.00.
2nd = $325k
1st = $825k

Do we agree? I'm afraid to continue if we don't agree on this. If we don't agree then I am done. If we agree then it must be easy to see that finishing third must be avoided even in extreme circumstances. If this is true then it must also be obvious that it is to the big stacks advantage to get rid of the small stack before risking being knocked out by playing against each other. In fact this is so obvious that until I see responses I will not continue.

Vince [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
So the EV is:

third = $0.00.
2nd = $325k
1st = $825k

Do we agree? I'm afraid to continue if we don't agree on this. If we don't agree then I am done. If we agree then it must be easy to see that finishing third must be avoided even in extreme circumstances. If this is true then it must also be obvious that it is to the big stacks advantage to get rid of the small stack before risking being knocked out by playing against each other. In fact this is so obvious that until I see responses I will not continue.

Vince [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Vince, assume agreement with your above EV statements (which I'm not sure I agree with entirely). Even still, your followup logic is terrible. You overuse the word "must" in some very key spots. Like, constantly, for instance.

Finishing third "must" not be avoided at all consequences. At all stages, what you want to do is make decisions maximizing your $EV. Right?

So, you want:

max[325(prob(2nd))+825(prob(1st))]

Now, the reason I don't necessarilly agree with your analysis quoted above is because this may (and probably does) yield different results than doing:

max[275(prob(3rd))+600(prob(2nd))+1100(prob(1st))]

Clearly, there are situations where you must risk getting third to maximize this forumula. You can come up with your own exact scenario, but the general idea is that if you think you're getting a good shot at getting first by taking on a small shot, or even a reasonable shot, at getting 3rd, you must do it.

Please think about these things, and the reasons why I stated it is very likely that setting EV(3rd)=0 are a bit twisted.

citanul

[Vince Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
Finishing third "must" not be avoided at all consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK Im not going to reply to you until you stop twisting things around. I never said "at all consequences" nor did I imply that. If you want to make up your own strategy go ahead but until you comment on mine I refuse to respond to you. That is why I stopped talking with you in the other thread.

Vince

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Finishing third "must" not be avoided at all consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK Im not going to reply to you until you stop twisting things around. I never said "at all consequences" nor did I imply that. If you want to make up your own strategy go ahead but until you comment on mine I refuse to respond to you. That is why I stopped talking with you in the other thread.

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

Jeezus Flippin Christ!

your exact words were:

"If we agree then it must be easy to see that finishing third must be avoided even in extreme circumstances."

I'm very, very sorry sir, that "must be avoided even in extreme circumstances" is so very different in your nitpicking, ass-scratching world from "avoided at all consequences." I'm so sorry I didn't directly quote your post. I'm very sorry that you can't accept my INCREDIBLY close to the same statement as the same statement.

I'm very happy, however, that your post didn't end with one of those dumb smileys.

My original post in this thread was concise and offered no insults at all, and yet you chose to respond only to my slight misquote, even though I didn't put it in quotes. I didn't even point out in my post that your direct quote (those are the ones in quotation marks) of my post from the other thread, into this thread, is not a direct quote. You want to know why? Because the meaning was the same.

Stop cluttering up the world with stupid crap that doesn't even address the subjects you propose.

citanul

[Vince Lepore]

You are totally out of line now. There is a world of difference between "at all consequences" and "in extreme circumstances." The former means don't play against each other at all. The latter means give up a considerable amount of +EV to avoid playing against each other. If you don't see the difference I am sorry. Yours was not a slight misquote but a gross misrepresentation of what I said. And you're sarcastic tone does nothing to make me want to discuss this with you.

Vince P.S. I thought the smiley were a friendly touch. Since they annoy you I won't use them again.

[Punker]

Fine then. Define "extreme circumstance".

[citanul]

Vince,

I aplogize for my thinking those two statements were so similar. You must permit authors the use of hyperbole every once in a while. My point is mostly that if you "give up a considerable amount of +EV to avoid playing against each other" you are giving up too much.

I beg you to look at my first post in this thread, then to look at the forumlae there.

After having looked at those numbers, consider the types of folds you are recommending, say with a 65% edge, and folding equity, for a significant number of chips.

Then, if none of the rest of that results in anything, do the following:

Consider that the other big stack is an observant player! If you show him that you're willing ot "give up a considerable amount of EV to avoid playing against" him, and he doesn't display the same quality, but instead one that I believe is a +$EV quality, what happens? Namely, this quality would be, stealing from you at every available chance, and keeping the small stack alive, but on life support, if possible.

Look at the formulae, and consider what happens when you sacrifice too much of your probability for first place, in order to make an attempt assuring 2nd place for yourself. You are totally, it appears, discounting the notion that the other large stack is an opponent who thinks, and is trying to maximize his $EV.

citanul [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

[Tyler Durden]

Hey Vince you're kind of a tool right?

I know it doesn't help the discussion. I'm just thinking out loud.

How did it feel to win those WPT events, btw?

[Vince Lepore]

What's the matter are you to stupid to answer the question? Is that why you decided to fall back on rudeness and enter a discussion of which you have no clue? I've never entered a WPT event, How many have you won,clueless?

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]Vince [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
What's the matter are you to stupid to answer the question?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a big fan of unintentional humor....thanks [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]