cEV and EV

[Exitonly]

I've read a bunch of times that near the beginign of a tournament they're likt ethe same thing...

can anyone elaborate in this, i'm in an argument w/ my friend an di can't convincec him that he shouuld push edges early in a tournament... he says he's not worth twice as much when he dobules up.

He's a stubborn bastard and i can't elaborate on my thoughts tonight... any help?

[SossMan]

check out the stickied post at the top titled anthology of mtt thought.

there are a few good threads that include name players with well thought out arguments.

Use the sit and go ICM calculator linked to in the STT FAQ. You can see that the +EV from doubling up is like 1.8x your stack or something when the prize pool pays 30%. In MTT where it's like 10-15%, and the FT pays way more than the other ITM places, this number becomes pretty close to 2x.

Although, it's not exact; so in theory, if you're getting the exact right odds to call an all in, you should fold. Luckily, that never happens, and we also like big stacks more than ICM does.

[AtticusFinch]

He's right that he's not worth twice as much for doubling early, but is missing the fact that the value of the initial buyin sinks rapidly as the blinds go up.

Say your 1k stack is worth $10 right now. If you double, say it's worth $17. Taking a 55% shot at doubling may not seem attractive looking at those numbers, but it won't be long until your 1k is only worth $5, and at that point, a 2k stack will more than likely still be worth at least $10.

You have to view the value of your stack over the course of the whole tournament. Early on, you must focus on building a stack that's big enough to be able to use all of your skills as the blinds increase. If you allow your stack to stagate until the ever-increasing blinds put you into push/fold mode, you've lost most of any skill edge you may have had, as your options are so limited.

Much poker "math" looks at a snapshot of the present. In a ring game, it's ok to take it one hand at a time. But not in a tourney. You must prepare for the future if you hope to survive.

[ QUOTE ]

Say your 1k stack is worth $10 right now. If you double, say it's worth $17.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the record a 2x average stack early in a typical MTT is worth much closer to 2x the value of an average stack than 1.7x. This is very significant as 1.7x sucks in your example (.55*1.7 = .935 < 1), while 1.9x rocks (.55*1.9 = 1.045 > 1). I'd guess that the doubling coefficient is usually even greater than 1.9 but would rather die than try and figure it out myself.

[AtticusFinch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Say your 1k stack is worth $10 right now. If you double, say it's worth $17.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the record a 2x average stack early in a typical MTT is worth much closer to 2x the value of an average stack than 1.7x. This is very significant as 1.7x sucks in your example (.55*1.7 = .935 < 1), while 1.9x rocks (.55*1.9 = 1.045 > 1). I'd guess that the doubling coefficient is usually even greater than 1.9 but would rather die than try and figure it out myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I picked a crappy valuation on purpose, just to make my point. But you're right, of course.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Say your 1k stack is worth $10 right now. If you double, say it's worth $17.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the record a 2x average stack early in a typical MTT is worth much closer to 2x the value of an average stack than 1.7x. This is very significant as 1.7x sucks in your example (.55*1.7 = .935 < 1), while 1.9x rocks (.55*1.9 = 1.045 > 1). I'd guess that the doubling coefficient is usually even greater than 1.9 but would rather die than try and figure it out myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I picked a crappy valuation on purpose, just to make my point. But you're right, of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought you did. I just really didn't want people to think 1.7 is correct.

[justT]

Hmmmm, the question "would you put all your chips in with a slight edge on the very first hand of a tourney" has been beaten to death. It just struck me that the math behind that question is very close to the math behind whether you should rebuy on the first hand of a rebuy tourney.

Is there a good thread/article on the math behind making rebuys? I searched for one and found a lot of advice but very little math.

[ansky451]

I think rebuys are a different story. I personally think its silly for people not to rebuy, esp in the 45k or a big tournament like that. My reasons are:
1) There ususally are so many all in donkeys (like me!) that will double you up with 3000, with 72o if you have AA, so you obviously would rather have more chips.

2) For the same reasoning, like in a cash game, if you have less chips than opponents who you have an edge against, you arent exploiting that edge enough.

3) You pay rake on your first buy in, but not on any rebuy. So its 11 dollars for the first 1500, and only 10 for the next 1500.

4) As Atticus alerady said, you have to thing about the whole picture in a tournament. If there are people building stacks of 50k at the first break, and the avg is going to be 8k, do you really want to have like 3000?

[justT]

I don't think I communicated clearly

[ QUOTE ]
3) You pay rake on your first buy in, but not on any rebuy. So its 11 dollars for the first 1500, and only 10 for the next 1500.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think the math behind this being +EV is very similar to the math behind putting all your chips in on the first hand with a small edge.

[ QUOTE ]
1) There ususally are so many all in donkeys (like me!) that will double you up with 3000, with 72o if you have AA, so you obviously would rather have more chips.

4) As Atticus alerady said, you have to thing about the whole picture in a tournament. If there are people building stacks of 50k at the first break, and the avg is going to be 8k, do you really want to have like 3000?

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting, if OP had said that he expected the play in his tournament to be particularly donkish, then a +cEV play becomes even more +EV?