|
|
#111
07-01-2005, 01:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
you know, it really can't be stressed enough:
PP has an edge over the field because he recognizes and takes 50% equity when the pot dictates that he only needs 38%. All these assumptions that he's a good player, so he can pass up these edges are fallicious by definition. If one could magically engineer 80%+ bets for their entire stack once an hour, then it would be different, but these things don't just happen. 
|
|
#112
07-01-2005, 01:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
Can we talk about something interesting now?
If I get Aces in the BB on the first hand of the Main Event and the whole table goes all in in front of me, should I call?
|
|
#116
07-01-2005, 02:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
[ QUOTE ]
if your idea of a "marginal +EV" situation is over a 12% overlay and your idea of "high probability" of busting out is 50%, then you would virtually never play a hand. [/ QUOTE ] 1) The point is that what you're terming a 12% overlay is not always a 12% overlay. In this instance, there are three outcomes for Paul: Fold: He has T10K remaining, which is par. Call & Win with p=.5: He will have 26K, significantly more than twice par. Call & Lose with p=.5: Chip_EV =0; Tournament_EV=0; To properly answer the question of how big the overlay is, you need to estimate Tournament_EV for both 10K and 26K, and then calculate an expectation. What's important to note is that Paul's tournament EV with 26K is not necessarily equivalent to 2.6 times his EV with 10K. Paul has an edge on the field and marginal chips are increasingly worth less. I know that Paul feels that equity is linear at this stage in the tournament - I've seen him write this elsewhere several times. As mentioned in an earlier post, this is a topic that has been debated ad nauseum, and intelligent adherents to either side are not easy to sway. I don't agree, but don't have the info at my disposal to convince him otherwise. 2) Not once have I made reference to Paul's play. Simply his comment that this is a simple math problem. On the balance, I think the call is clearly correct.
|
|
#118
07-01-2005, 02:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] if your idea of a "marginal +EV" situation is over a 12% overlay and your idea of "high probability" of busting out is 50%, then you would virtually never play a hand. [/ QUOTE ] What's important to note is that Paul's tournament EV with 26K is not necessarily equivalent to 2.6 times his EV with 10K. Paul has an edge on the field and marginal chips are increasingly worth less. [/ QUOTE ] This is the point that needs to be argued! Forget whether it was a correct call or not.. It was! I've said repeatedly it's mathematically the correct call in a cash game, and making calls like this will give Paul another 10 million dollars over the course of his career. Clearly Paul feel's his Tourmanent EV goes up considerably more with his chip stack at 26k vs it being at 10k and he thinks it's worth a 50-50 shot to get him to this point. I'm just suprised by this! I would think a professional player of his calibre would have a great enough skill edge to reach that level without trying this risky play. If Blinds are higher, this is understandable. With 10K being abt 25 BB however.. That's still plenty of chips to work with! With 0K chips, you are out. With 26k chips, you have more chips, but by no means are you a lock to win any tournament money! If Paul gets 10-J suited on the next hand and the same situation arises vs 40k Stack, does he do the same thing again?! or is 62 BB enough to work with?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
