You've Doubled Up Hand 1 -- ITM% Increases by ??

[Solitare]

Let's say you average 40% ITM for SnGs. You bust a fish and double up on the first hand of a SnG. You now have 1600 chips and the other 8 players have 800 (lets ignore the blinds).

How much has your ITM% gone up? Should you now expect your ITM % to increase from 40% to 50%? 60%? 70%?

I think the answer to this directly relates to recent threads on getting involved early in SnGs in hands that will either bust you or double you up.

[willie]

i'd guess your chances go from 1/10 or ten percent

to 20 percent

since you have 1/5th of the total chips on the table.


maybe i'm breaking this down too easily though? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

upon further evaluation, i'm breaking it down in terms of percentage chance of winning the tournament, not itm percentages.

[Solitare]

If you go just by chips, you start an SnG with a 30% chance to be in the money (ITM), 10% for each paying position. I doubt that doubling up on the first hand doubles your ITM % to 60% (going just by chips).

Note, though, that I prefaced the problem by saying your ITM % is 40%, meaning you play better than the average player.

[parappa]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say you average 40% ITM for SnGs. You bust a fish and double up on the first hand of a SnG. You now have 1600 chips and the other 8 players have 800 (lets ignore the blinds).

How much has your ITM% gone up? Should you now expect your ITM % to increase from 40% to 50%? 60%? 70%?

I think the answer to this directly relates to recent threads on getting involved early in SnGs in hands that will either bust you or double you up.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's any help, I seem to remember Lori saying somewhere that she'd ITM 80% if she could get an early double up. I think she does ~50% over all games, so that might be a decent starting guess.

[tallstack]

I think that this is an excellent question. However, I think that the effect on ITM is not as important as the effect on $equity (your early double ups would not have to double your ITM if they also skew your money finishes towards wins rather than seconds and thirds). We are told that chipEV = $EV when you are far away from the money, but are you ever far enough away from the money in a 9 or 10 player tournament for this to be true?

I have been trying to see the effect of gaining or losing chips early in a SNG by using my database of hand histories from Party Poker. I have so far put in 150 SNGs into a spreadsheet and calculated my end payout relative to my chip stack after 10 hands (I chose this point based on convenience). Unfortunately, I do not have any web hosting to post the graph here (if anyone can point me in the right direction to a web host, then I would gladly post this). I also could post my Excel spreadsheet if anyone wanted to put in values from their own hand histories.

So far, my end payout has increased surprisingly linearly with an increase in chips after 10 hands (with some scatter, of course). I believe that this is pointing towards chipEV = $EV early in a SNG for me. I have another ~300 tournaments to enter so these results are preliminary in my mind, and I am hoping to show the results when I get them in.

Dave S

[rachelwxm]

According to independent chip model, if you double up, your ITM increases from 30% to 53% and equity from 10 to 18.4. I don’t know how to adjust the fact that you are better player than the rest. So a boost of 23% ITM would be my best guess.

However, since equity is less than doubled when you win all in, you need to be at least 1.2:1 favorite in order to break even with all in.

[Solitare]

I agree that ROI is more interesting, but I thought dealing with ITM would be the easier of the two. I suspect that doubling up has more effect on your ROI than ITM due to increasing payouts from 3rd to 1st.

Your idea of tracking your results vs. your stack size after the first 10 hands (or 20 or 30) is a great one and one I will give a try. This is the sort of data that will help answer lots of questions including whether rock/maniac is the "best" strategy.