|
|
#102
06-08-2005, 05:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: $4.5 million
Hi Danny. I haven't forgotten you.
|
|
#103
06-08-2005, 06:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: $4.5 million
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Since you doubt my statement just engage in a thought experiment. Let's say we played a 6 billion person tourney. Over and Over. Standard steep payout structure. Would you expect your variance in those tournies to be higher or lower than a 200 person tourney played over and over? 100 person? 50? 10? 5? Your variance in a FREEZEOUT format decreases with the number of opponents. The problem is that you that you confuse side game variance with repeatable freezeout variance. Well actually the problem is that you cannot think and must resort to mindless one word replies, but I digress. If all that isn't enough I can dig up my extensive stars heads up match stddev and my party sng stddev. [/ QUOTE ] Hi there I just read this now, the main problem with heads up games is you have to play a lot of situations which are complicated and to be honest you would probably rrather avoid, you also have to do an insane amount of bluffing and semi bluffing, this sends your variance through the roof. I don't think it matters how good you are 20 buyins is no where near enough, but I guess if you don't care about going broke and you're really good, it doesn't matter how high the risk of ruin is. Also SNGs have less variance than any other form of poker, there is no doubt about this, but playing SNGs for a living with a roll of 20 buyins would also be daft. Regards Mack [/ QUOTE ] Wrong again. In a cash game format, I absolutely agree that heads up play is high variance for the reasons you stated. In a freezout format, no. Despite all the difficult situations, bluff, semibluffs, etc, at the end of the match you either WIN or LOSE. If you are playing someone that you are dead even with, the variance calculation is trivial. It's a quarter of the total freezeout size (Bernoulli distribution). Now consider the variance of a 9 person SNG where you are dead even with everyone. Consider the variance of a 1 million person SNG where you are dead even. The variance of any freezout format with steep payout structures is directly proportional to the number of participants. In conclusion, you are again wrong.
|
|
#104
06-08-2005, 08:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: $4.5 million
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] "Barry Says" doesn't make it gospel. Last year I played in the $4000-$8000 game and while it's true I haven't logged a lot of hours in the game I am over a million winner. Of course Barry was rarely in the game when I played since he lives in LA and the game generally happens in Vegas. [/ QUOTE ] Daniel -- As you well know, $1M in the 4k/8k is only 125 big bets. Hardly enough to make you a "proven winner," especially considering the relatively small number of hands you played to get that 125 big bets. It's quite possible that you're a proven winner in that game, but it's too early to say with any degree of confidence. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think Daniel claimed to be a "proven winner" but, rather, simply stated that he is a winner while acknowledging that he hasn't played many hours. These matches need to be televised (at least on the net). I'd very much like to watch an entire session. From one veggy Canadian to another - good luck Daniel.
|
|
#105
06-08-2005, 08:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: $4.5 million
Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Me neither. I think this first match was just an aborigine and Daniel will come back strong in the next match. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aborigine. Can I get a sentence please??? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sentence: You mean you don't know what "aborigine" means?
|
|
#106
06-08-2005, 08:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: $4.5 million
[ QUOTE ]
Be sure to ignore Smoothcall, we think he's the troubled gay prostitute you ran into. [/ QUOTE ] zzziiiiiiinnnnnnnggggggggg!!
|
|
#107
06-09-2005, 12:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: $4.5 million
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think Daniel claimed to be a "proven winner" but, rather, simply stated that he is a winner while acknowledging that he hasn't played many hours. [/ QUOTE ] If so, then why did he argue with Greenstein's quote? It's possible that what you say is true, and Daniel just got defensive about it. Still 125 BBs is nothing but normal variance anyway.
|
|
#108
06-09-2005, 04:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: $4.5 million
"Not one of the high limit players that made it there did it without taking risks that risk averse people would claim are foolish."
It is actually not fooish for Daniel to risk losing one or two million if he has about six or seven. The main reason for this is that there are so few games between 400-800 and 2000-4000. If you think you need ten million to be comfortable in the big game (often 4000-8000), think you have a decent chance of being the favorite in that game, and last but not least, realize that your lifestyle and earning potential is almost the same with 4mil (allowing you to psycholgically write off the 2mil loss without pressing to get it back) then I say go for it.
|
|
#109
06-09-2005, 07:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: $4.5 million
[ QUOTE ]
Wrong again. In a cash game format, I absolutely agree that heads up play is high variance for the reasons you stated. In a freezout format, no. Despite all the difficult situations, bluff, semibluffs, etc, at the end of the match you either WIN or LOSE. If you are playing someone that you are dead even with, the variance calculation is trivial. It's a quarter of the total freezeout size (Bernoulli distribution). Now consider the variance of a 9 person SNG where you are dead even with everyone. Consider the variance of a 1 million person SNG where you are dead even. The variance of any freezout format with steep payout structures is directly proportional to the number of participants. In conclusion, you are again wrong. [/ QUOTE ] Okay you seem to know what you are talking about, but hear this, I haven't heard of anyone ever playing STTs for egotistic reasons, for sure the ones I play an average 4 people of 10 have less than a 1 in 30 chance of getting into the first 3, of the remaining 6 I would usually want a decent edge over at least 4 of them, and to be slightly better or equal to the other 2. The problem I have with heads up freeze outs especially when there are only 50BBs in the stacks, and very little between the players ability levels is, the cards that come have much more impact than anything else, and even a good player can run bad for a couple of thousand hands very easily. So I still hold that 20 buyins isn't close to enough, when the player has no significant advantage over his opponent. Regards Mack
|
|
#110
06-09-2005, 07:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: $4.5 million
[ QUOTE ]
"Not one of the high limit players that made it there did it without taking risks that risk averse people would claim are foolish." It is actually not fooish for Daniel to risk losing one or two million if he has about six or seven. The main reason for this is that there are so few games between 400-800 and 2000-4000. If you think you need ten million to be comfortable in the big game (often 4000-8000), think you have a decent chance of being the favorite in that game, and last but not least, realize that your lifestyle and earning potential is almost the same with 4mil (allowing you to psycholgically write off the 2mil loss without pressing to get it back) then I say go for it. [/ QUOTE ] I never thought of it like that, that makes a lot of sense actually, I didn't know people with money thought like that though. On the other hand, he seems willing to risk a lot more. Maybe if he prays to the god of Sklanskyanity he won't run bad. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
