Negreanu's tournament theory regarding big pots. - Page 4

David Sklansky · #31 09-09-2004, 02:27 PM

"This is a reaction to this entire thread. I would think that if one got double the chips, he'd have much more than double the chances to win the tourney."

Listen carefully. If, for whatever reason, your chances of doubling up is greater than 50%, than your chances of winning the tournament, if you do double up, is less than twice what is was than before you did. That statement is ALWAYS true and you don't have permission to leave your computer, or even read another post, until you are sure you understand why.

Piers · #32 09-09-2004, 02:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]

If the blinds are negligible, then a good player will certainly double more often than he busts out. But when the blinds are significant (e.g. an orbit costs 1/4 of the stack or more), even a skilled player is probably more likely to bust out than double since opportunities to double up as at least a 51% favorite do not come around every orbit.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are very short stacked in relation to the blinds, then you only need to steal the blinds once or maybe twice to double up; much easier then doubling though someone with a big stack.

Admittedly skill is much more important to doubling up when you have a large stack, but I do not see why that is relevant. I am afraid DS is right again [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] .

fnurt · #33 09-09-2004, 03:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"This is a reaction to this entire thread. I would think that if one got double the chips, he'd have much more than double the chances to win the tourney."

Listen carefully. If, for whatever reason, your chances of doubling up is greater than 50%, than your chances of winning the tournament, if you do double up, is less than twice what is was than before you did. That statement is ALWAYS true and you don't have permission to leave your computer, or even read another post, until you are sure you understand why.

[/ QUOTE ]

For anyone who doesn't get it, the point is that if you have a better than 50% chance of doubling your money, that fact is already calculated in to whatever your chances are of winning the tournament, before you actually get the double-up.

Assume the following. You are in a 100 player tournament and have a 1% chance of winning. But if you double, you are so good at playing a big stack that even though you have 1/50 of the chips in play, you have a 1/40 (2.5%) chance of winning.

Since you are a good player, let's assume you have a 60% chance to double up before you bust. But wait! If you have a 40% chance of busting, and a 60% chance of doubling into a position where you will have a 2.5% chance to win the tournament, your actual starting odds were not 1% at all, they were 60% * 2.5% which is 1.5%.

eMarkM · #34 09-09-2004, 03:22 PM

Thanks fnurt, now I can finally get up from my computer and go pee.

Rushmore · #35 09-09-2004, 03:35 PM

I must admit to not caring at all.

If I am a favorite to double up, and there are no extenuating circumstances (payout structure, bubble, tiny stacks/blinds/blind size, etc), and I DO, indeed, double up, I then feel good about having doubled up. I do not make a decision about exactly how pleased I am to have done so.

I will then attempt to double up again and again, as often as possible, until I have as many of the chips as possible, thusly earning as high a prize as possible.

I don't mean to give lip to a noted poker theorist/scientist/brainiac, but I seem to be doing it, so...

Why should I care if I am 3-1, 7-2, or 5-2 to win the tournament?

I have enough voices in my head as it is, without the booming voice of Oz telling me I am not allowed to leave my computer if I don't fully grasp each and every iota of poker esoteria.

Damn the voices in my head.

37offsuit · #36 09-09-2004, 03:45 PM

What if you're heads up, you can double up through your opponent leaving him only 1K in chips to your 200K if you win this next hand. You hold AA and he holds A7o. You push, he calls.

Result
http://twodimes.net/h/?z=75840
pokenum -h ad ah - ac 7h
Holdem Hi: 1712304 enumerated boards
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Ad Ah 1591406 92.94 96820 5.65 24078 1.41 0.936
Ac 7h 96820 5.65 1591406 92.94 24078 1.41 0.064

Is that statement still ALWAYS true?

SossMan · #37 09-09-2004, 03:53 PM

lol...my thoughts exactly, Rush. good post

BobboFitos · #38 09-09-2004, 04:19 PM

Assume the following. You are in a 100 player tournament and have a 1% chance of winning. But if you double, you are so good at playing a big stack that even though you have 1/50 of the chips in play, you have a 1/40 (2.5%) chance of winning.

Since you are a good player, let's assume you have a 60% chance to double up before you bust. But wait! If you have a 40% chance of busting, and a 60% chance of doubling into a position where you will have a 2.5% chance to win the tournament, your actual starting odds were not 1% at all, they were 60% * 2.5% which is 1.5%.

fnurt, thank you so much... I sort of understood what this meant, (and felt a little silly when DS said I shouldn't leave my computer until I understood it fully) but now I get it 100%. Thank you.

Rushmore · #39 09-09-2004, 04:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
b) If my draw misses, I will be able to pick up the pot with a bluff more often than the average player.

If one or both of these are true (i.e. you really are that much better than your opponents and/or you can read them that well) than calling may in fact be +EV.

We've seen players like Hansen and Forest make calls on the flop with pretty much nothing because they think that they will be able to buy thepot often enough to make the move +EV. Are they right? I don't know, but its certainly a more +EV (or less -EV move) for them than for 99.99% of players out there.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the good stuff.

Although it is true that the EV of any imminent bluff is card-dependent, just as a draw is, it is indeed a factor which one may only grow into. There's no way in the world for the inexperienced or inferior player to consider this dynamic, at least not properly.

Eldog605 · #40 09-09-2004, 04:48 PM

Aces and David,
Let me reiterate Aces logic. 1000 people in a tourney, 1000 chips each, everyone has a 1/1000 chance of winning. Agreed. Fastforward...500 players left, 2000 chips each, 1/500 chance to win. Agreed. You have now doubled up and you have TWICE the chances to win, by your own admission.

Now take it another step. 250 players left, 4000 chips each. 1/250 chance to win. Agreed? So you went from a 1/1000 shot to a 1/250 shot. Call me stupid, but you have effectively quadrupled your chances of winning the tourney from 1/1000 to 1/250. By doing what? By doubling up twice. Let me repeat, you have doubled up twice, and in doing so, you have quadrupled your chances of winning. Chip growth is exponential, so is one's chances of winning with them.