Negreanu's tournament theory regarding big pots.

[Pensive Gerbil]

Your explanation makes sense. I wonder if that's what Daniel N. was thinking.

Should players who are more skillful with a short-stack than a large-stack avoid chasing draws with marginally adequate odds?

-PG

[TStoneMBD]

i am not a game theory specialist, but i think the answer to this debate is clear to me. let me try to explain:

saying that by chasing with improper odds with gold chips to get bronze chips is being used in the wrong context. the reason for this is that you do not want your chips to be gold, you want them bronze, which is reverse logic but true.

a big stack with 40k in chips is going to win a tournament MORE than twice as often as a player with 20k in chips. the shorter the stack you are, the worse the odds of you winning the tournament become. now i am not good with math, but i am sure someone could assemble an algebraic equation (if they really wanted to) that i could barely understand to further portray the reasoning behind this theory. if you are chasing a 5:1 draw with 4:1 odds, you would have to assume that winning the pot makes up for the improper odds you receive by the advantage of possessing more chips.

with blinds of 1k/2k and a 4k stack... folding on the turn with these incorrect odds leaves you with 4k in chips (with virtually no chance of winning), while if you call and lose you are eliminated, is there really any difference? However, if you win the pot you would suddenly have 20k and are suddenly in fantastic shape. clearly, calling with improper odds becomes correct in this scenario.

im not going to go into further math here as ill just end up confusing myself, but i think ive clearly described the logic behind negreanus article.

[cferejohn]

[ QUOTE ]

a big stack with 40k in chips is going to win a tournament MORE than twice as often as a player with 20k in chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, everything I've ever seen argues that a 40K stack will win EXACTLY twice as much as a 20K stack (assuming equally skilled players). That is why in a winner-pays-all tournament you should play for straight up chip EV. Major tournament adjustments as for as adjusting your odds come from the stratified pay structure which can make decisions +chipEV and -cashEV or vice versa when you are close to or in the money.

Now, certain players may play better as big stacks or small stacks. If someone is truly a much much better player as a big stack than a small-to-medium stack, this may make sense. I don't think the vast majority of players are *that* much better with a big stack (or *that* much worse with a small-medium one)...

[skydancing8]

I don't know how many of you have read Phil Hellmuth's book, "Play Poker like the Pros"? In the book he talks about Negreanu doing this. He does it often and busts a lot of people with it, however it it also causes a big time fluctuation in your bankroll.

[Bernas]

I believe this has a lot to do with his style of play. He is a very good aggressive player and as such it is much easier to play aggressively with a larger stack. Therefore the chips in the pot mean that much more to him.

I doubt a player like Dan Harrington would make this play but then again, he probably wouldn't be involved in these pots to begin with.

[David Sklansky]

a big stack with 40k in chips is going to win a tournament MORE than twice as often as a player with 20k in chips.


LESS, not more, if you are a good player. To prove this one need only to ask the probability question "what are the chances that a good player with 20K will double to 40K before going broke". I'll let others elaborate.

[La Brujita]

[ QUOTE ]
a big stack with 40k in chips is going to win a tournament MORE than twice as often as a player with 20k in chips.


LESS, not more, if you are a good player. To prove this one need only to ask the probability question "what are the chances that a good player with 20K will double to 40K before going broke". I'll let others elaborate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I don't understand the wording of the post. Would you mind clarifying what you mean by "LESS, not more, if you are a good player?"

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
a big stack with 40k in chips is going to win a tournament MORE than twice as often as a player with 20k in chips.

LESS, not more, if you are a good player. To prove this one need only to ask the probability question "what are the chances that a good player with 20K will double to 40K before going broke". I'll let others elaborate.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make sense to me. Mainly because the risk of ruin is much higher for the 20k player. Imagine a scenario where you flip a coin -- heads you win .75 cents, tails you lose .50 cents. Great game, except that if you only start with 50 cents, half the time you're out. Whereas if you start with $3.00 you are better off. In this scenario, the player with $3 has EV MORE than 6x higher than the player wtih .50. It's this same principle that applies to the 40k and 20k player example above, and why the ChipEV=$EV early in tourneys is a good guideline, but somewhat flawed, IMHO.

To say nothign of the fact that having a larger stack influences the play of your opponents in ways favorable to you (they fold more, you steal more, etc.)

But, as of last count, I've written no books on poker, so maybe someone can enlighten me [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
--Greg

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine a scenario where you flip a coin -- heads you win .75 cents, tails you lose .50 cents. Great game, except that if you only start with 50 cents, half the time you're out. Whereas if you start with $3.00 you are better off.

[/ QUOTE ]
True.

[ QUOTE ]
In this scenario, the player with $3 has EV MORE than 6x higher than the player wtih .50.

[/ QUOTE ]
False. It's less than 4 times as much.

This may be counterintuitive, but try the thought experiment Sklansky suggested. How frequently will the player with $0.50 make it to $3.00? More than 1 time in 6, or less than 1 time in 6? Even if you count falling to $0.25 as going broke, and do not distinguish reaching $3.00, $3.25, or $3.50, you reach $3 more than 1/6 of the time without going broke if you start with $0.50.

Under these assumptions, the probability of making it to at least $3 without dropping below $0.50 are as follows:

$0.50: .291 = 41/141
$0.75: .348 = 49/141
$1.00: .512 = 73/141
$1.25: .582 = 82/141
$1.50: .695 = 98/141
$1.75: .745 = 105/141
$2.00: .816 = 115/141
$2.25: .872 = 123/141
$2.50: .908 = 128/141
$2.75: .936 = 132/141

There are some odd results from assuming that dropping to $0.25 is just as bad as going broke. In general, a player with an advantage over the field has more than a 1/2 chance to double up.

[cferejohn]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know how many of you have read Phil Hellmuth's book, "Play Poker like the Pros"? In the book he talks about Negreanu doing this. He does it often and busts a lot of people with it, however it it also causes a big time fluctuation in your bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought usually when Negraneau calls with marginal hands in situations like this it is with the following assumptions:

a) If my draw hits I will be able to extract more extra chips than the average player.

and/or

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.