Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips

[nath]

Read it here.

It might do a good job of putting to rest the myth of avoiding races for your tournament life bigger advantages later blah blah blah.
(But hopefully not TOO good. I still want tournaments to be profitable...)

[Exitonly]

[ QUOTE ]
If you could consistently have a 59.18 percent chance of doubling up, you’d win a 1,024-player tournament more than five times as often as an average player. Trust me, you’re not that good. I don’t think it’s possible to be that good. I’m certainly not that good.

[/ QUOTE ]


One oddsmaker for EPT Dublin, was paying 49:1 on Ram Vaswani winning the event. (Better than 5:1)

good article so far.

[billyjex]

Good article.

[Exitonly]

I'm talking about my friend with it now..

now i agree w/ Matt's point mostly, but one thing i think he neglected, is he talks about 'doubling up' only as going to showdown for all of your chips. In dublin, i was never all in for everything until i was knocked out.. so i got 6x what i started at without ever 'doubling up'

--
a few things my friend said about it (he's playing now so they arent descriptive)

"
Neutraiity: [censored] argument
e x i t o n l y4: it's not perfect, but it's alright
Neutraiity: Nah it's not. He's all about "winning the tournament", not EV
e x i t o n l y4: maximizing winning the tournament, most definitely would maximize EV
e x i t o n l y4: things are so dammn top heavy
Neutraiity: Not at all.
Neutraiity: Let's say I increase my chances to "win" by 1% and diminish my chances to cash at all by 14%. Definitely not maximizing my EV
e x i t o n l y4: where'd you pull those numbers out of?
Neutraiity: It's also overvaluing a big stack. They're nice, but if you can handle a moderate stack well cashing at all becomes damn +EV
Neutraiity: Top of my head. My point's only that maximizing winning ain't the same as maximizing total EV
e x i t o n l y4: They are, because by maximizing winning, you're also getting plenty of other cashes
e x i t o n l y4: and they're really really top heavy
Neutraiity: Nah, you're getting knocked off lots
e x i t o n l y4: .. you're getting knocked off lots regardless
e x i t o n l y4: it's why ITM% doesnt matter much at all, it's all about ROI%
Neutraiity: Right! So "winning %" doesn't matter either. ROI or EV does
Neutraiity: You just restated my point :P
e x i t o n l y4: no i didnt at all
e x i t o n l y4: because the top 3 spots are what make ROI
Neutraiity: I don't agree with that. Ah well, playing now, so don't wanna do a bunch of numbers, but save the article
e x i t o n l y4: alright
Neutraiity: A good NL player has a much bigger edge over his opponents than a good limit player.


thoughts?

[KneeCo]

[ QUOTE ]

Neutraiity: You just restated my point :P


[/ QUOTE ]

I hate hate hate (!) it when people say this or 'you just proved my point' when it isn't true.

The Matros' article is quite good IMO, not complete, there are some follow-up questions and arguments, but I'm sure the author is aware of these. Nevertheless, in terms of addressing the coin flip debate, I think it does a very good job. Way better overall than most Cardplayer articles I've (although I haven't read it religiously).

Good article.

[illegit]

Exitonly's buddy is talking utter nonsense. Not even sure what he's saying. Maximizing your chances to win a tournament almost always simultaneously maximizes your EV and ROI, with only rare exceptions (satellites).

Very good article.

One huge problem with Matt's article / point of view.

Did anyone else notice that HE SAW THE AK of diamonds.

I don't know about you, but the last time I played poker for $10,000... not to many people were showing me their cards.

My point is that if just 1 out of 10... or even 1 out of 20 times... your read is wrong... and it's not a coinflip (turns out your dominated)... it scews all the numbers that he based his thesis on.

I don't know about you... but how many times have you been 100% sure someone has AK... only to see them turn over KK or AA.

So, this "realistic / honest" twist thrown into the mix throws all the number to an unprofitable play.

furthermore... if he really wants to stick to his guns... he has to make this same play with 22 - JJ... not just QQ's. Almost exactly the same odds. The only difference is that you have to tell your friends you went out of a tournament with ducks instead of mop-squeezers.

P.S. if your "coin-flip" reading ability and selections are always 100% on... I would like to back you in the next WSOP circuit event.

[Sam T.]

[ QUOTE ]
Calling here doesn’t negate our skill over the field. Calling here is our skill over the field.


[/ QUOTE ]

End of thread.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Calling here doesn’t negate our skill over the field. Calling here is our skill over the field.


[/ QUOTE ]

End of thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok ... I'll be a flak magnet by saying I lay this hand down in a heartbeat.

Why?

- First off, a guy that makes this kind of play is probably the worst player at the table if not the tournament. I figure to be able to get a decent chunk of this guys chips in better situations anyway. Why rush?

- Second, I'm starting out with 0.1% of the chips. If I double first hand .... ok fine ..... I now have 0.2%. Am I realistically any less or more of a favorite to get to the money or finish high in the money? IMHO, no.

- Third, if I decide to lay that hand down, I make sure to show everyone that I'm laying it down. It is a classic dump, purposely intended to make people fire at will at me. It loosens people up and makes it more likely that they will be trying to outplay me with lesser hands.

IMHO, there is one fatal flaw in the Matros argument. Yes Matros counts down the number of times he has doubled up. He also states correctly that he is doing well by doubling up in the majority of his all-ins. Ok, fine, I'll buy that.

However, what he fails to do is establish any correlation between the points of the tournaments at which he made his doubles, versus the eventual finish in the tournament.

If asked in reality, I would doubt seriously that he would admit to pushing all-in during the first hand or first orbit of a major tournament ....... ever!!

My last question is whether or not this article is written for entertainment value, or as true professional advice from a world-class pro to any amateur who comes across it?

IMHO, this article has entertainment value and little else.

EDIT:
Let's take the argument two steps further.

- Replace the two Queens with two Jacks. Do you still make the call? The odds are almost the same.

- Replace the two Queens with two Tens. Do you still make the call? The odds are almost the same.

If you can't answer yes to the same question for the QQ, JJ and TT, then there is a flaw in the logic. You either call with all 3 or lay down all three. If you follow Matros' logic, then you call with everything down to about 55, or you fold with everything. Who in their right mind would do that?

[ QUOTE ]


IMHO, this article has entertainment value and little else. [ QUOTE ]


I aggree... I respect Matt's research and hit outline... however...

It's a lot easier to grab your balls and "say" your willing to coin-flip for large sums of potential cash than to actually do it.