Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips

[Proofrock]

[ QUOTE ]
I have some further clarity about his use of 22,000 vs 10,000 when comparing the future edge you would need.

Basically, you have 20,000 after a coin flip, after a set number of hands, you can expect to turn that into 22,000.

When you pass, you have 10K. What % of the time can you turn that 10K into 22K? It isnt meant to be read for only all-in situations.

Your chips are expected to increase (b/c you are a winning player). If you played a million tournaments, you would have a good idea of how your chips are expected to grow given a certain number of hands. Forgetting about the benefits of using a big stack. You have some ground to make up to get your 10K distribution to catch up to your 20K distribution.

Will you reach the 20K distribution levels with a greater frequency than you would win the coin flip? If so, pass on the flip. If not, take the flip.

Basically, people overestimate the % of time they reach the level of chips they would have if they started with 20K.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't quite answer the question I raised earlier. The mathematical analysis Matros provided was as follows: in the set amount of time it takes your "better player edge" to double you up to t20,000, if you had doubled up on the first hand you would have t22,000 (by estimate), so from that your edge has to be ~59%. However, if your chip accumulation is limited by minimum(your stack, opponent's stack), then having t20,000 vs. having t10,000 after the first hand should have almost no effect on your ability to accumulate chips.

Thus, by his analysis and this assumption, if you double up early and then continue using your "edge" to play, after a set amount of time you have accumulated x additional chips, leaving you with

(0.538)(20,000 + x).

If you assume the same accumulation rate, fold the first hand and then are offered the EXACT SAME situation at this set amount of time, you will have

(0.538)(20,000+2x) = 0.538(20,000 + x) + 0.538x

which is 0.538x greater than if you had doubled up on the first hand. In the example, x was 2,000, so you'd have an extra 1076 chips if you wait to take the coinflip later on.

This assumption is probably only valid if the amount of time it takes you to accumulate the extra x chips is short compared to the blind schedule, which is more likely in a large buy-in (longer blind level, deeper starting stack) tournament than in the smaller tournaments.

I guess there is a subtle difference in the argument. In Matros's case, he is arguing that your rate of doubling your stack is probably less than is acheived by getting all-in on the first hand. In the argument I'm making, if we figure we'll have a chance of being in a similar situation a little later in the tournament, then we can expect a greater return by passing on this opportunity and making the call later on.

-J.A.

[ QUOTE ]
if you are afraid to go allin when you KNOW you have an edge then why the hell are you playing poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who in their right mind considers open pushing all in preflop as playing poker? Pre-flop open push is a betting strategy, not a poker strategy. Out-thinking and out-playing opponents on the flop, turn and river is playing poker. IMHO, there is a difference.

Going all in preflop in cases like this OP, is just two opponents standing at the roulette wheel, one has red and the other has black, and one opponent gets the "0" and the other does not. You're telling me that's poker????

I think CardSharpCook stated it well in another post, something to the effect that all-in preflop is a "vulgar form" of poker.

Honestly, if you had a preference or choice, would you rather push pre-flop when you "think" you might be a 1.1:1 favorite or push on the flop or turn when you are "sure" to be a 5:1 or 10:1 favorite with a committed opponent?

Sklansky, in Tournament Poker for Advanced Players, says that the chipleaders from day 1 in the big event tournaments rarely make it to the final table. I interpret that as empirical evidence against Matros' hypothesis. Being that willing to gamble for all your chips is not the way to win.

Also, if you believe in the ICM model, calling becomes a dubious move. I've done the calculations for a 1-table SnG, 10 players with $1500 stacks and $10/$20 blinds. Prizes of 50%, 30% and 20% for 1st-3rd place. Calling with a 53% edge is a +cEV but a (slightly) -$EV move.

So I'd fold.

[yvesaint]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

youre arguing a completely different thing than what his article is talking about

its theory

hes saying that if there is a coinflip situation like QQ v. AK, you should take it

theoretically

I've seen players in tournaments of various sizes who rather than avoid the 50/50s (and sometimes even some less favorable odds) actively seek out such situations early in a tournament in an effort to either quickly accumulate chips or bust out and do something else with their time (as opposed to spending several hours to just barely make the money or end up busting out on the bubble b/c of a low chip stack). I agree that this strategy is not quite "pure" poker, but I wonder if by avoiding some of these 50/50 situations, a player is denying him/herself valuable opportunities to acquire a healthy stack of chips which, in the end, gives them a better chance at winning either more money or the entire tournament.

Tiffany

[Exitonly]

Not quite sure what you mean about 'trying to avoid' them, or 'actively seeking them out'

but yes, if a player is passing up on +EV (not cEV) situations (by avoiding the coinflips or however) then they are hurting themself in the longrun.

[Jason Strasser]

I want to be you.

[ QUOTE ]
Not quite sure what you mean about 'trying to avoid' them, or 'actively seeking them out'

but yes, if a player is passing up on +EV (not cEV) situations (by avoiding the coinflips or however) then they are hurting themself in the longrun.

[/ QUOTE ]

By trying to avoid them, I mean when they are presented with what they believe to be a 50/50, they prefer to fold their cards as opposed to playing the hand.

By actively seeking them out, I mean that as opposed to sitting back and waiting for an opportunity to outplay an opponent, they are looking for the first opportunity where they believe they are at least a 50/50 shot to win, in order to double up.

Tiffany

[ QUOTE ]
Who in their right mind considers open pushing all in preflop as playing poker? Pre-flop open push is a betting strategy, not a poker strategy. Out-thinking and out-playing opponents on the flop, turn and river is playing poker. IMHO, there is a difference.


[/ QUOTE ]
I agree completely. Matros makes it sound like poker tournaments are all about getting it all in pre-flop with an edge.
When I sit at a poker table, I usually reckon that I'm one of the better players (maybe I'm deluding myself but there you go!). If the blinds are small relative to stack size, then I say to myself "most of these guys are going to make mistakes, I'm probably going to make mistakes too but these guys will make substantially MORE mistakes, so I've got a very good chance of accumulating chips at this table".
If however the blinds are high relative to stack size, I'm going to take these +EV coinflips because these guys won't make enough mistakes for me to take advantage of .

On the other hand, if I look around and see Phil Ivey, Ram Vaswani, Dan N., and a few other pros, then I'll jump at any +Ev coinflip because that's my best chance of getting chips. These guys are going to outplay me if I get involved.

So, in the scenario given my Matros, I fold.

[Koss]

[ QUOTE ]

So, in the scenario given my Matros, I fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

He says you only need a 59% chance or better of doubling your stack at some point if you fold here. I don't have the data to back it up, but I think this is definitely possible at a table full of crap players.