|
|
#101
09-23-2005, 11:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: MATH: 45 extra chips to start 800-chip tourney adds >5% to ROI
ok, so it sounds like you see a fundamental flaw in icm...it not only assumes equal skill level (ie all 10 players are -9% players), but equivalent play
so if 3 of the donks are lags that have a -9% roi 3 of the donks are weak-tight that have a -9% roi 4 of the donks are loose passive that have a -9% roi and everyone starts with 800 chips you think icm is wrong in stating that everyone's ev is .10? or only that as chip stacks change, icm is incorrect in predicting everyone's ev because different people play different ways, even if they are all -9% in the long-run? 
|
|
#102
09-23-2005, 11:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: MATH: 45 extra chips to start 800-chip tourney adds >5% to ROI
[ QUOTE ]
Now, someone tell me where the flaw is in the following double-up first hand strategy.... 1600 stack vs 8 800 stacks... .1844 is your new ev 18.44*1.265=23.3266 23.3266/11=2.1206 or 212% roi!! [/ QUOTE ] Maybe I'm missing something, but if you win every tournament so only have a 354.5% ROI (39/11), so it does not make sense to me that you would expect an ROI of 212% if you have only 20% of the chips. I think it is due to the fact the each additional chip gained is worth less than the previous one.
|
|
#103
09-23-2005, 11:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: MATH: 45 extra chips to start 800-chip tourney adds >5% to ROI
[ QUOTE ]
ok, so it sounds like you see a fundamental flaw in icm [/ QUOTE ] It's not the ICM that is flawed. It's the use of the ICM to draw certain conclusions that is fundamentally flawed. [ QUOTE ] so if 3 of the donks are lags that have a -9% roi 3 of the donks are weak-tight that have a -9% roi 4 of the donks are loose passive that have a -9% roi and everyone starts with 800 chips you think icm is wrong in stating that everyone's ev is .10? [/ QUOTE ] The ICM is not wrong. It is just evidence. If a winning player sat down at the above game, he would be able to identify the leaks in his opponents and exploit them. He would beat that game for a significant expectation and giving him 45 extra chips at the start wouldn't mean jack squat. [ QUOTE ] or only that as chip stacks change, icm is incorrect in predicting everyone's ev because different people play different ways, even if they are all -9% in the long-run? [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, that's a component of the problems that you will encounter when you try to apply ICM-derived expectations to real-world conditions. Irieguy
|
|
#104
09-23-2005, 11:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: MATH: 45 extra chips to start 800-chip tourney adds >5% to ROI
[ QUOTE ]
ok, so it sounds like you see a fundamental flaw in icm...it not only assumes equal skill level (ie all 10 players are -9% players), but equivalent play [/ QUOTE ] This is not a flaw of ICM - it is a feature. [ QUOTE ] so if 3 of the donks are lags that have a -9% roi 3 of the donks are weak-tight that have a -9% roi 4 of the donks are loose passive that have a -9% roi and everyone starts with 800 chips you think icm is wrong in stating that everyone's ev is .10? or only that as chip stacks change, icm is incorrect in predicting everyone's ev because different people play different ways, even if they are all -9% in the long-run? [/ QUOTE ] I think it is wrong to use ICM in this manner. Perhaps you should do some (more) reading of previous ICM threads.
|
|
#106
09-23-2005, 12:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: MATH: 45 extra chips to start 800-chip tourney adds >5% to ROI
we aren't talking about winning players here, just average, -9% roi players
do you think is it accurate to say that everybody has .1 equity to start the game? or is this inaccurate because certain styles do better against some styles so some people at the table should have more than .1 equity even if everyone is -9% roi?
|
|
#107
09-23-2005, 12:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: MATH: 45 extra chips to start 800-chip tourney adds >5% to ROI
Wow, great discussion.
I see merit on both sides of this and i'm not really mathematically qualified enough to add anything new, but I would like to know how some people think this changes the debate. Gigabet says there (sort of) that any amount of chips you have over the average (he calls it a line on top of blocks or something) are essentially useless at that point in the tourney yada yada yada Again I'm not saying this changes anything, just wanted to toss that amazing post in here and see if anybody thinks it changes or adds to this discussion at all.
|
|
#108
09-23-2005, 03:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A New way to look at it: HANDICAP ICM for Hero...
[ QUOTE ]
I think the extra chips are worth more to the average player than to the +ROI player. (that's based on ICM, player's styles could affect whether or not this is true in a specific case) I'm not sure what happens to the -ROI players. [/ QUOTE ] It has to be symmetric, no? Zero(ish) sum and all that, if the +ROI player is getting less from the chips, the -ROI players at that same table are losing less from the lost chips.
|
|
#109
09-23-2005, 08:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A New way to look at it: HANDICAP ICM for Hero...
I don't see it having to add up. The +ROI players are getting less because there is less to get. They are closer to perfection and you can't get better than that. The -ROI players might get more. On the other hand, if someone could be bad enough to lose all the time, they might still lose all the time and the chips would be worthless to them as well.
It doesn't have to add up because we are talking about different situations, like one game with 1 good player and 9 average players and a separate game with 1 bad player and 9 average players.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
