MATH: 45 extra chips to start 800-chip tourney adds >5% to ROI

[Nicholasp27]

well i don't think this 26.5% skill advantage stays static throughout the tournament, but i think that adding 45 chips only won't greatly affect that skill advantage


do you think that your average donk losing money every tourney will really gain 51 cents just from 45 chips in a no limit tourney? i think he'll gain less than 51 cents and winning players will gain more than 51 cent

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
take a 15% ROI player in 10/1 tournaments
1.15*11=12.65/tournament (-11 buyin = 1.65 profit)
ICM says they should only bring in 10/tournament if even skilled
12.65/10=26.5% advantage due to player skill
If you start with 845 chips and everyone else has 795 chips, then ICM says you should bring in 10.51/tournament
10.51*1.265=13.29515 = what you expect to bring in due to skill advantage

13.29515/11=1.20865=20.865% ROI

that's 5.865 points higher than his usual 15%!!!


45 chips early on DOES make a difference

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont really care what any of these things say.. if you give me 45 extra chips my roi wont go up 5%. thats all there is to it. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

hey dude just cos you suck don't mean he's wrong! [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[Nicholasp27]

well i think math shows it does

however, you could maybe make an argument that ICM is more inaccurate with 10 stacks than with 4 stacks and ICM is overly exaggerating the effect of 45 chips in an 8k chip tournament with 10 players left

[microbet]

For me, this discussion is just a fun math problem.

Pushing early with less than top hands is another issue. I don't really want to discourage people from doing it, but I'm not yet heartless enough to encourage it.

[Nicholasp27]

well, this would only give you a narrow range of hands...i don't have pokerstove on this comp, but what hands can be 50% against the range of top 15% of hands?

i suspect it's a small number of hands, so it would tell you that you can only push a small number of hands only in late position only with no limpers

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
well i think math shows it does

however, you could maybe make an argument that ICM is more inaccurate with 10 stacks than with 4 stacks and ICM is overly exaggerating the effect of 45 chips in an 8k chip tournament with 10 players left

[/ QUOTE ]

math doesnt show it. none of this math done so far is good enough to take into account even half of the factors in sng poker. im still waiting to be proven wrong. you give me those extra 45 chips and take 5 from everyone, you say u get 5.5%, i say i get closer to 2 or 3. ill go into why later. that includes the fact that im a better player of course. holla

[curtains]

These arguments should assume that all players are equal to begin with. Once we solve for that, then we should seeing how skill level affects the results.

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]

These arguments should assume that all players are equal to begin with. Once we solve for that, then we should seeing how skill level affects the results.

[/ QUOTE ]

the original argument had the player beginning at a 15% roi, did it not? thus.. all the math was based upon that no? holla

[microbet]

At 3% you're practically agreeing. I think the 5.5% math is not good. I put the cap at 4.6% in that example and as I mentioned in the other thread, I think it HAS to be less and the higher your ROI is the less you gain from the chips.

I think the opposition in the other thread was thinking .4% was more like what the increase in ROI would be.

Intuition tells me the totally average player, who loses exactly the rake, is going to be who makes the most from 45 extra chips.

I think there are two factors that determine the value of those chips: The FREQUENCY they make a difference, and the EFFECTIVENESS of the difference they make when they do.

The chips will make a difference infrequently for an excellent player, but that player will make excellent use of them. The chips will make a difference frequently for a terrible player, but that player will make terrible use of them. But I don't think these cancel out or compound, I think this product shrinks both ways.

Here's a thought experiment, which is just to intuit, not meant as hard logic:

Take the perfect player. He's psychic, knows everyones' hole cards, and his mind is the freakin' pattern mapper. His ROI is maximal, he gets first every* time. The chips do nothing for him.

Take the perfectly terrible player. He actually doesn't have a mouse, so he just folds every single hand. His ROI is minimal, he loses his entire buyin every* time. The chips do nothing for him.

I'm of course willing to see math that suggests otherwise, but until I see some justification that the math is working as it does in reality I give my gut some credit.


*Yeah yeah, a tiny amount of the time it doesn't happen. Kinda interesting... there can exist only one player with maximal ROI but there can exist seven with minimal ROI...