Theoretical problem about coinflips

[tigerite]

Correct, it never ceases to amaze me how many don't realise that ITM is a mini bubble of its own !

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
Correct, it never ceases to amaze me how many don't realise that ITM is a mini bubble of its own !

[/ QUOTE ]

i've wondered before about playing 2-table sng's with 2:4:6:8 structure. all bubbles are same size but i bet people bend over backward to avoid 5th. never played 'em though.

[valenzuela]

Im going to disagree with you here, on all the final tables Ive played on MTT( 3 of them)we are always on a bubble everyone wants to move up on the money ladder.

[mcteecho]

As a Vancouverite, Victoria seems (with respect, Aleo) a bit sleepy, but otherwise very nice. Vancouver is great but has the highest housing prices in Canada so you might want to make sure your housing $ is going to go further here before making any irrevocable decisions. My condo has gained about $300,000 in value in 2.5 years.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
Im going to disagree with you here, on all the final tables Ive played on MTT( 3 of them)we are always on a bubble everyone wants to move up on the money ladder.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, that's how MTT's tend to play. i'm talking about 18-person sng's where the increment is always the same (2 buy-ins).

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Gigabet had a great post on this awhile back...he is willing to take the worst of it at times, if the result will allow him to have a MASSIVE stack and walk over the table

[/ QUOTE ]which is against ICM theory

[/ QUOTE ]

Not against. The word you're looking for is outside.

There are certain situations where it's correct to overrule the ICM and take a stab. Typically they arise 5-6 handed and in situations where you won't be close to going allin.

[FlyWf]

Do you know what ICM theory is?
Hint: It's not normative. ICM doesn't tell you what to do, you can't go against ICM.

[Simplistic]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you know what ICM theory is?
Hint: It's not normative. ICM doesn't tell you what to do, you can't go against ICM.

[/ QUOTE ]my understanding of ICM is that it assigns tournament chips a certain value of the prize pool based on stack sizes and villain hand ranges. thus if you have XX hand and push/fold/call each will have a different value and you should choose the action which maximizes equity

[FlyWf]

ICM is just the assigning of value. It's fundamentally just an expansion of the very simple idea that holding all the chips doesn't mean you get all the money. It's useful for understanding basic concepts like don't coinflip early, but it doesn't tell you to fold Q3 where Gigabet called. To make call/fold/push decisions you need hand ranges and table context that are well beyond the scope of ICM.

[Insty]

[ QUOTE ]
if I know for CERTAIN that my odds of beating an opponent in a showdown are exactly 50/50, and this opponent pushes all in ahead of me, are there any conditions under which I can call profitably.


[/ QUOTE ]

No. The best you can do is break even.

[ QUOTE ]

I'd like to see a proof.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've managed to prove it for a winner takes all tournament. I can type this up if you think it would be useful.
It's a bit more complicated for a 5/3/2 payout structure, and I've not quite managed it yet.
Although I've simulated enough to be confident of the answer.

[ QUOTE ]

As a corrollary to this problem, does the answer to this make sense given what we know about the relative value of chips in different sized stacks?

Ie - common tourney knowledge often suggests that calling with a suspected coinflip is wise if we have a huge stack in comparison. This is becasue the small stack's chips are worth more than ours and we may actually have pot odds to do so when considering the 'extra' value of shorty's chips.


[/ QUOTE ]

In the specified scenario it's never -ev to call when you have more chips than your opponent.
I thought that was interesting.

Insty.