please help me settle an argument about 20 table SNG's

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]
the more players in em the more my edge is imho.

[/ QUOTE ] These kind of arguments make no sense to me (another type of argument was that you would have a higher EV with a 25 table rather than a 20 table SnG).

Let's say you are at the 90th percentile of all tournament players. In a 20 table SnG (180 players), there would typically be 18 players who are better than you. In a 25 table SnG (225 players), there would typically be 22 - 23 players better than you. In a 2000 player tournament, there would typically be 200 players better than you.

A smaller tournament reduces playing time and variance, IMO, and that is all.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the more players in em the more my edge is imho.

[/ QUOTE ] These kind of arguments make no sense to me (another type of argument was that you would have a higher EV with a 25 table rather than a 20 table SnG).

Let's say you are at the 90th percentile of all tournament players. In a 20 table SnG (180 players), there would typically be 18 players who are better than you. In a 25 table SnG (225 players), there would typically be 22 - 23 players better than you. In a 2000 player tournament, there would typically be 200 players better than you.

A smaller tournament reduces playing time and variance, IMO, and that is all.

[/ QUOTE ]

On that same note though, if you are in the 90th percentile, in a 180, there are 160 players worse than you. In a 225 there are 201 players worse than you. And in a 2000, there are 1799 players worse than you. Let's say that you make it into the 10%, and so does 25% of the players that are better than you (just to name a figure, no way to calculate which players will be there, but there won't be 100% of the players better than you being there), you have a good edge in all of them. So when you get in the money in the 180, when there are 18 left, there will only be about 4 players better than you. In the 250, when you get to the 27, there will be about 6 players better than you. And in the 2000, when you get to 180, there will be about 50 better than you. I'd like my chances there, seeing how it would be unlikely for more than 2-3 being at my table in any of those scenarios, and even if there were some, there would still be plenty of worse players to keep building stacks off of. Also would mean the better of a chance I'd have to get to the real pay spots, since I'd have more players to exploit thru their weaknesses.

good point. am i wrong in thinking that the bigger the field the more fish per shark.

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]
good point. am i wrong in thinking that the bigger the field the more fish per shark.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's possible. It's also possible that the bigger the field, the less shark per fish. It's impossible to say which side is correct without evidence.

I would say that logically that the buy-in of a tournament almost certainly affects the ratio of shark to fish. But why should the size of tournament affect that ratio? Without any evidence one way or the other, why would you think that?

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
But why should the size of tournament affect that ratio? Without any evidence one way or the other, why would you think that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Shrinking an MTT all the way to an SNG size is definitely going to make certain ways of playing more incorrect. This is an extreme example, but it does illustrate that when the size and the way people play interact that it's very possible that it matters.

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the more players in em the more my edge is imho.

[/ QUOTE ] These kind of arguments make no sense to me (another type of argument was that you would have a higher EV with a 25 table rather than a 20 table SnG).

Let's say you are at the 90th percentile of all tournament players. In a 20 table SnG (180 players), there would typically be 18 players who are better than you. In a 25 table SnG (225 players), there would typically be 22 - 23 players better than you. In a 2000 player tournament, there would typically be 200 players better than you.

A smaller tournament reduces playing time and variance, IMO, and that is all.

[/ QUOTE ]

On that same note though, if you are in the 90th percentile, in a 180, there are 160 players worse than you. In a 225 there are 201 players worse than you. And in a 2000, there are 1799 players worse than you. Let's say that you make it into the 10%, and so does 25% of the players that are better than you (just to name a figure, no way to calculate which players will be there, but there won't be 100% of the players better than you being there), you have a good edge in all of them. So when you get in the money in the 180, when there are 18 left, there will only be about 4 players better than you. In the 250, when you get to the 27, there will be about 6 players better than you. And in the 2000, when you get to 180, there will be about 50 better than you. I'd like my chances there, seeing how it would be unlikely for more than 2-3 being at my table in any of those scenarios, and even if there were some, there would still be plenty of worse players to keep building stacks off of. Also would mean the better of a chance I'd have to get to the real pay spots, since I'd have more players to exploit thru their weaknesses.

[/ QUOTE ]

So let's assume that everybody finishes according to their ability (which we know never happens, but has to be our best guess as to what will happen).

With a $20+$2 buy-in and using the payout structure of Pokerstars:
In the 180 player tournament, you will finish in 5th place: profit $212
In the 250 player tournament, you will finish in 7th place: profit $153
In the 2000 player tournament, you will finish in 51st place: profit $78

current payout is 10% ITM for 20 tables. at 25 tables (assuming they would pay 3 entire tables or 27 players as OP suggested) the ITM is 12%. wouldn't it make sense that the fish would find this more appealing than the sharks giving the fish 2% more chance of making it ITM. The sharks on the other hand who figure to place ITM x% of the time have now had there payouts diminished by increasing the number of places that are paid. True the sharks will make that extra 2% some of the time, but is this a selling point for the sharks to play? Not really, the sharks are not looking for better % of making it ITM, rather they are looking for making the big money. Based on all of the above, I believe this increases the fish per shark ratio. Thoughts?

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But why should the size of tournament affect that ratio? Without any evidence one way or the other, why would you think that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Shrinking an MTT all the way to an SNG size is definitely going to make certain ways of playing more incorrect. This is an extreme example, but it does illustrate that when the size and the way people play interact that it's very possible that it matters.

[/ QUOTE ] I merely said that the size of the tournament does not affect the ratio of shark to fish. That's all. I didn't say anything about playing correctly or incorrectly or anything like that.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
I merely said that the size of the tournament does not affect the ratio of shark to fish. That's all. I didn't say anything about playing correctly or incorrectly or anything like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You miss the point. If more people play incorrectly at a particular size, then the ratio changes as you adjust the size because more fish start being produced by the change. And I think it's certainly reasonable to think that such a thing can happen - most players have a short stack/final table/SNG game that falls well short of where it should be.

I see your point there, and it's not a bad one. But, since the structures are so topheavy, I'd take a few average 78 profits and a single 1st in a 2000 than a few 212's and a single 1st there.

I think that the smaller ones you could conceivably make more in the longrun since you can multitable these things all day long and never have to wait for them, but a single 1st in a 2000 man would be about 8500 (not exactly sure, doing it with quick math in my head), about 9x more than a first in a 180.

I think both are good bangs for your buck, but I'd myself would rather shoot for the big payday, even if it means I'd cost on average 130 a tourney, if I make 7 grand for first once, it would most likely more than make up for it.