Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Tournament Poker > One-table Tournaments

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 10-31-2005, 11:55 AM
HesseJam HesseJam is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 160
Default Re: Theoretical problem about coinflips

[ QUOTE ]
but blind sizes are rarely negligible. Why worry about a situation that is basicly never going to happen. I assume there must be a reason, but I don't understand it.

[/ QUOTE ]

same here.

Also playing ability is usually not equal. If up against a good player, try to knock him out with a coinflip.

It's much more important to know how to play when abiltity is unequal and blind sizes are not negligible.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-31-2005, 12:01 PM
AleoMagus AleoMagus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 252
Default Re: Theoretical problem about coinflips

[ QUOTE ]
but blind sizes are rarely negligible. Why worry about a situation that is basicly never going to happen. I assume there must be a reason, but I don't understand it.

[/ QUOTE ]

We never really KNOW we are in a coinflip situation either, but these kinds of things can be assumed if we are just trying to generalize.

If it really bothers you that blind sizes are negligible, assume that that blind sizes can be ignored becasue you know (or estimate) that you are a slight underdog. here is a concrete example:

Player A) t1500
Player B) t1500
Player C) t1000
Player D) t6000

You are player D. Blinds are 50/100 and you are in the BB with AQ. All fold to player C who pushes all in. For some reason (very good read? Flashed cards?) you know he has a medium pair and you know that you are a slight underdog. It really doesn't matter what you or he have, just assume that your best estimate is that you will win this hand 46% of the time if you call.

So, if you fold:

Player A) 1500, with an equity of .2148
Player B) 1500, with an equity of .2148
Player C) 1100, with an equity of .1699
Player D) 5900, with an equity of .4004

if you call, possible outcomes are

win (.46)
Player C) 0, with an equity of 0
Player D) t7000 with an equity of .4347

lose (.54)
Player C) .2387
Player D) .3704

so, your total equity is ((.54)(.3704)+(.46)(.4347))=.3999

You should fold, though I admit it is very close.

Is everyone content to fold in a situation like this?

Regards
Brad S
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-31-2005, 12:05 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Theoretical problem about coinflips

[ QUOTE ]

Is everyone content to fold in a situation like this?


[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, I'd rather not send the message that my BB is ripe for the taking.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-31-2005, 12:10 PM
Nicholasp27 Nicholasp27 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 93
Default Re: Theoretical problem about coinflips

yes, as big stack there, i'd rather fold here and then open-push a WIDE range of hands when i'm first in pot...none of them wanna end up in fourth, so they will fold most hands to u and u can pick up the t300 in blinds often (and soon it'll be t750)

with those stacks i don't want the bubble to burst just yet so i definitely wouldn't take a coinflip here, even if icm said it was +ev
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-31-2005, 12:53 PM
AleoMagus AleoMagus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 252
Default Re: Theoretical problem about coinflips

I think I am still being unclear. What I am really driving at is this:

We all seem to agree that taking a coinflip for your survival is a bad idea in a SNG and we try to avoid those sorts of confrontations. What about when you have a really big stack and it's not about your survival? Can you start to make more gambling kinds of plays if your stack is huge and you have the opportunity to bust a player?

Now, though I mentioned it in my original post, I don't buy the argument that we can do this because shorty's chips have 'extra' value. As we add them to our stack, they don't have that value anymore so that can't exactly be the reason why we would justify these kinds of plays.

Still, many tournament experts seem to advocate taking chances against small stacks where you have the opportunity to bust them.

Is our avoidance of confrontation a universal theme of good tournament play, or can we take advantage of small stacks by getting them all-in we have a huge stack. Even if we are only 50/50 or worse?

ICM says no

I guess my reason for this thread is just that when I was thinking about this myself, I suspected it would say no, but that wasn't my gut feeling about what was right. Now that may simply be because in reality the blinds will give us the proper edge we need.

Still, might it be something more than this.

While I don't like to deal in vague imprecise statements, I am reminded of a gigabet (I think) statement where he considers the extra chips in a big stack (when chipleader) somewhat useless, as he cannot double those chips on a single hand. Does this, or something like this change our opinion about putting those chips into play on even money confrontations, or even confrontations where we might be a slight underdog?

Regards
Brad S
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-31-2005, 01:16 PM
microbet microbet is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,360
Default Re: Theoretical problem about coinflips

I would say no, but I don't have time to think about it much now.

Tigerite, are you counting blinds in there? Aleo wants blinds to be negligible.

Aleo, are you trying to reconcile ICM with Block theory? I don't think that's gonna happen.

I don't put a lot of stock in the feeling that coinflips are good early in an MTT. I think in an MTT you are far away from the money and the equity is a lot closer to a cash game and thus a true 50/50 is not too bad, and being on the good side of a coin flip is probably good enough. In an STT we start pretty close to being on the bubble.

Lastly, what's it like living in Victoria? Is it something like heaven?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-31-2005, 01:18 PM
pooh74 pooh74 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 316
Default Re: Theoretical problem about coinflips

[ QUOTE ]
I think I am still being unclear. What I am really driving at is this:

We all seem to agree that taking a coinflip for your survival is a bad idea in a SNG and we try to avoid those sorts of confrontations. What about when you have a really big stack and it's not about your survival? Can you start to make more gambling kinds of plays if your stack is huge and you have the opportunity to bust a player?

Now, though I mentioned it in my original post, I don't buy the argument that we can do this because shorty's chips have 'extra' value. As we add them to our stack, they don't have that value anymore so that can't exactly be the reason why we would justify these kinds of plays.

Still, many tournament experts seem to advocate taking chances against small stacks where you have the opportunity to bust them.

Is our avoidance of confrontation a universal theme of good tournament play, or can we take advantage of small stacks by getting them all-in we have a huge stack. Even if we are only 50/50 or worse?

ICM says no

I guess my reason for this thread is just that when I was thinking about this myself, I suspected it would say no, but that wasn't my gut feeling about what was right. Now that may simply be because in reality the blinds will give us the proper edge we need.

Still, might it be something more than this.

While I don't like to deal in vague imprecise statements, I am reminded of a gigabet (I think) statement where he considers the extra chips in a big stack (when chipleader) somewhat useless, as he cannot double those chips on a single hand. Does this, or something like this change our opinion about putting those chips into play on even money confrontations, or even confrontations where we might be a slight underdog?

Regards
Brad S

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats funny, because my gut instinct always said "yes", it is a bad idea. The inherent advantage of calling a short stack's all-in is usually in the fact that their range will be much wider. But I dont see why taking 50/50s (putting aside that we never "know" for sure we have a flip) is commonly regarded as a good thing.

I think the value of having a short stack present is mainly to be able to exploit the medium stack(s). This, to me, is much more valuable than knocking out a player. I would rather use those so called extra chips exploiting someone who still has hopes of making the money ( or higher payout) than knocking out someone on a flip and then having much LESS leverage against those medium stacks. ICM will not take this into account but these concepts are huge IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-31-2005, 01:25 PM
AleoMagus AleoMagus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 252
Default Re: Theoretical problem about coinflips

[ QUOTE ]
Lastly, what's it like living in Victoria? Is it something like heaven?

[/ QUOTE ]

no, but it's not too bad either. lots of rain in the winter, but one of the prettiest cities in Canada.
Why? thinking of moving here?

We are supposed to be getting a legit casino poker room pretty soon, so one major drawback of victoria will soon be gone.

I'll also say this about Victoria. People who don't live in Victoria think that living in Victoria would mean lots of trips to Vancouver and Seattle. This is a myth. Considering the time, expense and hassle involved with getting off the isalnd, it actually feels pretty isolated here sometimes. Then again, a lot of people like it that way.

Regards
Brad S
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-31-2005, 01:39 PM
valenzuela valenzuela is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 453
Default Re: Theoretical problem about coinflips

I came up with an example where it doesnt matter. I mean its not close, its the same thing!!. I repeat just in case, you lose 0,0055 of the prize pool and u win 0,0055 of the prize pool, im not considering blinds.
Im now trying to come up with a profitable example.

edit: I jus realized that its only the same thing becuase of ICM lack of more decimals.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-31-2005, 01:46 PM
microbet microbet is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,360
Default Re: Theoretical problem about coinflips

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lastly, what's it like living in Victoria? Is it something like heaven?

[/ QUOTE ]

no, but it's not too bad either. lots of rain in the winter, but one of the prettiest cities in Canada.
Why? thinking of moving here?

We are supposed to be getting a legit casino poker room pretty soon, so one major drawback of victoria will soon be gone.

I'll also say this about Victoria. People who don't live in Victoria think that living in Victoria would mean lots of trips to Vancouver and Seattle. This is a myth. Considering the time, expense and hassle involved with getting off the isalnd, it actually feels pretty isolated here sometimes. Then again, a lot of people like it that way.

Regards
Brad S

[/ QUOTE ]

I definitely want to move somewhere north of LA (where I am) on the pacific coast within a few years. Victoria or Vancouver I think would be great as I could afford a much nicer house and I think they are really beautiful. I lived around Portland, OR for 5 years so I know about rain.

More likely I'll end up staying in Cali though. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.