200 from 200 then 200 at 200

[ChrisV]

Here's the first problem with this argument:

It is very similar to an argument that goes around in economics. This argument says, for example: Suppose houses cost $250,000 and stamp duty is currently $5,000. Imagine if we increased stamp duty to $6,000. Moving from $255,000 to $256,000 can't possibly change anyone's mind about whether they will buy the house. Therefore, this tax increase can be made with no effect on the housing market.

This argument is plain wrong. If you increase stamp duty like that you will find there will be an effect on the housing market (or on the economy at large). Likewise, there is a price to be paid for losing 50 chips in this situation. This price is likely to show up as being forced allin in situations where with 50 chips more you could have simply raised or bet an amount that doesn't put you allin.

The second problem is that most of the time what you will flop with Kx suited is a draw, rather than a made flush. You flop a flush only 0.84% of the time compared to flopping a draw 10.9% of the time. Suppose you flop a draw and the BB either bets out or checkraises you. What now?

[Texas Pete]

[ QUOTE ]
there is a price to be paid for losing 50 chips in this situation. This price is likely to show up as being forced allin in situations where with 50 chips more you could have simply raised or bet an amount that doesn't put you allin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for your reply. Supposing the blinds are close to moving up to 100; he's in all-in land with T815 or T765 regardless. I think the hurt here is that if he wins his called push he is losing T50x2, having pissed away T50 previously. That's a little bit bad.

[ QUOTE ]

The second problem is that most of the time what you will flop with Kx suited is a draw, rather than a made flush. You flop a flush only 0.84% of the time compared to flopping a draw 10.9% of the time. Suppose you flop a draw and the BB either bets out or checkraises you. What now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Fold. It's another great way to lose the T50.

Got any refs on Thm. 1.?

[microbet]

[ QUOTE ]
do you really want to start throwing large chunks of your stack around on level 1, on this? I used to think that's great-- just a fish with A6os... but I have now observed quite a few TPTK disasters

[/ QUOTE ]

I love throwing around large portions of my stack in level 1. It usually means I have a pretty good idea I have the best hand, rather than just a hope that the blinds weren't dealt good cards.

That's not to say I'm loose in the early rounds. I'm not.

[ChrisV]

There's a time and place for these "situational" arguments. I've seen Gigabet advance a compelling situational argument before in defense of an allin call he made with KJ. The argument is no good here because there is virtually no gain to be made from calling. You only flop a flush 0.84% of the time and you flop two pair or trips an additional 3.5% or so of the time. Of those times, the amount of times the BB is willing to go allin with you with a worse hand is again very small. It's hugely unlikely you'll take his stack here.

Now for the theorem of calling (or more accurately, voluntarily putting chips in the pot) never being -CEV and +$EV. For this I'll be using the ICM calculator. ICM Calculator. Everyone starts with 1000 chips and has 10% of the prize pool in equity. Now, suppose on the first hand the SB and BB go allin, both with exactly 50% chance to win and 0% chance to split. After the smoke clears, the equity looks like this:

1000 - 0.10194444444444445 (x 9 stacks)
2000 - 0.18444444444444447

What has happened here is that the guy who doubled up didn't double his equity, or anywhere near. A whole 2.5% or so of the prize pool was taken from the two allin players and redistributed among the table.

Let's take a less extreme situation - suppose these players only commit half their stack on the first hand.

1000 - 0.1004781561747506 (x8)
1500 - 0.14375644994840042
500 - 0.05241830065359476

The sum of the equity of the 1500 and 500 stacks is 0.19617475060199518. A much less extreme, but still noticeable, 0.38% of the prize pool has been taken from those two players and distributed to everyone else.

So the theorem says: Any time two stacks have a confrontation, equity is taken from those two stacks and given to everyone else on the table. Therefore, averaging a break-even on chip amount will lead to a small loss in equity. Therefore, even a CEV neutral play loses $EV. You require a clearly +CEV play before it becomes +$EV. In the case of going allin on the first hand, for example, you are required to be a 54.22% favourite to break even in $EV terms.

The reason this is so can be best understood by looking at a common bubble situation. You know how good it is on the bubble to have two other stacks of equal height go allin. Immediately you are taken from a bubble situation to guaranteed money (provided they don't split). This represents a huge gain in equity for you. Even if one or both stacks are not allin, it is good for you because they will still be crippled - made short stacked - by the confrontation. Anything that brings you closer to the money is good.

This effect persists all the way down to the start of the tourney, with ten players. SNGs are effectively one long bubble. The effect becomes larger (1) As the amount invested by the stacks becomes larger (allin is best, obviously) and (2) as the number of players becomes fewer. Example:

2000 - 0.24023809523809525
2000 - 0.24023809523809525
2000 - 0.24023809523809525
1000 - 0.13964285714285712
1000 - 0.13964285714285712

versus:

2000 - 0.24259129759129758
2000 - 0.24259129759129758
2000 - 0.24259129759129758
1500 - 0.19738636363636364
500 - 0.0748397435897436

If you sum the equity of the 1000 stacks before and after the confrontation, they have lost 0.71% of the prize pool, compared to 0.38% in the ten player example. Same confrontation, but bigger loss because there are less players so everyone is closer to the money.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
Any time two stacks have a confrontation, equity is taken from those two stacks and given to everyone else on the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

suppose 8 people have T1000, and the other two have T500 and T1500. if the short stack doubles up off of the big stack (leaving everyone back at T1000) then equity is removed from the 8 original T1000 guys and given to the two who clashed (obviously the loser loses equity, but as a pair, they gain). right?

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Def. of lottery ticket: a -CEV play with large implied odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe you might have a confused idea about implied odds. Any hand you play has some implied odds potential in it, be it 93o or K7s.

The points people are trying to make here, is that when you consider the probability of hitting a *big* hand AND getting paid for it, you find that playing such hands is -CEV (and -$EV) in most common situations, because you will lose small amounts of chips much more often than you'll win enough to compensate for it, PLUS you will find yourself in situations where you'll be getting marginally OK odds to go on with the hand, while you don't actually want to go on with it, i.e, chasing, or putting too much into the pot post-flop without knowing for sure you're ahead.

Your example with the lottery ticket is simply irrelevant. Buying a lottery ticket is either +EV or -EV, there's no meaning to "implied odds" in this case. The fact that you can win big if you hit is simply part of your EV calculation. In poker, on the other hand, there are moves that are +EV (CEV or $EV, doesn't matter now), even without taking in calculation implied odds. Implied odds might change a move from -EV to +EV, but the jump to conclusions regarding the implied odds EV is not simple as saying "it's a stack busting hand".

[ChrisV]

Yeah, that's correct. I should more accurately have said that when two stacks have a confrontation that is certain to increase the unevenness of stacks, they lose equity.

Note that the short stack in that example is giving equity to everyone on the table, including the guy he's in the hand with. The general lessons to take from that are that as a short stack it's bad to be allin and as a big stack you have an incentive to bust small stacks.

[lorinda]

I don't have a favorite posts list, but if I did, this would be on it.

Lori

[ChrisV]

Thanks! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Texas Pete]

Thanks for taking the time to post this. It is all new to me and it's going to take some time to digest.
Sincerely,
Pete