True EV of PP Steps tournaments

[curtains]

I didnt read it just now but isnt the idea in STEPS that if you are +EV that you build up EV in each step, that cancells out the rake effect. Despite that I always buyin at top step otherwise I won't play....too annoying otherwise.

[PrayingMantis]

I think this gets complicated because then it's a question of the time you put in order to "build up" EV from lower-steps. It's no wonder you buy in directly to a top step, because the EV you earn by winning seats at lower steps does not worth the time, and it might actually be -EV ($/H wise) in comparison.

But I don't think this has much to do with chaosuk post, which deals with the economics of SNGs' rake in general, and specifically the steps.

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
You should look at this excellent post by chaosuk:

Steps are not a rake trap

I think it will show that while your analysis may be correct, it doesn't much matter, and it's really what we do everyday in ordinary SNG play, steps or not.

Regards
Brad S

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a very good post and so is the one that inspired it. I think both sides have some valid points.

First, it's completely true that my calculations are based on the results for a hypothetical "average" player, one who has exactly a 10% chance of finishing in any given slot. That player would pay a lot of rake if they just sat there and played regular SnG's all day too. But even though the dynamic is the same in either case, it's still not clear to me that both are equal in terms of EV. Who knows, maybe Steps are the better deal for the average player because they may let him play all day for only minimal rake, even if he wins nothing.

But there is a second point, related to the flat structure of most of the steps. Imagine a ridiculously flat $50+5 where 1-9 places receive an entry into another $50+5, and 10th place receives $5 cash. Obviously, no one at all will beat this tournament. And looking at less ridiculous examples, it's clear that the flatter the payout, the harder a game is to beat.

I think I could probably develop some useful figures if instead of looking at the average player, I tried the same equations using a winning SnG player: let's say 15% first, 13% second, 12% third, which would be a robust 40% ITM for normal SnG's. Are those figures reasonable?

[chaosuk]

A belated thanks for the kind words guys; I'm planning on re-writing this article adding a little extra on the flatness and sticking it on my blog, which I haven't got up yet - it would be less of a blog more of place to store articles. But I would take issue with this statement:

'it's clear that the flatter the payout, the harder a game is to beat.'

hopefully I'll expand on it futher when I write it.

regards

chaos

Good job. But your computation have a major leak. You assume your "ROI" or your win chances are the same for all steps. It cannot be true - your chance of winning 500+50 SNG and 5+1 SNG are never 0.1 at the same time.

I would be very glad to you, if you take your time to make ajustments to your results. For example let's assume your are break-even Step 3 player. (0.1 for each 1-10 in Step 3). So you would have like 0.15,0.15,0.10,... and so on Step 2. And 0.2,0.2,0.15 ... on Step 1. But 0.08,0.08,0.1... on Step 4 and 0.05, 0.05, 0.08 ... on Step 5 (Certainly that are "dummy" probs, i have no information how good you might be on level up/down, if you were break-even on Level X.)

PS. That is not critic, i am really willing to research this more thoroughly.