Matt Matros article in Cardplayer about coinflips

[nath]

Read it here.

It might do a good job of putting to rest the myth of avoiding races for your tournament life bigger advantages later blah blah blah.
(But hopefully not TOO good. I still want tournaments to be profitable...)

[Exitonly]

[ QUOTE ]
If you could consistently have a 59.18 percent chance of doubling up, you’d win a 1,024-player tournament more than five times as often as an average player. Trust me, you’re not that good. I don’t think it’s possible to be that good. I’m certainly not that good.

[/ QUOTE ]


One oddsmaker for EPT Dublin, was paying 49:1 on Ram Vaswani winning the event. (Better than 5:1)

good article so far.

[billyjex]

Good article.

[Sam T.]

[ QUOTE ]
Calling here doesn’t negate our skill over the field. Calling here is our skill over the field.


[/ QUOTE ]

End of thread.

[Exitonly]

I'm talking about my friend with it now..

now i agree w/ Matt's point mostly, but one thing i think he neglected, is he talks about 'doubling up' only as going to showdown for all of your chips. In dublin, i was never all in for everything until i was knocked out.. so i got 6x what i started at without ever 'doubling up'

--
a few things my friend said about it (he's playing now so they arent descriptive)

"
Neutraiity: [censored] argument
e x i t o n l y4: it's not perfect, but it's alright
Neutraiity: Nah it's not. He's all about "winning the tournament", not EV
e x i t o n l y4: maximizing winning the tournament, most definitely would maximize EV
e x i t o n l y4: things are so dammn top heavy
Neutraiity: Not at all.
Neutraiity: Let's say I increase my chances to "win" by 1% and diminish my chances to cash at all by 14%. Definitely not maximizing my EV
e x i t o n l y4: where'd you pull those numbers out of?
Neutraiity: It's also overvaluing a big stack. They're nice, but if you can handle a moderate stack well cashing at all becomes damn +EV
Neutraiity: Top of my head. My point's only that maximizing winning ain't the same as maximizing total EV
e x i t o n l y4: They are, because by maximizing winning, you're also getting plenty of other cashes
e x i t o n l y4: and they're really really top heavy
Neutraiity: Nah, you're getting knocked off lots
e x i t o n l y4: .. you're getting knocked off lots regardless
e x i t o n l y4: it's why ITM% doesnt matter much at all, it's all about ROI%
Neutraiity: Right! So "winning %" doesn't matter either. ROI or EV does
Neutraiity: You just restated my point :P
e x i t o n l y4: no i didnt at all
e x i t o n l y4: because the top 3 spots are what make ROI
Neutraiity: I don't agree with that. Ah well, playing now, so don't wanna do a bunch of numbers, but save the article
e x i t o n l y4: alright
Neutraiity: A good NL player has a much bigger edge over his opponents than a good limit player.


thoughts?

[A_PLUS]

I have a problem with his calculation

When he explains how to find the "necessary edge" that you are waiting for by folding QQ, he uses 22000 as the expected chips stack in the future when you win the first coin flip. But He only uses 10000 as the comparison stack size when you pass.

With blinds as low as they are, shouldnt the 2000 extra chips still be won by someone who passes on the coin flip?

[KneeCo]

[ QUOTE ]

Neutraiity: You just restated my point :P


[/ QUOTE ]

I hate hate hate (!) it when people say this or 'you just proved my point' when it isn't true.

The Matros' article is quite good IMO, not complete, there are some follow-up questions and arguments, but I'm sure the author is aware of these. Nevertheless, in terms of addressing the coin flip debate, I think it does a very good job. Way better overall than most Cardplayer articles I've (although I haven't read it religiously).

Good article.

[Melchiades]

"Calling here doesn’t negate our skill over the field. Calling here is our skill over the field."

Indeed.

[illegit]

Exitonly's buddy is talking utter nonsense. Not even sure what he's saying. Maximizing your chances to win a tournament almost always simultaneously maximizes your EV and ROI, with only rare exceptions (satellites).

Very good article.

One huge problem with Matt's article / point of view.

Did anyone else notice that HE SAW THE AK of diamonds.

I don't know about you, but the last time I played poker for $10,000... not to many people were showing me their cards.

My point is that if just 1 out of 10... or even 1 out of 20 times... your read is wrong... and it's not a coinflip (turns out your dominated)... it scews all the numbers that he based his thesis on.

I don't know about you... but how many times have you been 100% sure someone has AK... only to see them turn over KK or AA.

So, this "realistic / honest" twist thrown into the mix throws all the number to an unprofitable play.

furthermore... if he really wants to stick to his guns... he has to make this same play with 22 - JJ... not just QQ's. Almost exactly the same odds. The only difference is that you have to tell your friends you went out of a tournament with ducks instead of mop-squeezers.

P.S. if your "coin-flip" reading ability and selections are always 100% on... I would like to back you in the next WSOP circuit event.