Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > General Gambling > Probability

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-24-2003, 11:31 AM
doormat doormat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 84
Default curious about the math of deal-making

I rarely play in tournaments and neither condemn nor endorse deal-making, but purely from a math standpoint I am curious as to the fairest way that players should split the prize money if they choose to make a deal. The simplest case would be 2 players remaining, one has 100k and the other 200k. Assuming equal skill, what would be the fair deal on splitting the prize money? How would it differ in NL from limit? What if there were 3 or more players involved? Forgive me if this is a trivial matter covered in tournament books, which I have not read.

doormat
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-24-2003, 01:56 PM
Bozeman Bozeman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: On the road again
Posts: 1,213
Default Re: curious about the math of deal-making

The two player one is trivial, but more players is still debated.

For any # of players of equal ability, your chance of first is equal to your fraction of the total chips. So in your example, one player has 1/3 chance of winning. His "fair" share of the prize money is thus 2nd+1/3*(1st-2nd).

For more players, I have a scheme that is correct for fairly reasonable assumptions (Computing tournament finish place probability) . Others have made various approximations to get reasonably close (to these) results.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-24-2003, 10:30 PM
irchans irchans is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 157
Default Re: curious about the math of deal-making

Hi Bozeman,

The method you propose in your 08/26/03 post is rather well known I think (among those that discuss the mathematics of deal-making). I believe that Malmuth proposed the same method and something similar was used in Ziemba's book for horse racing ("Efficiency of Racetrack Betting Markets" (1994) see Harville's article page 213.)

I wish someone would take the time to survey the posts on this subject in the old 2+2 and rec.gambling.poker archives. I know it has been discussed several times.

Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-24-2003, 11:27 PM
Bozeman Bozeman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: On the road again
Posts: 1,213
Default Re: curious about the math of deal-making

Thanks for the info, I thought so, but no-one pointed me to it and I failed to find any. For the record, irrelevant that it is, I first posted this 07/23/02 (original reply), and had been using the idea for several months. No clue about when/how to find RGP thread?

Thanks,
Craig
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-25-2003, 12:45 AM
Wake up CALL Wake up CALL is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 1,591
Default Re: curious about the math of deal-making

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the info, I thought so, but no-one pointed me to it and I failed to find any. For the record, irrelevant that it is, I first posted this 07/23/02 (original reply), and had been using the idea for several months. No clue about when/how to find RGP thread?

Thanks,
Craig

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very interesting thread and I finally have something useful to add. Below are some links to RGP posts:

Three Way Tournament Settlements this links to a post by Tom Weidman. After reading Tom's post you should click on the read entire thread link and read all the responses, pretty interesting.

Another is the Landrum/Burns Duscussion and just one more I will recommend is the Idiots Guide to Tournament Deals . As before click on the Read Entire Thread link in the upper right hand corner of each link.

I hope you find these interesting and useful.


Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-25-2003, 02:54 AM
M.B.E. M.B.E. is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Posts: 1,552
Default Re: curious about the math of deal-making

Here's two other discussions:

Malmuth's settling up in tournaments

Deal-making and the concept of inverse equity
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-25-2003, 03:07 AM
M.B.E. M.B.E. is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Posts: 1,552
Default Re: curious about the math of deal-making

[ QUOTE ]
For any # of players of equal ability, your chance of first is equal to your fraction of the total chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the proof for this statement, in the abstract? Sklansky discusses two approaches to a proof at TPFAP pp. 104-06, for the two-player situation, but I don't find them compelling.

It is the conventional wisdom, but I'm not persuaded that it's true, especially for more than two players. For example, it seems to me that if there are three players left, all good tournament players and equally skilled, and I have 10% of the chips while my opponents have 45% each, then my chance of winning is probably less than 10%.

But in this age of online poker, we don't have to rely on theoretical arguments. It should be possible to do a rigorous study, using statistical methods, of a large enough sample of sit-n-go tournaments at some online site, to assess whether the conventional wisdom is borne out.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-12-2003, 07:04 PM
Bozeman Bozeman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: On the road again
Posts: 1,213
Default Re: curious about the math of deal-making

Thank you very much, everyone!

This is exactly the sort of thing I have long hoped to see.

For the record, I am also the Craig Howald in the old 2+2 posts.

I have done a summary of the available work in a new thread.

Craig
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-14-2003, 01:35 AM
rockoon rockoon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 74
Default Re: curious about the math of deal-making

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For any # of players of equal ability, your chance of first is equal to your fraction of the total chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the proof for this statement, in the abstract? Sklansky discusses two approaches to a proof at TPFAP pp. 104-06, for the two-player situation, but I don't find them compelling.

It is the conventional wisdom, but I'm not persuaded that it's true, especially for more than two players. For example, it seems to me that if there are three players left, all good tournament players and equally skilled, and I have 10% of the chips while my opponents have 45% each, then my chance of winning is probably less than 10%.

But in this age of online poker, we don't have to rely on theoretical arguments. It should be possible to do a rigorous study, using statistical methods, of a large enough sample of sit-n-go tournaments at some online site, to assess whether the conventional wisdom is borne out.

[/ QUOTE ]

For two players of equal ability, it is absolutely correct. The problem with the 3 player scenario is that there is money going to 2nd else it would also be absolutely correct. Not saying its incorrect. My simulations seem to indicate it is by its hardly a proof.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-14-2003, 01:56 AM
doormat doormat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 84
Default Re: curious about the math of deal-making

Thanks, Craig - very informative!

doormat
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 02:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.