Re: Theory Discussion of a Point From \"Poker Tournament Formula\"
[ QUOTE ]
As for the question of stack utility, I'm unsure about that one. I agree that I wouldn't flip a coin at the start of a tourney for a third of my stack. The reason being that I believe that I have a >50% chance of increasing my stack by 1/3 by playing pokah.
[/ QUOTE ]
The concepts are intertwined, though. If you wouldn't want "artificial" variance at the start of a tournament, there's also no reason to want variance brought on by the poker itself unless it also comes with +CEV. I think you got to the heart of it - you believe you can do better than that by playing - ie. you're looking for +CEV because you know it's +TEV as well. That's sound thinking.
Now, many of the plays Snyder recommends are likely -CEV (since they would be cash game losers) but are hugely +CVAR.
As such, I believe that it is provable that the only reason you would make such plays is if you felt +CVAR -> +TEV. And the fact that you wouldn't flip the coin indicates that you don't think that's true. I agree with you about the coin (ie. I believe +CVAR -> -TEV when stack are deep), and I believe that it follows directly that Snyder's advice is wrong anytime his wacky loose plays are -CEV, which is probably most of the time.
As such, I think either P1 or P3 can be correct, but P2 cannot be.
|