Helmuth - Ferguson Head Up Match Theory Question

[CityFan]

[ QUOTE ]
It was a bad question. It set up a false situation in order to make sure there was only one possible answer. It wasn't a poker question, it was a logic puzzle.

[/ QUOTE ]

So?

[J_V]

[ QUOTE ]
Pretty much. The rest is assessing the proper attack strategy to counter his. And that's the early microadjustments.

Otherwise, it's still attack, attack, attack.

[/ QUOTE ]


you're still not getting it.

[swede554]

If my strategy was optimal in the first match, no adjustment.

[Karmic]

So, I'd be interested to hear if the advice would be different under the conditions the announcer was speaking rather than the set up question.

[SoBeDude]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pretty much. The rest is assessing the proper attack strategy to counter his. And that's the early microadjustments.

Otherwise, it's still attack, attack, attack.

[/ QUOTE ]


you're still not getting it.

[/ QUOTE ]

increase aggression and bluffing. In fact, I'm looking for every (semi-reasonable) opportunity to put him to a decision for all his chips.

-Scott

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pretty much. The rest is assessing the proper attack strategy to counter his. And that's the early microadjustments.

Otherwise, it's still attack, attack, attack.

[/ QUOTE ]


you're still not getting it.

[/ QUOTE ]

increase aggression and bluffing. In fact, I'm looking for every (semi-reasonable) opportunity to put him to a decision for all his chips.

-Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. Early passivity induces an more aggressive opponent, which you can counteract with superaggression.

Edited to add: Which drastically reduces the number of hands played in a match.

[onetimeuse]

Would be willing to put ferguson all in or call all in more liberally or in near coin flip situations where his tournament is on the line and my stack would be crippled if I loss. Especially if the blind level calls for moves to be made.

[Nate.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Goodness. What is wrong with everybody? The question was simply how should you change your strategy in a five game match when you have to win one game compared, to a one game match where you have to win one game.

And the answer is that unless your opponent changes his strategy, the strategy that works best for one game works best for all five. I don't care if its poker, chess or tiddliwinks. If you insist on math, you simply need to minimize the other guys one game chances, taken to the fifth power. x to the fifth gets smaller as x gets smaller. Duh.

[/ QUOTE ]

um its not true if the legs of the match aren't IID. the legs of this match obviously are IID but the whole reason why what you say is true is because they are IID. thats the whole proof. you need to establish that its IID. i established it by saying its a binomial variable...


whatever, this is my last post in this thread. this question was probably the easiest that i have seen sklansky post yet even the people who knew the answer didn't seem to have a grasp on why the answer was the answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Almostbusto--

Really, here you're just confusing people. There's no need to get into distributions or anything of the sort. In the question, or any situation anything like the question, you will maximize your overall winning chances by maximizing your one-game winning chances. Anyone who figured this out got the answer right and there's no need to maintain that any such person didn't have a complete proof.

(Yes, I am qualified to be saying that. Basic logic is enough, but we can compare Putnam scores if you like.)

Everyone else --

If you're intimidated by what almostbusto has been saying in this thread, please don't be. (But if you haven't figured out that you shouldn't be adjusting [except to your opponent's adjustments], read this thread a few more times.)

--Nate