Another tounry what if scenario....

[mornelth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The chips you get if you win DO NOT double your chance of winning the tournament

[/ QUOTE ]
Incorrect. Do you see why?



[/ QUOTE ]

Let me refer you to the thread started by M. Malmuth on that exact topic... Here it is

[Max Weinberg]

Most of us aren't good enough players to pass up these kind of edges and still have any shot at the FT.

Even if you bust, it makes for a funny story.

[nath]

Chance of winning and overall expectation are two different things, though. Overall expectation is a function of the distribution of the prize pool. Chance of winning is a function of finishing first.

[MOMOwheeler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes and No.

10+1 @ Party = Yes

WSOP = Yes

Consult your bankroll for any tourneys that fall inbetween.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who folds a 57%/43% edge in the WSOP?

[/ QUOTE ]

He said it was "the first hand of the event."

Are you really going to risk your shot at the WSOP on 57/43? [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] Its the coin flip from hell imho.

[Max Weinberg]

[ QUOTE ]
Chance of winning and overall expectation are two different things, though. Overall expectation is a function of the distribution of the prize pool. Chance of winning is a function of finishing first.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think your expectation can be fully expressed just through the tournament structure, like it's some insulated bubble. More variables are at work during a tournament than that, such as your expected hourly rate (if you weren't in a tourney) and how soft the ring games are in the immediate vicinity (or multi-tabling online).

If you were to habitually pass up marginal +cEV flips in order to guarantee a weak 2x-3x buy-in ITM, you might've been better off just playing eight tables of 10/20. If you press your edge early and bust on the first hand, there is still the "guaranteed" EV that comes from your normal routine, which might even be higher than your expected tourney ROI.

[Slap My Jack]

Doesn't seem to matter if you have queens, jacks, or tens here. I think if you made it TT, people would fold more easily (Although you do seem to have an increased edge vs AK, but it is very tiny.)

Major tournament, sure, fold. I've folded these during the first hands of some online tournaments, and sometimes I've taken the flip (More likely for SNGs where blinds move faster).

[Marduk]

Here is an excellent CardPlayer article written by Matt Matros about the topic:

http://cardplayer.com/poker_magazine...es/?a_id=15093

[MOMOwheeler]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is an excellent CardPlayer article written by Matt Matros about the topic:

http://cardplayer.com/poker_magazine...es/?a_id=15093

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent article! You may have just changed my view on this [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[Vee Quiva]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is an excellent CardPlayer article written by Matt Matros about the topic:

http://cardplayer.com/poker_magazine...es/?a_id=15093

[/ QUOTE ]

I was fascinated by this article and have really gone through it with a fine tooth comb. I have a few questions about Matt's assumptions. Maybe you guys can help me out.

Matt's equation is take your percentage chance of winning the tournament = x to the nth power, with n being how many times you need to double up and x equaling the percentage edge you are willing to take in a coin flip.

After proving that a player who is twice as good as average can take a 53.6% edge or better to double up, he goes on to say that he would take any edge greater than 48.63%. In other words, he is willing to shove in his chips to double up being a 48% underdog.

He does not run through the numbers on this assertation. Can anyone do it for me? I can't figure it out.

My second question is this. He feels that it is near impossible for a player to be more than a 5x favorite over an average player in a large multi player tournament. I find this surprising.

With the number of tournaments and final tables that a lot of the top pros have made, wouldn't that seem to disprove that theory? I know that everyone is going to argue variance and sample size. But even with a few hundered tournaments entered, wouldn't the results of Men Nguyen, Negraneu, Hellmuth argue that it is entirely possible?