Rate This \"Edge\"
 

I'm asking this question as a poker thinking question only. No ulterior motives. I'll give you my opinion in a few days.

You are playing in the final event of the World Series of Poker. 5000 entrants. You are one of the better players. Chances of winning are one in 2000. EV is $25,000.

You can see both cards of the player on your right every hand. No matter who it is. You have no qualms about using this information. You also, for the purpose of this question, have no concerns that odd plays will eventually be picked up by the other players. In other words, assume they won't be.

What is your new chances of winning the tournament?

Also what would your chances be if somehow you had no idea that the exposed cards would keep happening? In other words you played each hand with the expectation that all future hands would be normal (but in fact they aren't).

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

Can the answer to this question be found in The Mathematics of Poker by Chen and the other guy that does a good job posting here? You know the guy. He answers all of your math questions better'n you answer them yourself. I mean when you answer them of course. I'm still trying to get a feel for whether this book has any va-alyou (think George W.) or at least the $19.95 (plus shipping) Amazon asks for one. For the rest of you this is not a book advertisement. My question is a search for the truth via mathematics. Much more important than the value of illicit information obtained during a pure event like the Main EVent of the WSOP.

leaponthis

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

I think this is a good question except for your last paragraph... after about 2 dozen hands of the dude to my right exposing his cards... there is going to be a certain level of expectation that this will continue for as long as possible.

Regarding the math... i would say your EV goes up 25%. In very simplistic terms I would say that it gets 10% easier to play ALL hands and 100% easier to play hands where it ends up blind vs. blind.

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

I think your EV goes up way, way more that 25 percent. I think it would be more like 500 or more percent. The player to your right's stack basically becomes yours; he's just holding it for you. You can enter the pot after he does pretty much with any two cards, isolating when appropriate. There would be no need to get involved in pots with anyone other than him with less than an outstanding hand. If the structure allows for a lot of deep stack play, your edge goes up, if everyone has low Ms, your egde goes down.

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

If he's a very skillful LAG, my EV goes up in correalation to our difference in skill (provided he has MORE skill than me). For various reasons.

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

i think you'de have at least an 80% chance of winning the whole thing.

when it got to heads up, you couldn't lose.

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
i think you'de have at least an 80% chance of winning the whole thing.

when it got to heads up, you couldn't lose.

[/ QUOTE ]
lol

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding the math... i would say your EV goes up 25%.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has to be much, much higher than that. Consider that having the ability for *just* the heads up nearly doubles your chances to win the tournament.

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

Off the top of my head, I'd guess about 1-100 if you know the edge will continue. About 1-1100 if you don't know.

(I'm assuming that even though odd plays won't arose suspicion, the player to my right will eventually feel uncomfortable against me, and will avoid me to some degree when the cards don't force his hand. Give everyone amnesia every hand, and the edge is a little bigger.)

Also, a lot depends on how good the player is at maximizing this edge. Two players with $25K equity under normal conditions might have very different equity adapting optimally to these. I guess we're assuming the average here. But it might be better to assign some sort of range. At least, you have to make sure you don't assume optimal adaption into your answer.

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

I would guess my chances would improve from 1 in 2000 to somewhere around 1 in 20.

My strategy would be to avoid unecesarry gambles. For example, suppose I have T [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]T [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. My opponent has A [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]8 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. The flop comes T [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]2 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]A [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. I have 70.5% equity. However, if my opponent had more chips than me and moved all in on the flop, I'd probably fold. In otherwords, I'd wait for situations where I didn't have to take an almost 30% chance of being out of the tournament.

If I didn't know the exposed cards would keep happening, I would be taking those 30% gambles more often. Thus, my chances of winning the tournament in this scenerio might be 1 in 50 or 1 in 100.

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

If you knew the exposed hands would continue then you should win better than 1/35 times, as your chances of winning after making the final table go from about 15% to 90%. So divide 2000 by 6 just by that. You also have a huge advantage short handed before the final table before goint to 1, 2 and/or three tables. Divide by three just for that. Getting to that point must be at least three times as likely, so divide by three again. 6x3x3=54, 2000/54=37, so I estimate your chances of winning to be better than 1 in 35.

If you didn't know it would continue then you would get involved with other players way more often.

Maybe you win at the final table about 1/3 times, move on short handed twice as likely, get there twice as likely. 2000/8=250. So about 1/250 times.

These are all just estimates, but these numbers are mainly driven by the huge advantage short-handed.

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
EV is $25,000

[/ QUOTE ]


o.K. given your skill level using ~ 4% of possible information ( your two cards) you have an EV of 25k. Now you are able to see 2 more cards (~4% more). I assume that your skill level stays the same, that is that you don't become a better player because you have more information. Then it would appear that if you have an EV of 25k with 4% information then your EV would double to 50K when you have 8% of the information available to you and your opponents still must use their 4% info against you. There are a few issues that would have an impact on your EV. Number one is that in tournaments the payouts are structured top heavy and you EV is probably not linear with relation to your edge. I imagine that in a tournament as your edge goes up your EV increases at a greater rate because your liklihood of finishing higher in the money goes up. So if the buy-in is 10k and you have a 25k EV then you probably average finishing in the third or fourth payout level. So with a 2000 person field the initial money is approximately 15k to number 200-175 players. 25k probably makes you a 120 to 140 finisher. Doubling your information should atleast allow you to improve your finish from 120-140 to 60-70. My guess is that 60-70 finishers get about 100k. So double the information is probably worth 4 times the EV.

An issue that might affect the EV downward is the fact that you must do everything possible to keep the player that is showing his cards in the tournament. To do that you need to give up some EV. If this is not an issue then my guess is that EV quadruples.

leaponthis

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

Is the "player on your right" a single guy named Reuben, for example, that exposes his cards to you as some weird habit of his, or is there some reflective component of your watch that allows you to see ANY opponent on your right's cards (regardless of what table or seat you sit at throughout the tournament)?

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

If my odds are 1/2000 out of 5000 entrants I must already be in the top 40%,thus my EV is $25000=$10000/.40 before the edge.If I break it down to my single table I go from a 4/10 chance to possibly a 6/10 or 60%. I dont think it would double because you dont know what the other players are holding. The benefits would come in calculating odds in each hand because instead of using 47 on the flop you could use 45 being that you knew 2 more cards out of the deck thats a 4% edge right there. I'm sure there is a pure mathematical solution to this question but there would have to be parameters set up. Otherwise there would be various ways to manipulate this advantage. You could make or not make plays so that the player to your right would actually accumulate chips from other players and then have them dumped to you. You would be playing your hands and assisting him (unknowingly) with his hands. At the final table of course your odds would begin increase at a greater rate.

Some things to consider would be...
Would the edge increase with the skill of the player to your right?
Would the edge be more advantageous if you were deep stacked or short stacked? What about his stack?
Would the edge change with the image of the player? Your image?

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you knew the exposed hands would continue then you should win better than 1/35 times, as your chances of winning after making the final table go from about 15% to 90%. So divide 2000 by 6 just by that. You also have a huge advantage short handed before the final table before goint to 1, 2 and/or three tables. Divide by three just for that. Getting to that point must be at least three times as likely, so divide by three again. 6x3x3=54, 2000/54=37, so I estimate your chances of winning to be better than 1 in 35.

If you didn't know it would continue then you would get involved with other players way more often.

Maybe you win at the final table about 1/3 times, move on short handed twice as likely, get there twice as likely. 2000/8=250. So about 1/250 times.

These are all just estimates, but these numbers are mainly driven by the huge advantage short-handed.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the way I was thinking of going about the problem, but I didn't feel like estimating numbers. If anyone's up for it, I think it would be worthwhile to discuss the numbers used in this way of attacking the problem.

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

I'm thinking that if I can see the guy's hand to my right every single hand, all the way down to HU, I should win the tournament close to 25% of the time. Taking very few risks and trying to play hands HU with whoever is on my right, or cinch hands. I probably wouldn't commit all of my chips preflop in any instance, unless it was AA vs my opponent's AK and I knew that, or something similar with around 90% probability of winning.

If I didn't think I would continue to see my opponent's cards, I think my chances of winning would decrease quite a bit, but I couldn't even imagine what it would be with any sort of accuracy.

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

I guess my chances of winning are like 97% or something crazy. The blinds don't really effect me now as I'm a stealing machine, because I'm no longer stealing I KNOW.
If I can't be blinded out I can pick my places and destroy the player to the right, who might not be there for long.
Piece of cake....
On second thought my chances would be under 97%, I still could not fully optimize the advantage as I only have 360 days of poker experience give or take 30 days. However a world class player like David should be 97% or above.

Regarding the second part about not know if it would end, I'd like to pass. How could I wait if I thought it was going to end? Not sure.... hot to factor that in, but it's got to go down at least 10 to 20%

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

Looking at it where you know the additional info will be available throughout first -I think that the edge would be significant and would be more significant still short handed but that understanding when it is most and least valuable is important. I think we need to look at the edge in different hand scenarios then look at the effect on the tournament as a whole.

For a lot of hands (75%?) it would make relatively little difference as whilst I would know of two dead cards they will have been folded before I act. This information alone is valuable as it applies to all hands I play and could lead me to not play some hands (suited connectors or small pp if my outs have been used) but it is a small additional edge say 1-5% assuming the information is used well. The value of the information will vary from hand to hand and importantly it is an edge against all other players at the table. Sometimes though it will make no difference as I would have folded anyway.

For the 25% or so of hands the player on my right plays I have much more information, this information will sometimes allow me to play more hands but on other occasions will lead me not to play. I would assume that whilst I would play more hands to the flop less than half of the time the player on my right plays I would also choose to act post flop, after all he is playing his better hands and I would want to play post flop against his hands with one that is +ev without the need to bluff (he controls the response to the bluff) so depending how tight they are I would only be involved against a player whose cards I know 15% or so of hands overall, possibly less and certainly less post flop.

In a proportion of hands against the player on my right I will also be playing against another player with unknown cards. Two different scenarios in terms of edge. Without another player my edge is huge, I could of course still lose the hand but I would always lose the minimum commensurate with building a +ev pot and always make good +ev decisions. The edge here is probably +80% with another player involved my edge is much less, say + 20%.

Now for the strategy. Clearly I would want to be involved against the opponent on my right HU quite frequently as with the large edge it should be very +ev but I’m by no means certain this would be the only scenario I would play as it would happen too infrequently (and some of those they win anyway) so sometimes I would need to play him with other players involved too where my edge is still significant. Here we have a greater risk of going bust so playing relative small ball and avoiding all ins to wait for the sure thing makes sense. Again this may not be often enough so I would probably have to play some other pots vs unknown hands but I could afford to choose only the most +ev situations with low risk (against much smaller stacks or avoiding going all in).

Overall this advantage should make a big difference. It should allow me to build up relatively early allowing low risk play overall with at least some edge in all hands I play. I could decline slightly +ev scenarios in favour of much higher +ev scenarios. Essentially so long as the hands against a known opponent came along frequently enough I should be able to maintain an average or better stack throughout the tournament, playing patiently, avoiding all in confrontations with others and until post river (or his drawing dead) vs the player on my right.

If I had a 1 in 2000 chance without this advantage I’d estimate that given a sensible strategy I would be better than evens - if nobody else adjusted their play. Playing so tight weak though I suspect they would and it may not be possible to avoid risk to significant portions of my stack throughout the tournament so maybe 1 in 20 chance of winning? It’s also possible that with a perfect strategy you could pretty much guarantee the win but I’m not sure quite what that is or how you would prove it.

Not knowing the informational advantage will continue – you’d probably seize most opportunities to play the opponent on your right, almost regardless of your cards - often for a raise to prevent others being involved. You would mostly be entering the hands with dog cards and looking to bust him so quite often you would be forced to fold on later streets, you would need to accept the risk of getting involved as a dog but your informational advantage should outweigh this over several hands. The big difference though is that you would be much more willing to accept a +ev situation that risked your tournament life that you might decline knowing the continuing informational advantage. If he had 9 outs and pushed (covering you) on the turn without knowing that you would continue to see his cards you would call as it is highly +ev, if you knew the free information would continue you could choose to decline knowing further +ev situations would arise without the risk of going out and losing your future edge.

In all then I’d say that not knowing the information will continue makes a huge difference. Indeed it may increase the likelihood of going out early with nothing, for the very best players this affect alone might even lower your overall expectation even though the individual hand was highly +ev.

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

Does the question mean you have magical knowledge, or that you can physically see the cards? What if you're in seat one, do you see anyone's cards? What if you're head-up and villain is across the table? etc.

Either way, what I have to add is that the difference is huge between seeing it every time and knowing it will continue and just hoping it will continue. If you KNOW you'll always see the cards, you'll be able to play very strangely to take advantage of the information and avoid gambles, even quite good ones, in pots against the other players.

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

Hmm, obviously you're going to go to some length to get into hands with the guy next to you (ideally, only him) anytime you have 2 live cards.

I believe, if in fact you know the situation isn't going to go away (for example, when the final table gets short) or be noticed, that your probability of winning is well over 10%. At the very least, as a lower bound, the insurmountable advantage it would give you heads up if you make it there with a reasonable stack nearly doubles your equity.

The effect might well be analogous to Unger's great reads (resulting in a 1 in 3 win rate in major tournaments).

I believe the effect will get stronger

a) the tighter your table is preflop
b) the looser the guy to your right is preflop
c) the less likely he is to jam the pot
d) the tighter he is post-flop

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

I posted about playing against villain where you know his cards and others have taken the same line. Let’s not overlook that it’s not just about knowing his two cards, its also knowing TWO ADDITONAL cards that won’t be played. You are up against an opponent on a flush draw, and the exposed villains cards are of the same suit, you now know that the opponent is drawing to 7 outs instead of 9. And more important you know that and he does not huge advantage to you. Knowing two cards has the potential to give you an advantage on every hand you play not just against the player with the exposed cards.

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

"Let’s not overlook that it’s not just about knowing his two cards, its also knowing TWO ADDITONAL cards that won’t be played."

That's normally a nice edge but in this case it is of quite minor relative importance.

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
If my odds are 1/2000 out of 5000 entrants I must already be in the top 40%,thus my EV is $25000=$10000/.40 before the edge.If I break it down to my single table I go from a 4/10 chance to possibly a 6/10 or 60%. I dont think it would double because you dont know what the other players are holding. The benefits would come in calculating odds in each hand because instead of using 47 on the flop you could use 45 being that you knew 2 more cards out of the deck thats a 4% edge right there. I'm sure there is a pure mathematical solution to this question but there would have to be parameters set up. Otherwise there would be various ways to manipulate this advantage. You could make or not make plays so that the player to your right would actually accumulate chips from other players and then have them dumped to you. You would be playing your hands and assisting him (unknowingly) with his hands. At the final table of course your odds would begin increase at a greater rate.

Some things to consider would be...
Would the edge increase with the skill of the player to your right?
Would the edge be more advantageous if you were deep stacked or short stacked? What about his stack?
Would the edge change with the image of the player? Your image?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's trivially easy to show your ev would at least double, since you'd virtually always win if head up at the final table and have a massive edge three-handed (ignoring all other gains along the way).

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

[ QUOTE ]

That's normally a nice edge but in this case it is of quite minor relative importance.

[/ QUOTE ]
If that's not the case there is a much larger edge that has not been mentioned yet that is in play.

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

I would argue that this wouldn't actually provide any sort of edge at all. In fact, you could certainly theorize that it would probably decrease from your overall performance in the game. Here's why:
1) You would put too much emphasis on this extra information that you know, and far too little on your normal game. That is, you would get so caught up in trying to resteal, outplay against, and avoid monster hands from the player on your right and would start to phase out other information that is critical to good gameplay, such as concise reads on other players' play, keeping track of pot odds, and all other things that you need to succeed. The urge to extract as much EV out of this extra information will in fact detract from many other factors of your gameplay.

2) Coming out of the above, I would frequently find myself playing too much just in accordance with what this guy on my right has, and too little on other things like the rest of the table's limps, everyone else's perception of my play, and other deep analysis that's necessary to step above. Some of you are arguing that you would avoid big risk situations, and only go with more lockable wins. This would mean you can't bluff nearly as often enough as you should, or even get money in when it's clearly +EV to do so. By constantly bleeding chips off in these "non-optimal" situations, you'd get nowhere. But even if you do bluff...

3) The player on your right will either:
A) Decide to stop playing HU with you without the nuts, as you keep miraculously outplaying them, making the right calls and right folds... or
B) He would eventually catch on. Even a fish can realize that someone can't ALWAYS have them beat ALL the time, and the occasional situation where you push your Q high into his K high no draw to get him to fold will result in a tilt-induced call, crippling your stack.

To add all three factors together would clearly yield a negative advantage by having this information.

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would argue that this wouldn't actually provide any sort of edge at all. In fact, you could certainly theorize that it would probably decrease from your overall performance in the game. Here's why:
1) You would put too much emphasis on this extra

[/ QUOTE ]

Putting too much emphasis is a human flaw, knowing two extra cards and playing against them is math.
Maybe David would have to write the TOP against "two known" cards but its IMPOSSIBLE that this would be a disadvantage ever. Poker is a game of partial information, having more of that information has to increase the amount of +EV in a given situation and reduce the amount of -EV.
If we have the skills to utlize this advantge in EV potential is another matter, but that does not change the fact that it is there.

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That's normally a nice edge but in this case it is of quite minor relative importance.

[/ QUOTE ]
If that's not the case there is a much larger edge that has not been mentioned yet that is in play.

[/ QUOTE ]

The huge edge is the fact that you will play FTP-correct against the guy to your right.

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would argue that this wouldn't actually provide any sort of edge at all. In fact, you could certainly theorize that it would probably decrease from your overall performance in the game. Here's why:
1) You would put too much emphasis on this extra

[/ QUOTE ]

Putting too much emphasis is a human flaw, knowing two extra cards and playing against them is math.
Maybe David would have to write the TOP against "two known" cards but its IMPOSSIBLE that this would be a disadvantage ever. Poker is a game of partial information, having more of that information has to increase the amount of +EV in a given situation and reduce the amount of -EV.
If we have the skills to utlize this advantge in EV potential is another matter, but that does not change the fact that it is there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do we have to assume there is no human error and we will always use the information perfectly? David just says we are a good player, but that doesn't mean we're infallible. My points are still applicable to "one of the better players".

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

I think people rating this edge as a 30 - 100x improvement are way, way off. if you were 1 in 2000 to win without the edge, I can't see any way your edge improves you beyond 1 in 200. Even seeing someone's cards, think about how hard it would be to have a 90% edge in a single hand, let alone the entire tournament. You'd have to fold every single hand that wasn't HU between you and the guy next to you.

I might believe 10x, but I doubt it's more than 3.

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
I might believe 10x, but I doubt it's more than 3.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's ignore the assumption that we're better than average for a second.

Let's say that 50% of the time you get heads-up without this ability, you win the tournament. And now let's say that 90% of the time you get heads-up with this ability, you win the tournament.

That already increases your chances of winning the tournament by 1.8 times, without even considering that you have the ability before heads-up.

Now, let's say you normally have a 2/3 chance at getting to heads-up once it gets three-handed without this ability. And with this ability, let's say you have a 1/3 + 1.8*1/3 chance to get to the heads-up. That's another 1.4 times the chance to win it.

From four handed to three handed you get another 1.26666... using the same method.

What these calculations are doing is saying with N players left, everyone has an 1/N chance of not busting next, except you and the guy to your right. Between the two of you, you guys have a 2/N chance to bust out. But instead of dividing it equally, the guy to your right gets 1.8 times his fair share of the division.

I think this approach is reasonable for final table play. If it is, and if the 1.8 number is about right, then just having this ability for final tables increases your chances of winning the tournament a little over 6 times.

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I might believe 10x, but I doubt it's more than 3.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's ignore the assumption that we're better than average for a second.

Let's say that 50% of the time you get heads-up without this ability, you win the tournament. And now let's say that 90% of the time you get heads-up with this ability, you win the tournament.

That already increases your chances of winning the tournament by 1.8 times, without even considering that you have the ability before heads-up.

Now, let's say you normally have a 2/3 chance at getting to heads-up once it gets three-handed without this ability. And with this ability, let's say you have a 1/3 + 1.8*1/3 chance to get to the heads-up. That's another 1.4 times the chance to win it.

From four handed to three handed you get another 1.26666... using the same method.

What these calculations are doing is saying with N players left, everyone has an 1/N chance of not busting next, except you and the guy to your right. Between the two of you, you guys have a 2/N chance to bust out. But instead of dividing it equally, the guy to your right gets 1.8 times his fair share of the division.

I think this approach is reasonable for final table play. If it is, and if the 1.8 number is about right, then just having this ability for final tables increases your chances of winning the tournament a little over 6 times.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this model. There's no inherent justification for it past N=2, but it "feels" right for some reason. 1.8 may be conservative, but that's OK. It would be interesting to work it back all the way to the full size of the tournament. I don't think the logic changes when you go to multiple tables.

And of course it's somewhat on the low side since you'll have 2 additional advantages on the field:
1) knowing 2 cards (which is small, but might be of use in some circumstances)
2) A large chip stack (your model doesn't take this into account)

In fact, the large stack is very critical. It will allow you to establish a long-run while others are subjected to variance. The more I think about it, if you bust out a couple of guys on your right early in the tournament, I'm not sure a good player would ever lose. It would be hard to construct a scenario where it happened as long as your stack was >> than the stack on the right, and you avoided confrontation with the rest of the players.

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

Bump. You said you'd give your opinion in a few days. Your fans are anxious, David.

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's trivially easy to show your ev would at least double, since you'd virtually always win if head up at the final table and have a massive edge three-handed (ignoring all other gains along the way).

[/ QUOTE ]

Guaranteeing you win the heads-up doubles your chances to win the tournament, yes. But it doesn't double your EV.

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
Bump. You said you'd give your opinion in a few days. Your fans are anxious, David.

[/ QUOTE ]

Before I do that I would like to see more specific analysis about specific hands where you would change your strategy.

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

once you got down to short handed you would be a real force to reckon with. Heads up, unless start severely short stacked you should win close to every time - so the odds of youw inning should be at least the odds you coming in top 2 given normal circumstances.

Good q, might expan on thoughts tomorrow.

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

Wow, this is some edge. I think if you know you will get it every hand your chances of winning the tournament have to go up to about 1 in 50 or better (this will of course be affected by how your opponents play, loose being worst for you as it allows for more variance. I'm assuming a pretty loose field, especially from day 2 onwards. However you want the player currently sitting to your right to be super aggressive, as you want him to be involved in a lot of pots so you can maximize your advantage). Because of the way the prize is distributed, your EV doesn't go up proportionally, you get proportionally less EV, but it's still a lot more. I don't know how to calculate it.

If you don't know you'll keep getting the same advantage all over the tournament (but you will), your chances of winning probably drop to about 1 in 250 or so.

Just guessing at this. However off I might be, I know the edge in both scenarios is huge. In the second one you lose the ability to wait for the absolute best spots, but the advantage is still very large.

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
Heads up, unless start severely short stacked you should win close to every time - so the odds of youw inning should be at least the odds you coming in top 2 given normal circumstances.

[/ QUOTE ]

Close to right, but this will depend majorly on stack sizes and their relative size to the initial pot (M ratio). With huge blinds and antes relative to stack sizes (which is very normal at this stage, albeit perhaps not in this particular situation), you will only win a little over the percentage of chips you have. So if you have 25% chips and your opponent has 75%, and you have, say, 2.5 M versus his 7.5 M you'll have maybe 28% chances to win the tournament, facing a similarly skilled player.

Even if he's the short stacked one with 2.5M and you have 7.5M, you'll have maybe 83% to win.

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
You are playing in the final event of the World Series of Poker. 5000 entrants. You are one of the better players. Chances of winning are one in 2000. EV is $25,000.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when was this event winner takes all?

ToT

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bump. You said you'd give your opinion in a few days. Your fans are anxious, David.

[/ QUOTE ]

Before I do that I would like to see more specific analysis about specific hands where you would change your strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, obviously if right guy folds, then you use his hand info to help decide whether to play marginal hands. But, as I suggest below, you're going to want to be avoiding marginal hands anyway, so this won't have too much impact.

If right guy raises in early position, you can't do too much because of the chance of someone else waking up with a hand. You can still call more lightly than usual. Also, you can come over the top with something like 99 or AQ when appropriate.

If right guy raises in late position, then you can blow him away with a reraise if he's raising light. And if he calls the reraise, you can just push a flop that he has no piece of.

If he's raising late with a hand that can fade a reraise (he'll no doubt loosen up, especially since you'll have done this to him before), you can just flat call and outplay him postflop. All you have to do is be sure to put in the last bet when he's got a hand that can't call.

Also, make last-longer bets with him.

You'd want to cultivate a very tight image apart from your duels with this player (show a lot of good hands), because you want other people to get out of your way allowing you to play HU. And, since your edge is super high vs. this guy and not particularly high vs others, you'd be correct to play quite tightly vs. other people, so that should work out nicely for you.

Re: Rate This \"Edge\"
 

First hand at a new table, you have this ability and know it will continue.

You are in the BB with 40k, average stack 20k, blinds 500/1000. Folded to SB who pushes for 10k.

How much equity do you need to call this? Win or lose, calling gets you 10k more chips in the stack to your right.