Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]


Obviously, your stack as a whole does gain utility from an early double-up, but it's less than double the utility of your original stack. If you're only 0.1% EV+ to double-up you are overpaying for the expected utility gained.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter if it is worth less than double your original stack. Just as in a rebuy, spending extra for double the stack can lower your roi and still be +$EV.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
That's why I am advocating some sort of warning/alarm system based on reasonable expectations for goals/scenarios. It's all about protecting the player from himself.


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, now I see what you mean: You are the HSMTT messiah, coming here to protect us from ourselves. Thank you, your posts in this thread are perceived as escalating to new boundaries of hilariousness. Please keep it up.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter if it is worth less than double your original stack. Just as in a rebuy, spending extra for double the stack can lower your roi and still be +$EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

The rebuy analogy doesn't work out. Here's why:

I can see a rational player choosing to rebuy/add-on to increase his $EV even if it reduces his expected ROI. He might do this because ROI is a very long-term concept but he needs a payoff soon (for whatever personal reason).

For rebuys to be $EV+ the player must be better than the avg player so that his $/utility/chip cost is less than that of the avg player.

But risking your stack is not the same as rebuying.

When you rebuy, your expected gain in stack utility per rebuy $ spent is very large. Not as large as your gain in stack utility per buyin $ spent, but still quite large (and if still in 1st level, the two are very close).

But when you risk your stack for a cEV of 0.1%, your expected gain in stack utility per effective $ spent is tiny.

Let's say you do this on the first hand: so effectively the $ risk of this play is your buyin. So, you are risking your buyin for an expected gain in stack utility of less than 0.1%.

(Less than 0.1% because for positive expectations, cuEV < cEV always, where cuEV = expected value of chip utility.)

Conclusion: The $/unit cost of expected gain in stack utility is far far higher for a marginal cEV+ allin than it is for a rebuy.


Interesting aside: for any allin play, your effective $/unit cost for expected gain in stack utility is astronomical compared to the real $/unit cost of the stack utility gained in your initial buyin. And this is why if tournaments allowed cashouts at any time at a $/chip rate equivalent to the initial buyin, no rational player would ever play a single hand.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]

But risking your stack is not the same as rebuying.



[/ QUOTE ]

Essentially it is, if you can open up a new, equivalent tournament immediately.

[ QUOTE ]

I can see a rational player choosing to rebuy/add-on to increase his $EV even if it reduces his expected ROI. He might do this because ROI is a very long-term concept but he needs a payoff soon (for whatever personal reason).


[/ QUOTE ]

The personal reason in this case would be a desire for money.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, your stack as a whole does gain utility from an early double-up, but it's less than double the utility of your original stack. If you're only 0.1% EV+ to double-up you are overpaying for the expected utility gained.

[/ QUOTE ]

This paragraph from my earlier post is misleading. I wasn't thinking about this quite right.

For *any* normal play (normal as in another player doesn't dump his chips to you), your $/unit cost for expected gain in stack utility is far higher than the $/unit cost of gain in stack utility of a buyin or a rebuy.

The problem arises for the case of an early allin of marginal EV+. These plays have an expected $/utility cost which is astronomically higher than at time of buyin.

The way to understand why this is a bad play is to compare it to simultaneously entering another identical tournament at the exact moment before you make the allin:

Your $ cost of entering the 2nd tourney is only slightly more than your effective $ cost of making the allin play.

Your starting M in the 2nd tourney will be only slightly less than it currently is in the first.

But your $/unit cost of stack utility for entering the 2nd tournament will be far low than the $/unit cost of expected stack utility for the allin play.

Clearly, entering a 2nd tournament is a better use of the $ cost of a buyin (effectively equivalent to your current stack) than making the allin play.

Since MTTs are games of forced assumption of progressively greater risk, you should avoid plays which are probabalistically roughly equivalent to starting over but which have a higher $/utility cost.

To think otherwise is to value your personal time and bankroll risk at zero.

And that is why early allins of marginal EV+ are $EV- and should always be avoided.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But risking your stack is not the same as rebuying.


[/ QUOTE ]

Essentially it is, if you can open up a new, equivalent tournament immediately.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting that we were both writing posts about this at the same time.

But the two are not equivalent. See my post above.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

baltostar, the recent points you are making were discussed on these boards to death from around 2004 and on. Your "side" was usually the losing side, and for very good reasons. If you are so passionate about MTT theory, go read the archives before bombarding this forum with your long winded posts.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

baltostar is like the kryptonite for hsmtt.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
baltostar, the recent points you are making were discussed on these boards to death from around 2004 and on. Your "side" was usually the losing side, and for very good reasons. If you are so passionate about MTT theory, go read the archives before bombarding this forum with your long winded posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? So, the "never pass up EV+" side was *sometimes* the losing side ? Did determination of which side won/lost depend on who was reading the thread ? Did it depend on which day of the week it was ? What the price of gold was ?

One thing is clear: if it's a hotly debated theory, and neither side can gain a decisive edge, or provide an ironclad proof, then these boards certainly should not adopt it like a puppy and apply it ad infinitum letting it pee all over the house. This is madness.

Do you really believe that no matter the tournament context, no matter the hand scenario, that a player should be willing to scale his variance to maximum whenever he perceives he even the tiniest EV+ edge ?