Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Huh? So, the "never pass up EV+" side was *sometimes* the losing side ?

[/ QUOTE ]

It was pretty much always the winning side. And as I said, for very good theoretical reasons. Go read the archives, you'll enjoy it.

[ QUOTE ]
One thing is clear: if it's a hotly debated theory

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it was a "hotly debated theory" somewhere in 2004.

[ QUOTE ]
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 ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. However, in most normal circumstances, in early-mid stages, regularly passing up small +CEV edges, even if it's for your entire stack (!) is a big mistake.

Anyway, there's absolutely nothing new or interesting in your perspective, it was discussed to death, and if someone here wants to discuss it further with you on this thread or elsewhere, I'll let them do that. For me, and I'm sure for many others long time posters/readers, this is just a boring deja-vu.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
For me, and I'm sure for many others long time posters/readers, this is just a boring deja-vu.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can it possibly be boring deja-vu when endlessly and innumerably advice is given on these boards to pursue perceived EV+ without any regard to the impact of scaling tournament variance ?

As you know, massively scaling up variance gets you more big plus results than not scaling up variance (all else being equal).

I think what is going on here is that a lot of players who don't understand the prob theory behind this stuff have chosen to go with scaling up variance at every perceived EV+ opportunity because it puts them in the winners circle more often. Bragging rights kick butt, especially amongst young players.

But in the long run it is not near optimal, nor maybe even a winning, strategy.

As the voice of reason in poker, 2p2 should not be fueling "gambling it up" as the preferred approach to MTTs.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think what is going on here is that a lot of players who don't understand the prob theory behind this stuff have chosen to go with scaling up variance at every perceived EV+ opportunity because it puts them in the winners circle more often. Bragging rights kick butt, especially amongst young players.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you actually knew anything about online MTTs, not just all this theoretical mumbo jumbo, you'd know that the nature of the payout scale makes playing to win the most +ev strategy. Whoever is in the "winner's circle" most often is going to make the most money.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

Sigh.

It's amazing to me that you seem to actually believe that you are the first one to consider these ideas. Absolutely amazing.

[ QUOTE ]
I think what is going on here is that a lot of players who don't understand the prob theory behind this stuff have chosen to go with scaling up variance at every perceived EV+ opportunity because it puts them in the winners circle more often.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it simply makes them (us, me) a lot more money than any other attitude. Regardless if some of the winning posters/players here understand the "prob theory" behind it, or just intuitively use it.

[ QUOTE ]
But in the long run it is not near optimal, nor maybe even a winning, strategy.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sir, you simply have no idea what you are talking about. Good luck.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

Baltostar,
I see you consistently conflating two similar, but crucially different ideas.

1. People scale up varience at every perceived +EV opportunity. Which I interpret to mean that people think that simply increasing their varience will increase their EV. You are saying, this is not the case. I agree, people can often get way too caught up and being aggro and throwing chips around, and that many times it does not increase their EV nearly as much as they expect it to.

2. A player should sacrifice his EV in order to reduce variance. This is almost always a huge mistake. And is always a huge mistake early in a tournament. That debate as has been pointed out to you has been held frequently here over the years (if you look in the archives and anthology you will see me consistently arguing my case over and over and over again). There are lots of reasons for this. While the mathematical arguments you state are true, the fact remains that the impact on strategy early in a tournament is so small as to be negligible.


I will say one other thing, and I think it may be the point you are getting at. For a long time, players in MTTS by and large were bad in a very specific way. They were weak tight, especially when faced with a decision for all their chips. Therefore playing in a manner which increased your own varience almost definitionally increased your EV. That in my opinion is no longer the case. That doesnt mean that you should turn down EV ever, it just means that increasingly the most EV strategy may not be the most aggresive one.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

anyone else think this thread should be locked? nothing new has been added in the last like 50 posts. if baltostar doesn't wanna listen, then there's no need for everyone to waste their time.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

djk,
its still a public message board, he's allowed to have his thoughts and ideas. Its easy enough to ignore somebody youve lost patience with.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

ya that's true, but he's basically said the same exact thing in every post. oh well. have fun!

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

I agree that there's no reason to lock this thread. Especially since MLG has the patience and will to reply to baltostar, which is v nice of him considering baltostar's general attitude.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
That doesnt mean that you should turn down EV ever, it just means that increasingly the most EV strategy may not be the most aggresive one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bravo.