Can\'t wait for the Sklansky article in the October issue.
 

Please come out early.

Please come out early.

Please come out early.

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Yes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Now we await Snyder . . .

lol

??
 

I read the article and didn't see it clearing up any issues or resolving any questions?

IMO better players' edge (and hence higher stack value) comes primarily from their ability to identify and exploit +EV situations, most of which will be more or less marginal. Calling off your entire stack in a situation where you are sure you are 55% favorite is an edge. To quote one of the players from a long-ago MTT thread - "Calling here (AKo explosed, you have TT) is not giving up our edge - it IS our edge!".

I still firmly believe that the value of a single chip is a largely meaningless concept (until you have exactly, PRECISELY 1 chip left). I also believe that the value of the stack is more related to the particular player's skill with the stack of that size. Some players need a big stack to be effective others become either too lose and gamble too much (or too tight and tighten up too much) with a big stack. I actually think David alludes to that in the article. However if we can agree on that - then having a one-size-fits-all formula for a tournament chip value and tournament strategies based on that formula does not make any sense?...

Re: ??
 

[ QUOTE ]
IMO better players' edge (and hence higher stack value) comes primarily from their ability to identify and exploit +EV situations, most of which will be more or less marginal.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this relevant? Snyder claimed Sklansky, Malmuth and others were wrong because their advice was based on the supposed incorrect idea that chips lose value the larger the stack size. Snyder is claiming the opposite effect. S&M took issue with this and Sklansky has responded. Whether a player's skill or other factors also effect the value of his stack is irrelevant to this issue.

[ QUOTE ]
I still firmly believe that the value of a single chip is a largely meaningless concept

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not meaningless. It effects strategy. It also effects rebuy strategy.

Re: ??
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IMO better players' edge (and hence higher stack value) comes primarily from their ability to identify and exploit +EV situations, most of which will be more or less marginal.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this relevant? Snyder claimed Sklansky, Malmuth and others were wrong because their advice was based on the supposed incorrect idea that chips lose value the larger the stack size. Snyder is claiming the opposite effect. S&M took issue with this and Sklansky has responded. Whether a player's skill or other factors also effect the value of his stack is irrelevant to this issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

But that's the very thing. "Value of the stack" is meaningless. If you take a stack and put it on the table all by itself - it's going to be blinded out. So I think we agree that the stack is only "worth" something in the hands of a player using "poker skills". A donkey with no post-flop skills should take every coinflip he can get (Sklansky's "System", also Kill Phil). A World-class pro should ALMOST NEVER gamble in marginal +cEV. For the rest of us taking or not marginal +cEV spots will be a matter of perceived field advantage and stack size and style and...

Let me ask you this - if I think I'm at a SUCH terrible field disadvantage that I doubt I will EVER cash just "playing poker" - but if I double-up 3 times - I can then fold into the money - are the chips I gain in a coinflip increase or decrease the value of my stack?...

Re: ??
 

Nothing you are discussing has anything to do with the issue at hand.

The issue is not about the value of a stack, but rather the individual chips in the stack. It is not about the skill of the player owning the stack.

Sklansky is using the ev of a stack and of a stack doubled, re-doubled, etc. to prove a point regarding the value of the chips in the stack.

Re: ??
 

Just a simple question: If buying an add-on to a big stack allows you to bully everyone on the table, doesn't it increase your overall chances to win by more than just the ICM value?

Re: ??
 

[ QUOTE ]
Nothing you are discussing has anything to do with the issue at hand.

The issue is not about the value of a stack, but rather the individual chips in the stack. It is not about the skill of the player owning the stack.

Sklansky is using the ev of a stack and of a stack doubled, re-doubled, etc. to prove a point regarding the value of the chips in the stack.

[/ QUOTE ]
what do you mean by the value of a stack of chips in a tournament? Surely it is the expected amount the player behind the chips will win.

Re: ??
 

[ QUOTE ]
what do you mean by the value of a stack of chips in a tournament? Surely it is the expected amount the player behind the chips will win.

[/ QUOTE ]

On average, yes.

Re: ??
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just a simple question: If buying an add-on to a big stack allows you to bully everyone on the table, doesn't it increase your overall chances to win by more than just the ICM value?

[/ QUOTE ]

Buying an add-on to a big stack won't add much to it. If you had 10 times the add on amount and added on, now you have 11 times. So if 11 times is enough for bullying, then 10 times is probably also enough.

If you had three times, then adding on would give you four times. A larger percentage increase but not a very large stack as many will be in that range.

Also, I think bullying is more of an issue later in the tourney when players are trying to survive to make the money, or move up in the money. The re-buy period is usually over way before that (like after one hour).

Bullying is a tatic. Correctly using it, and other tatics, will increase a players chances of winning, and hence the value of his stack. But the issue at hand is simply the value of the chips as the stack increased without regard to any strategy. For the purposes of the discussion you can assume all players have equal talent.