[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
C'mon Al. I've shown you the proof on two different occasions.

You've already stated:

[ QUOTE ]
I understand the logic behind your contention that this can't be true when heads up, but I've gone through the latest article twice and can't find anywhere that makes this claim specifically for heads up situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

So why make such a silly statement?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is a feeble attempt at humor a valid defense?

Let me clarify my current thoughts on heads up situations and my quoted statement. The combined EV of the players left can't be more than the amount of prize money still at stake. When heads up we're in a winner take all situation. If we were flipping coins I beleive everyone is in agreement that there would be a direct proportional relationship between percentage of chips in a stack and our EV would be an equal percentage of the prize money at stake.

The question is whether, even for someone who believes in Snyder's utility value theory, if utility value can exist once you've reached a heads up situation. When I made that response I wasn't thinking in terms of utility value although in re-reading it I can clearly see that when you're talking about EV (or SV or whatever) in the post I was responding to that you're including any utility value that might exist. I didn't remember Snyder even discussing utility value in a heads up situation (obviously in the Tomko vs Phillips story he is).

Your proof shows that when heads up with extreme stack sizes utility value ceases to be a factor. I think most participants in this discussion who believe the utility value theory has merit (including me) have agreed that this phenomenom could exert itself prior to a match reaching heads up. At some stack size one player could reach a point where UV would become less and less of a factor. An additional chip would add an infintesimal amount of UV to the stack and the average UV per chip in the stack would decrease.

I'm not sure whether utility value exists heads up at less extreme stack sizes. I'm actually leaning towards thinking not, but not totally convinced. In any case I don't think the answer (or even understanding the answer) is so simple that a 5 year old could understand it.

Al