[0evg0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nath,
The article mentions going allin as a 54% favorite, not a dog.

Also, after skimming the article still am not really impressed by the numbers. In most tournaments I think a good player is more than 59% to double up and way more than 2x avg to win.

In general I think almost all of these ideas of gambling for a stack are silly, especially in a tourney like the stars mill.

[/ QUOTE ]

O RLY? Just as an example, from the $27.5 buy-in $25k Gtd. on Stars:

Entrants: 1347
1st place: $7169
Avg person should win: 1/1347=.07%
Your theoretical win %: .14%

Assume 15% ITM, any cash not a win is the first cash of $50.51

.15*50.51+.0014*7169-22=17.61

17.61/22=80% ROI

This is not even accounting for all other FTs, etc., so me-thinks you haven't thought this through



FWIW, not that anyone cares, I'm on nath and shaun's side here. I apply somewhat similar strategies with sports sometimes where if my future EV earning potential is better served by taking a slight -EV gamble now, the overall EV of the move is positive.

Situations like these arise in things like tournaments because of the finite nature of things in that we have a certain period (before someone else does it) where we have to accumulate as much as possible (all the chips).

[/ QUOTE ]


i read this a bunch of times and all i can come up with is that you feel you poked holes in dan's hypothesis because you'd need an ROI well above 80% to win 2x as often.

if that is correct, i imagine when dan is referring to a good player, he means someone who has an roi of like 125%+ at a $25 online mtt. which, correct me if i'm wrong because i'm extremely rusty with mtt stuff, is pretty reasonable for any typical mtt grinder pro