|
|
#171
06-23-2006, 01:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: High-Stakes Poker Season 2
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Rottersod, this just doesn't make sense. The question at hand is still variance-related - someone who is a 3% dog can still take the entire pot. The underdog accepts in order to reduce his own variance as well. It doesn't matter who the favorite is or by how much. While I see your point regarding the stakes, that's just a side effect of 'reducing variance'. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, in the end it is all variance related. I'm not arguing against that. My responses were to the poster who asked why the underdog would accept the run it twice scenario. I guarantee that at 22-1 against he was not thinking of his variance in the sense of every time I do this I get closer to the middle. He was thinking that this was a great way to recoup his $100,000 or so bet on off chance that he could split one of these runs. Sure, in the end it all comes down to the same thing but my explanation was "real world" rather than esoteric. [/ QUOTE ] By running it twice, the underdog is basicially giving up his chance to win the pot in order to gain a better chance of splitting the pot. It's that simple. If he's an 80-20 dog, then he's giving up 16% of his chance to win (roughly) to gain 16% of tying. I'm sure most people would do that. 
|
|
#173
06-23-2006, 01:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Screwed Up
[ QUOTE ]
I knew I was going to screw up. Should have gone to bed: Should be: Changing things for a 60% to 40% situation in $100 pot One run: EVs are Player A is $60, Player B is $40 Two runs If A wins first one, chances are 55% to 45% If B wins first one, chances are 65% to 35% Chance of A winning both: 33% (.6*.55) Chance of B winning both: 14% (.4 x .35) Chance of split is 53% So EV for running it twice: Player A: .33*100+.14*0+.53*50= $59.50 Player B: $40.50 So Player A has lost (.5/60)=.83% Player B has gained (.50/40)=%1.25 So the difference is not as great- which goes to show the less you start with as an underdog the more you stand to gain relative to where you came from (So if you have a tiny equity in the pot, you would really love to run things more than once). The crazy thing about the way they do these is that they really should put the cards back in after the first run, there shouldn't be a change in the percentages after the first run, that is really favoring the loser of the first run, which is most likely going to be the underdog. For instance, think of a made up scenario where you run a $100 pot 3 times- Let's say the underdog has a 1% chance the 1st time, if he loses he has a 5% chance, and if he loses the second time he has a 10% chance. His EV after 1 run is only 1, but his EV on the 3rd run is 3.33 even if he loses the first two- that's 333% better. [/ QUOTE ] 5% is too much to give to one card. If A has 26 good cards that makes him a ~59.09% favorite (26/44). If A wins then he has 25/43 cards that are winners or about ~58.14%. If you do this with the right percentages the EV will be the same if you run it once or twice.
|
|
#174
06-23-2006, 01:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Screwed Up
The favorite's EV just went down on the second run in your example. There's no way the EV can be the same with the 2 runs. They would be the same if they put the cards from the first run back in the deck and ran it again. I am not sure why they don't do that.
5% is too much to give to one card. If A has 26 good cards that makes him a ~59.09% favorite (26/44). If A wins then he has 25/43 cards that are winners or about ~58.14%. If you do this with the right percentages the EV will be the same if you run it once or twice. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#175
06-23-2006, 02:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Screwed Up
[ QUOTE ]
The favorite's EV just went down on the second run in your example. There's no way the EV can be the same with the 2 runs. They would be the same if they put the cards from the first run back in the deck and ran it again. I am not sure why they don't do that. 5% is too much to give to one card. If A has 26 good cards that makes him a ~59.09% favorite (26/44). If A wins then he has 25/43 cards that are winners or about ~58.14%. If you do this with the right percentages the EV will be the same if you run it once or twice. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] When player A has 26 outs Changing things for a 59.09% to 40.91% situation in $100 pot One run: EVs are Player A is $59.09, Player B is $40.91 Two runs If A wins first one, chances are 58.14% to 41.86% If B wins first one, chances are 60.04% to 39.96% Chance of A winning both: 34.35% (.5909 *.5814) Chance of B winning both: 16.17% (.4091 x .3954) Chance of split is 49.48% So EV for running it twice: Player A: .3435*100+.16*0+.4948*50= $59.09 Player B: $40.91
|
|
#176
06-23-2006, 03:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
F-load of commericals compared to last year...
They had, what was it, 10 episodes last year or something... I think they had 2 hrs back to back, little commericals and nice action.
This year: they had the same amount of time of taping days...and now they expanded it to 18 or something episodes, trying to stretch out the episodes and action, A LOT more commericals, breaks, non-poker footage, etc... Hopefully the action kicks it up a notch... they some action junkies... right now they got tight, tighter and tighest on the table. Laak, grinder and Antonio are playing "nuts only" poker.... I need the old Sammy and maybe a Gus in there now!
|
|
#180
06-24-2006, 12:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: High-Stakes Poker Season 2
[ QUOTE ]
anyone agree this show is the best televised poker show out right now? [/ QUOTE ] Yes, but this season is overproduced compared to last's where it seemed like the table and the game was a lot more casual. Things seemed to flow and the producers seemed to stay out of the way. This season there has been more emphasis on close ups, trash talking, shots of GF's and assorted hangers ons, and the tight play hasn't helped lift it out of the doldrums yet. I am hoping that things improve.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
