Upcoming Article Will Clear Up Snyder Silliness

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is like saying that Newton's theories are always true. I am not disputing the principle.

[/ QUOTE ]

OT: Which they aren't, as any student of quantum physics can tell you.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is my point of my analogy.

[CarlNiclas]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is like saying that Newton's theories are always true. I am not disputing the principle.

[/ QUOTE ]

OT: Which they aren't, as any student of quantum physics can tell you.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is my point of my analogy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought so, but I didn't think that necessarily was general knowledge. If I came across as snippy, I apologize.

[mornelth]

[ QUOTE ]
5. In order for this to occur it is necessary, but not sufficient, that your chances of doubling up before going broke is less than 50%.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is the point that will need some explanation and expounding on in the article.

if you are the BEST player in the tournament - you should ALMOST NEVER take a 50/50 double-nothing proposition, since you can probably win those chips with less risk just outplaying your opponents. If you are THE WORST player - you should ALWAYS take a 50/50 (Re: Kill Phil, TPFAP's "System"). Clearly, 99% of us reading and posting here and playing poker are somewhere in between the two extremes. Therefore one's willingness to take various gambles should be dictated by the reasonable expectation of the number of opportunities to chip up one is likely to get before the blinds get too high. Experts will find or create more of these opportunities, mediocre players will find create some of those, and poor players will probably miss the ones dangling right in front of them. WRT speed of the tournament - in a "fast" tournament all classes of players will have LESS TIME to find/create profitable opportunities before blinds get too high, so as the "speed" of an event escalates - all players should be somewhat MORE risk-loving than their usual style. Am I way off here?...

Suggestion to anyone who thinks I'm off my rocker - get together with some of your buds and play an STT or an MTT if you have enough players. Make the blinds go up every orbit, i.e. if I started on the button - blinds go up every time I get the button. What's the optimal strategy BESIDES "fold my way to pushbot stage and then pushbot...."

[Beavis68]

[ QUOTE ]
David -- I am not an expert, far from it. With that, I hope you will expound on:

1. In tournaments with more than one prize, the value of each successive chip you obtain is less than the previous one unless you are a bad player or have a very short stack.

2. The above syndrome is more pronounced as you get close to, or into the money.

This seems contrary to my limited experience, particularly in online tournaments.

Say three spots are paid in a NL SNG with four players left. The blinds are t150-300, and three players have the same number of chips, say t2500, with the final player on the big stack with the remaining chips.

It would seem that each chip one of the even stacks was able to obtain would be worth more than the previous chips by virtue of the fact that the player could fold into the money where the other three can't. Additionally, if the one of the even stacks and t2500+1 were to go all in with the big stack and lose, t2500+1 ends up in the money.

I know this example is contrived and maybe falls under the caveat that rule 1 and 2 don't necessarily apply to short stacks, but isn't it true that in my example each additional chip increases in value at the bubble?

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at it this way. Ten man SnG with a typical 50/30/20 prize pool.

Four players left with all even stacks.

Each player has players equity is 1/4 of the prize pool, 25%.

Now you bust out one player, you have half the chips in play, but your equity is not 50% as you are no where near a lock to win.

In fact your equity is only 38% of the prize pool.

[UMTerp]

David,

Do you mind expounding on the following?

[ QUOTE ]
3. The above syndrome #1 is even more pronounced if you are an expert player and is true even if the tournament is winner take all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm having a hard time visualizing why chips lose value in a winner-take-all situation.

[Mathieu]

[ QUOTE ]
David,

Do you mind expounding on the following?

[ QUOTE ]
3. The above syndrome #1 is even more pronounced if you are an expert player and is true even if the tournament is winner take all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm having a hard time visualizing why chips lose value in a winner-take-all situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's because your chips are already above face value since you are an expert and you use them well.

Say that you are an expert such that your ROI is %100. So your chips at the beggining were worth twice their face value.

Say you have 60% of the chips near the end of the winner take all tourney.

There is no way that each of your chip is still worth twice its face value since that would mean you could win 120% of the prize pool [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[UMTerp]

That makes sense. Thanks.

[Arnold_Snyder]

I have just published an article that addresses another serious error in David Sklansky's and Mason Malmuth's chip value theory, and how this has led them to advise players to use exactly the opposite of optimal poker tournament strategy in any tournament.

Here is a link to the article: Correcting 20 Years of Chip Value Theory, With Implications for Winning Poker Tournament Strategy

[Pov]

[ QUOTE ]

This is like saying that Newton's theories are always true. I am not disputing the principle.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, most of Newton's theories turn out to be inaccurate as you approach the speed of a sit-n-go. But he was still the most influential scientist in history.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
I have just published an article that addresses another serious error in David Sklansky's and Mason Malmuth's chip value theory, and how this has led them to advise players to use exactly the opposite of optimal poker tournament strategy in any tournament.

Here is a link to the article: Correcting 20 Years of Chip Value Theory, With Implications for Winning Poker Tournament Strategy


[/ QUOTE ]
I agreed more or less with your other article. I am not sure about this one. First of all, the the concepts that a small stack is more valuable chip for chip because of payout structure is correct, as is the concept that it is more valuable chip for chip for a strong player. It seems like you are arguing that these concepts are incorrect.

In typical NLHE tournament, there are advantages to having a big stack, due to the fact that opponents may be playing for survival due to payout structure and/or their weak/tight tendencies, as well as other reasons. Often these factors are more important than those outlined by Sklansky and others which make a small stack more valuable.

Caro wrote an article saying a big stack was not an advantage
which was ridiculed in the MTT forum
but partially defended by me

I also do not understand your analysis of the HU finish between Tomko and Phillips. Tomko was the short stack and went allin hand after hand and Phillips eventually called with a premium hand and busted him. Tomko's approach was very likely cEV+. The premium hands that Phillips was waiting for may not be huge favorites over the junk that Tomko was pushing with. Meanwhile, Tomko was stealing blinds. Obviously, Tomko's strategy was unlikely to be successful in winning the tournament, because he was severaly outchipped. Tomko may also have been taking this approach because he thought Phillips had a skill advantage. In a HU match with shallow money, the big stack player could take the approach of pushing most hands just as well as the small stack. You really can't bully with a big stack HU. I don't see how you can argue that a big stack HU is a favorite more than proprtionate to his stack, unless he has a skill advantage.

I agree that the theories about theories propounded by Sklansky and several other writers about how a short stack is more valuable than the chips, particularly to a good player, are not always the most important factor. I do not agree that these theories are false and I think attempting to prove them flase in very misguided.