How much would you pay to start with a doublestack in the Sun Million?

Burno · #1 07-23-2007, 12:39 PM

This arose in a discussion I was having with a friend who is a fairly successful MTT'er.

So what's your price?

Does it change if its a regular 109?

Or a 20/180?

Mr.WeakTight · #2 07-23-2007, 12:42 PM

at the start of a tournament, cEv = $EV. so, about double. but there's an advantage to having a big stack, so a little more than double. on the third hand, it's such a crapshoot it's like buying two lottery tickets. so about double.

registrar · #3 07-23-2007, 01:12 PM

I think a double stack is of more value in the Million. (I think it's worth even more if it were presented as a cold deck and then you moved tables - ie: you sit down at a new table for the second hand with 20k).

One's elimination-threat equity is way higher in th Million than a 20/180.

I'd pay double. I don't know if/think it's mathematically correct because I really doubt in such a large field you are going to make 2x more money. However, playing with an insta-double stack is worth paying for because that's quality time.

4CardStraight · #4 07-23-2007, 02:01 PM

The answer is, close but not quite equal to the buyin. Since we are at the start, we have time to apply our trade, we cannot possibly be getting a full double in EV from a double in our chip stack, but it is awefully close. Probably something like $195 on the 200.

I know I would rather play twice with a normal stack than once with a double stack at the start. At the start we are still so far away from the money and still so incredibly deep stacked that just me having double wouldnt be that uber......

Now how much would I pay to start at a TABLE where everyone at the table started with a double stack in the million? Probably over the 200$...

curtains · #5 07-23-2007, 02:14 PM

I think I'd definitely pay double yea. What isnt there something like 10k more in a good players hands is going to be worth a lot more than 10k in some average Sunday Million player's hands?

Foucault · #6 07-23-2007, 02:28 PM

Your second 10K chips are not worth double what your first 10K are worth. However, the first 10K chips of a good player are worth a lot more than $215, and such players should leap at the opportunity to buy 10K more chips for another $215. Is OP offering services as a chip dumper?

Dave D · #7 07-23-2007, 04:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Your second 10K chips are not worth double what your first 10K are worth. However, the first 10K chips of a good player are worth a lot more than $215, and such players should leap at the opportunity to buy 10K more chips for another $215. Is OP offering services as a chip dumper?

[/ QUOTE ]

ldo

4CardStraight · #8 07-23-2007, 04:52 PM

I think you are not thinking correctly here. You do not get a second chair by getting double the chips. You always have the opportunity to buy another seat and 10k chips in next weeks event for your 215$, and that is more valuable than doubling our chips in this one.... Despite the fact that both of them might be worth more than the 215$ we are paying (as long as we continue to have our edge)

Additionally, though this does increase our EV for this tournament, I would argue it also increases its variance. In a small sense, one could compare wether its better to get a chip double early or just enter a tournament thats twice the price....

I don't think its as easy as saying that since we hopefully have a +ROI that therefore we should leap at a double... especially with as many tournaments as are available. I do think tho, that players continue to underestimate the variance of MTTs, and the sunday events are so huge that variance is insane. I am skeptical about any ROI numbers that include results from a tournament with more than a thousand entrants, unless there are tens of thousands of similar tournaments to average against. Or another way of thinking is that pretty much no one has a bankroll sufficient to play in the sunday million stars event for instance, since given the incredible volume of players that even with a very high ROI you could have huge stretches of no cash. If we shortcut and say for discussion that over any long long term winning tournament players shouldnt achieve over say 100% ROI, then I think bankroll should be something along the lines of (Num Entrants * Entry), or close to the prize pool for the tournament. A shortcut im sure no one here would like to agree with.... but its probably pretty accurate that for MTTs given the high level of variance, if you want to maintain acceptable risks of ruin and if you were required to play them non-stop for income until you either depleted your bankroll or you made enough to retire on... anyway, that that bankroll to have a 5% or less risk of ruin needs to be about the size of the prize pool, or larger. Im guessing less than 1% of the players in stars sundays have that kind of bankroll.

If you have opportunity cost involved, and can step outside the question for a second, would you rather put 215 to double down in a single tournament where you already agree our chips are not worth as much as the first chunk, or would you rather get a second chance the following week? I think most would agree a second chance is more valuable, our skill edge maintains, and we are not paying a premium for the chips, as it relates to OUR value on them.

Maybe ROI is higher, like for WSOP maybe there really are pros that are 400% ROI long run. I personally doubt it, but will agree that it might be possible. If so, these players might only need half or quarter prizepool and could still maintain an acceptably low risk of long term ruin, but as far as WSOP goes as well, i think its accurate to say that 95%+ of the people there do not have the bankroll to be there. If they were forced to play non stop until they final tabled and could retire, or play til bankrupt, that 95%+ of the players there would bankrupt, probably within say 50 trials.

nath · #9 07-23-2007, 05:00 PM

I'd pay double, but that's because every time I've gone on a run in that tournament, it started with a double-up almost immediately. So with science on my side, I'm convinced it's necessary.

KingDan · #10 07-23-2007, 05:19 PM

It wou1dn't have the ROI, but even 3/4 the ROI on an investment 2x as 1arge is good.

A1so, def better in a tourney 1ike the mi11ion than in a 20/180. Getting a big score is a 1ot more sig compared to the buyin. For the same reason, I wou1d rather have 6x my stack in the mi11ion than in an SNG