bogus HU MTT structure

[FortunaMaximus]

I'm gonna need to crunch the numbers. But I'm intrigued by this if only because I've poured a lot of equity into HU matches to learn that particular form.

I'm fairly sure, though, it's slightly more complex than what you're suggesting.

But I'll get back to this thread with what I find. It seems to give a different approach to chip utility.

The chip disadvantage decreases with successive rounds though, and that's the main puzzle basically, seeing how it's affected across a whole structure.

Hmm. I'll be back.

[Shaver67]

[ QUOTE ]
here's the problem. 1st round everyone starts with 1500. the winners get 3000 and go on to round 2...the byes (who got a free pass past round 1) also start with 3000 in round 2. obviously, they should start with 1500 also in order to make the tourney "fair." round 2 should sometimes be a guy with 3000 (winner) vs a guy with 1500 (bye).

it baffles me that they do it the way they do. I'm not going to go into any math on this because i think it's pretty obvious why their way is so inferior. any thoughs?

[/ QUOTE ]


In an individual tourney is it an advantage to have a bye- yes.

How are the byes assigned- random.

After a thousand tourneys who has an edge? No one.

Is the system perfect, no. But your solution is more complicated, will have a snowball effect, and as such last longer in to the tourney (ie still has an effect when stacks are imbalanced in the money matches)

The only way you avoid this is fixing entries at some number that breaks down evenly (32, 64, blah blah)- but if they do that they can't collect all those extra players rake...

Since the sites interest is to maximize the rake and what inequity the present system creates washes out in the long run (which is what you ought to be concerned with anyhow)- good luck getting it changed.

[willie24]

[ QUOTE ]
After a thousand tourneys who has an edge? No one.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're absolutely right about this. it is true that before the seeds are drawn, no one has an advantage.

[ QUOTE ]
But your solution is more complicated, will have a snowball effect, and as such last longer in to the tourney (ie still has an effect when stacks are imbalanced in the money matches

[/ QUOTE ]

a system that gives everyone an equal shot will have an effect that lasts much longer? ok, i guess. yeah, there will be uneven chip stacks late into the tournament, and into the money matches. why is that a bad thing? if you start with less chips in a money match, it means you had to earn fewer chips (or beat "fewer" opponents) to get there...so it evens out.

when one guy has to win 5 matches to get to a championship to play another guy who only had to win 4 times to get there and they have the same amount of chips- that's a significant long-lasting effect.

yeah, everyone has the same chance of drawing a bye. but the current system is comparable to a SNG where 3 people randomly get 3000 chips and the rest get 1500. you can make the argument that it's "fair" because everyone has the same chance of winning the "lottery," but what's the point of having the lottery when there are clearly ways of giving everyone an equal shot and letting poker determine the winner.

[ QUOTE ]
The only way you avoid this is fixing entries at some number that breaks down evenly (32, 64, blah blah)- but if they do that they can't collect all those extra players rake...

[/ QUOTE ]

if they want to have odd numbers of entrants, and stick with the "equal stack every round" system, they can always charge the play-ins half price. this would also put the byes and play-ins on even ground

[N 82 50 24]

I actually like the idea of equalizing buyins.

So if the stated buyin is $20 and there are 90 players, then have the first round play down to 64 people for a total prizepool of 64*20. For everyone who has to play a first round match, make the buyin $10+1 automatically (ie, refund $11 to their account if they get picked to play a first round match).

Then when one gets to the 2nd round, $20 of equity is being contributed.

[FortunaMaximus]

Alternate method (96 players for simplicity):

Chips in play:

64*1500 + 32*3000 = 96,000 + 96,000 = 192,000

192,000/64 = 3,000 chips/player for round 2.


Stated buyins:

64*11 = 704
32*22 = 704
----
1408

$EV/player for round 2:

1280/64 = $20/round 2 player EV or 0.00667/chip.

Cost per chip breakdown for play-in/bye:

Play-in = $11/3000 = 0.00367/chip
Bye = $22/3000 = 0.00733/chip.

So it would seem the alternate method would seem to favor a structure where equity is refunded to the player after round one.

The rake makes it palatable to play-in in such a structure, because the bye player would need to have a clearly defined skill advantage to overcome static EV.

Seems fairer.

[ QUOTE ]
The chip disadvantage decreases with successive rounds though, and that's the main puzzle basically, seeing how it's affected across a whole structure.

[/ QUOTE ]

As for this part, I'm not sure it's relevant and probably would get absorbed to insignificance with each successive round. As for how many rounds it takes before this effect is redundant, that probably has a negligible effect on overall $EV unless it's a small field.

Disclaimer: Hardly an expert, just found this interesting.

[petch84]

its a random drawing so thats just the luck of the draw. If you try to make stacks different, with bye people starting round two with only 1500 chips and guy who plays first round gets 3k chips. Now what happens when you go to round 3? does someone who played in a HU match only get 4500, and has the possibility of playing a guy with 6k in chips. This could be two people who both won 2 rounds and they are going to be short stacked the rest of the tournament technically.

not sure how AP and PS pick the second round matchups but imagine that is random too, so you could have two people in 3rd round both playing with 4500, and the winner of that will go into 4th round with 9k vs someone who has 12k in chips. Now thats making it harder for short stacks to win the tourny

[flyingmoose]

Byes don't affect equity in the long run, so who cares?

Your system, on the other hand WILL affect equity in the long run for a good player. A superior player doesn't get to spend the first round applying his edge when he has a bye, so giving him his starting stack for round two causes the bye to have a negative impact on his long run EV.

I would much rather have a bye randomly favor everyone who gets it than randomly hurt good players who get it.

[flyingmoose]

[ QUOTE ]
I actually like the idea of equalizing buyins.

So if the stated buyin is $20 and there are 90 players, then have the first round play down to 64 people for a total prizepool of 64*20. For everyone who has to play a first round match, make the buyin $10+1 automatically (ie, refund $11 to their account if they get picked to play a first round match).

Then when one gets to the 2nd round, $20 of equity is being contributed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like this either. Shrinking prize pools for the sake of avoiding randomness? Seriously?

[willie24]

[ QUOTE ]
Your system, on the other hand WILL affect equity in the long run for a good player. A superior player doesn't get to spend the first round applying his edge when he has a bye, so giving him his starting stack for round two causes the bye to have a negative impact on his long run EV.


[/ QUOTE ]

no, using the same logic about "randomness" that you used- it won't, because everyone has the same long-run chance of drawing the bye and having this "disadvantage" of not being able to play the first round. (which is not a disadvantage at all when you assume that all players are of equal skill- in other words, it is as likely to be an "advantage" as a "disadvantage" for a random player. and even if you assume that it is a "disadvantage" for a good player- it is no where near the "disadvantage" the same player faces when he has to play-in in the current system.)

No one has made a reasonable argument in favor of the current system so far. This is because none exists.

Well I guess the one that you could make reasonably would be as follows: I prefer a tournament that has a large "luck of the draw" element over one that focuses on poker exclusively.

This is a matter of personal taste, and could certainly be a valid opinion.

[willie24]

[ QUOTE ]
you could have two people in 3rd round both playing with 4500, and the winner of that will go into 4th round with 9k vs someone who has 12k in chips. Now thats making it harder for short stacks to win the tourny

[/ QUOTE ]

no, actually it's not harder at all. The reason is- it's easier for the 9k stack to get to that point than it is for the 12k stack. (he had to take only 7500 chips from opponents whereas the 12k player had to take 10500 from opponents.) the chip advantage for the 12k stack is deserved...and in the long run, for the average player, neither "path" is easier or harder than the other.