Is There Value in NLHU-MULTIS?

[jay_shark]

[ QUOTE ]


And it really doesn't take very much skew at all to erase the extra profit from the second rake-free game. A 1% difference in winrate in the second game (60% first game, 59% second game), cuts the advantage of the 4 man in half. A 2% difference (60% first game, 58% second game) erases it completely.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong .

If you win 60% of the time in your first match and then 58% of the time on your second , then your profit is 400*0.6*0.58 -105 = $34.2/buy-in .

If you win 2 $105's at 60% each , you profit 2*(200*0.6-105) =$30/2buy-ins .

Even if your win rate takes a 3% hit , you still profit more playing in the 4-man .

400*0.6*0.57-105 = $31.8 >$30

In fact , the break even point is at 56.25% and not 58% .

Another point to mention is that there is also a waiting time for playing in singles as well ; not only waiting for your finals opponent .

Your bankroll requirements for playing in a 4-man tourney should be ~ twice the size of playing in singles for the same buy-in . So , the added variance often times makes it less appealing to play even if you may profit a little more from it .

[TNixon]

[ QUOTE ]
If you win 2 $105's at 60% each , you profit 2*(200*0.6-105) =$30/2buy-ins .

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, yeah. And $34 > $30, right?

For somebody who claims to "specialize" in math, you seem to repeatedly make the same basic errors over and over, even after having them explicitly pointed out to you.

Or is there some reason you insist on comparing the profit from a $100 4 man directly to the profit from 2 $100 singles?

It's really not at all difficult to understand why that comparison is not valid, but every conclusion you've drawn so far is based on that invalid comparison.

Oh, Hey, wait, I just thought of something.

If you have a 60% winrate at $80 and $100 husngs, you can win $36 if you play 3 $80s, but you can only win $30 if you play 2 $100s.

So, OBVIOUSLY, you should play $80s, because they're more profitable. I guess you're right after all. What was I thinking. This is easy. All you have to do is pull two numbers out of your ass, and make sure the one you want to be bigger is actually bigger.

GOGO SUPERMATHS!

I R GEEEENIOOOOOS

[jay_shark]

Congratulations on not admitting that you were wrong about the 58% break even point .

Why do you insist on changing the comparison when this specific question was asked so many times in the past ?

[TNixon]

[ QUOTE ]
Congratulations on not admitting that you were wrong about the 58% break even point .

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL

Wow.

This is classic. You've outdone yourself, man.

I insist on changing the comparison because the comparison is INVALID.

Two $100 individual games IS NOT THE SAME as one $100 4 man. It's not even close.

I'm right about the 58% breakeven point, and what's hilarious about it is that YOU DON'T EVEN SEEM TO UNDERSTAND WHY, despite claiming to "specialize" in math.

If you're going to try to compare profit numbers directly, you'd have to compare it to a $100 followed by a $200, which much more closely reflects the payouts for the 4 man. Comparing a $100 4 man to 2 individual $100s isn't any more valid than me comparing 3 $80s to 2 $100s.

Unless you've found a site where you're allowed to put up $100 while your opponent puts up $200 for the same chipstack? If so, I'm sure we'd all LOVE to hear about it.

I insist on changing the comparison because the one you used to draw conclusions from was not a valid comparison, and therefore THE QUESTION WAS NOT ANSWERED CORRECTLY, even though you acted, and continue to act, like it's a done deal. Been there done that, why are we talking about this anymore when it was answered definitively over a year ago?

wow

This is just too much.

LOL

I'm not the one who has trouble admitting when I'm wrong here.

At least, I thought that's what the problem was. That you were completely unwilling to admit to very basic boneheaded errors (and hey, we all make them all the time).

Now I'm not so sure. Maybe you actually think your comparison is still valid, despite having had it pointed out in excruciating detail that it's not, just like you have wanted to treat a $1 big blind exactly the same as a $10 big blind in past posts. (Which is perfectly fine in some contexts, but hopelessly invalid in others, including the discussion at hand at the time)

Maybe you truly don't grasp the very basic concept that to compare numbers directly, the space that you're measuring them in has to be at least *somewhat* similar.

Before, I was just giving you credit for ego and stubbornness. But maybe it really *is* lack of understanding of this one very basic concept, one that anybody who made it through high-school chemistry understands.

[daveT]

Match one in the HU tourney:

[TNixon]

Actually, what's even funnier is that I actually *am* wrong about the 58% break-even point, but not for the reason you think. You are still making a completely invalid comparison. Mine was closer, but still didn't take into account all the factors. (such as the fact that your winrate isn't going to stay $60 playing the $100)

If you were attacking from that angle, this would be a discussion instead of a laugh-fest.

But I don't actually mind being wrong (and unlike some of us, I don't try to present calculations as irrefutable fact, especially if I know there are factors not taken into account by those very simple calculations), and I'm not actually saying that the 4 mans are less profitable.

I'm refuting YOUR claim that they are clearly *more* profitable, because your conclusion was drawn from invalid comparisons, and because you simply discarded very real concerns about opponent strength in the second match by waving your hands.

To be honest, though, I did assume that it would only take one mention of the $100 4 man vs 2 $100 individual tourney comparison for you to instantly realize that you had to do something different.

I won't overestimate you again.

[jay_shark]

Not only are you changing the original question , but now you're changing the win rates that I gave in the original thread .

The probability you win the first match in singles is ~ equal to the probability you win the first match in a 4-man tourney. Unless you have a reasonable claim that a 4-man is skewed towards better players , it's fair to say they are ~ equal . If we can't agree on this (there is nothing to disagree about) then I won't waste anymore time on this .

So lets say you win 60% of the time in your first singles . You should probably win ~ 60% for your first round in the 4-man . Now , even if your win rate declines 3% in the FINALS because of your expected increase in competition , you should still profit more .

I don't know why you decided to use 58% for both of your matches . Do you think your first match should be tougher than in a typical singles match ?

You did the following :

400*0.58*0.58-105 ~ 30 and compared that with
200*0.6 - 105 + 200*0.6 - 105 =30

I find it funny that you change the context of the problem to satisfy your point .

[TNixon]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know why you decided to use 58% for both of your matches . Do you think your first match should be tougher than in a typical singles match ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wtf are you talking about?

In one calculation, I used 60% for both. In another, I used 60% for the first, and 58/59% for the second. I'd go back and quote myself, but I have to at least give you credit for being able TO READ.

[ QUOTE ]
I find it funny that you change the context of the problem to satisfy your point .

[/ QUOTE ]
I find it funny that you don't seem to even know what the problem IS anymore, much less how to answer it.

You're so far in left field right now that you should probably quit while you only look confused.

[TNixon]

[ QUOTE ]
You did the following :

400*0.58*0.58-105 ~ 30 and compared that with
200*0.6 - 105 + 200*0.6 - 105 =30

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you please quote where you see me doing that?

Because not once anywhere in any post I've made in this thread, did I ever end up comparing $30 to $30.

I mean, are you seriously so incapable of arguing against things that I *have* said, that you have to construct things out of thin air, and attribute them to me, so that you can argue with *that*?

Seriously, come back to this universe.

[jay_shark]

Tnixon , if it makes you sleep better at night , scrap the word "clearly" because it is clearly wrong .