Putting all your chips at risk, how small of an edge?

[seke2]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You can make an argument that you should take the gamble in the WSOP ME since the field is much stronger and you have less of an equity edge (if any edge at all) against the rest of the field.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would think it would be the opposite. Excluding the coinflips "early" part of the equation, if you are going to go far in this tournament with this rationale then you will have to survive a bunch of coinflips. 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2...... decreases your chances exponentially. I would think that in a field of this size that the field is much "weaker" not stronger, so you can use good post flop play to build a formidable stack.

I'm just thinking out loud here, but having to survive multiple coinflips throughout is SEVERELY -EV. Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no question that it's severly -EV to have to survive flip after flip. However, in the WSOP ME field, you have to beat out, lets say, 1000 players who are legitimately professionals who are probably better than you, or at least have a big edge just from having more experience playing live in big money events. I can't imagine anyone without significant major tournament experience truly has an equity edge in the WSOP ME in a field with hundreds of professionals.

So while I'm playing on the internet in a $22 tournament, I think I probably have 2-3x buyin in equity based on my skill, in the WSOP ME I'd feel that I had 0 equity edge at best. Accordingly, I NEED to take any sort of coinflip because I can't expect to hold onto my chips for later spots where my skill edge will get me a highly +EV spot.

The real question comes down to the size (if it exists) of the equity edge for someone, like one of us, who plays mostly online at low-medium buyins when we enter the WSOP ME with a field full of professionals.

Lets say there are 6000 players.

Let's say 1000 of those are professional or semi-pros who play a fair number of major live cash events.

2000 of those are solid players like 2+2'ers who know the game and managed to qualify online.

3000 players are random luckboxes.

That puts 60m in play.

I've heard it suggested that pros feel that their skill edge gives them about 4x their buyin in equity.

So lets say the 1000s pros have 10m of that equity.

Lets say the 3000 luckboxes have an average of .75 buyin in equity, since they have a skill deficit. That's 22.5m of equity.

That leaves 27.5m equity for the 2000 skilled non-professional/intelligent internet type players. Each of those players would have about 13750 in equity.

I guess those assumptions are in the general ballpark, so I suppose your random solid 2+2'er would have a slight equity edge, even in the WSOP ME.

[rockin]

Let me clarify something about my last post, I am specifically talking about CALLING coin flips. Obviously if we are the one pushing, then FE increases our EV each time that we are the one pushing.

Let's just say that in an online tourny of 1000 players, that we have to survive 4 coin flips (calling). Our odds of surviving after FOUR coin flips is 15:1 (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2). Now expand this scenario to a tourny that will last a week and have a field of say 7000, and you will obviously have to survive even more of these "calling" allin. Just say TEN coin flips (1/2^10 = 1/1024). You are now just 1023:1 to SURVIVE. Winning 10 coin flips still does not guarantee a win or even a good finish, it just guarantees that you will survive late into the tourny.

I don't necessarily agree with UCLA with folding hands like QQ to allins etc..., because there are many times that we are ahead, and it is not always AK, KK or AA. I do however agree that by calling MULTIPLE allins, that this is SEVERELY -EV.

[Foucault]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think everything ZJ says should be followed. We know why he took early coinflips.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't mean to take this out on you, ninja, but I am getting really sick of seeing comments like this. For one thing, the ZJ hand that OP seems to be referencing here was not early in a tournament, it was very deep, and for that reason likely made without other accounts to fall back on. (IMO this is a specious argument anyway, I'm just saying that it is even less salient in this situation). ZJ was a good poker player, thinker, and writer who was also a cheater. There's no reason to think that everything he ever said about poker is wrong because he was caught multi-accounting. If Doyle Brunson were caught with an Ace up his sleeve at the WSOP, would you burn Super/System? "Of course he raises suited connectors, they turn into pocket A's when he doesn't flop at least a double belly buster with them."

ZJ provided good reasons for his KQ call, none of which had anything to do with having multiple accounts. If you want to disagree with him, respond to his arguments, don't resort to ad homs.

[uclabruinz]

When did I say I would fold QQ to an all-in? If I am holding QQ and put villain on a range that makes me a 60/40 favorite I will call for all my chips almost every time. Do not confuse a refusal to call known coin flips with an unwillingness to exploit significant edges with my tournament life at risk.

[ty2472004]

To clarify my thoughts, I'm not going out of my way to find coinflips. However, if I know i have a coinflip early in a tournament I'm definetely not folding. Also, I'm not saying I'm calling alot of all-ins with QQ or JJ early in tourneys, but folding in positive ev situations is absurd. By gambling earlier in a tourny, you reduce your varaince later in a tourney because you often times have a large stack. A bigger stack gives you more +EV situations as well as allowing you to survive the losing end of coinflips/bad beats late in a tourney. THE GOAL OF A TOURNEY IS NOT SURIVIVAL ITS FIRST PLACE.
PS.- the comments about your ROI is not an attack and congrats on your finishes.

[rockin]

Sorry UCLA, I was probably extrapolating from some posts over the past week. No harm intended. I was just trying to point out that a coin flip is not always a bad thing (for one you dont know for sure you are in a coin flip, but when he flips over AK, well, there you go), especially as someone else pointed out (think it was Foucault), even though you are a coin flip, the pot odds may be offering you 2:1. This is a HUGE edge and MAJOR +EV, even if you know he has AK to your QQ.

[MikeSmith]

its all about your M thats all i will say

[mlagoo]

Just wanted to chime in and say that I really agree with Foucault. I am looking forward to the day that people stop derailing threads with ZJ insults. It is in fact possible to be good at poker and still cheat.

W/R/T to the OP, they are some great threads in this with posts from some top pros in the anthology. The consensus from those pros (the only name that comes to mind is Paul Phillips, but there are others) is that taking every edge is what makes you a good player -- letting edges go because you feel you think you are good enough to wait for better ones is just an excuse to be weak/tight.

[uclabruinz]

As I have said, calling a probably coinflip with a significant overlay is a no brainer. The OP was talking about a situation where you are essentially getting 1:1 on your money and you are in a known 50/50 situation. If you win, you DU, if you lose, you go home.

And ty, in order to get first you have to survive, my friend.

[Foucault]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, your statement that I will have difficulty winning tournaments is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I said is that IF you are looking for spots where you have FE AND an edge when called, then I don't think that is a winning strategy. It isn't clear to me whether my understanding of what you're advocating is correct, and I suspect that given the results you cite, it is not. Didn't mean to insult you, hope it didn't come across that way.

[ QUOTE ]
As to FE, I am looking for spots where there is significant money in the pot and a bet/raise/push is likely to make the villain fold or, if he calls, I am looking decent against his range.

[/ QUOTE ]

I get the theoretical concept. I'm wondering about specifics. My point was that pushing when fold equity + pot equity when Villain calls = 52% is equivalent to calling a push when your equity against Villain's range = 52%. It sounded to me like you were either saying

a) you would take the first situation but not the second; or
b) you would take neither, and would want both significant fold equity and an edge against Villain's calling range to push

Both of those strategies strike me as incorrect, but I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly.