#71
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
[ QUOTE ]
ICM clearly shows that it is sometimes best not to make the decision that gives you the best chance of winning the tournament. [/ QUOTE ] right, because at certain points late in the game moves that are +cEV are -$EV due to prize-pool implications. so why won't any of you even acknowledge the possibility that it could work the other way in the early game, when the payouts are far, far away? of course no one is commenting on the matros article or on shaun's post, because those actually express points that agree with the ones i'm trying to make and would cause you to challenge your thinking. so many people use variance as an excuse to not improve. i'm done with this. pm or im me if you want to talk tournament strategy. p.s. bakes - my point was not that "i'm better than you", my point is that if you guys think i do so much [censored] wrong and i still put up a strong ROI, well, i must be doing something right that you aren't to make up for it. i try to explain and offer my thoughts here, but nobody wants them. so you can come find me to get them from now on. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
Shaun, that was a really awesome post.
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
Nath,
The article mentions going allin as a 54% favorite, not a dog. Also, after skimming the article still am not really impressed by the numbers. In most tournamentsI think a good player is more than 59% to double up and way more than 2x avg to win. In general I think almost all of these ideas of gambling for a stack are silly, especially in a tourney like the stars mill. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
[ QUOTE ]
Nath, The article mentions going allin as a 54% favorite, not a dog. Also, after skimming the article still am not really impressed by the numbers. In most tournaments I think a good player is more than 59% to double up and way more than 2x avg to win. In general I think almost all of these ideas of gambling for a stack are silly, especially in a tourney like the stars mill. [/ QUOTE ] O RLY? Just as an example, from the $27.5 buy-in $25k Gtd. on Stars: Entrants: 1347 1st place: $7169 Avg person should win: 1/1347=.07% Your theoretical win %: .14% Assume 15% ITM, any cash not a win is the first cash of $50.51 .15*50.51+.0014*7169-22=17.61 17.61/22=80% ROI This is not even accounting for all other FTs, etc., so me-thinks you haven't thought this through FWIW, not that anyone cares, I'm on nath and shaun's side here. I apply somewhat similar strategies with sports sometimes where if my future EV earning potential is better served by taking a slight -EV gamble now, the overall EV of the move is positive. Situations like these arise in things like tournaments because of the finite nature of things in that we have a certain period (before someone else does it) where we have to accumulate as much as possible (all the chips). |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Nath, The article mentions going allin as a 54% favorite, not a dog. Also, after skimming the article still am not really impressed by the numbers. In most tournaments I think a good player is more than 59% to double up and way more than 2x avg to win. In general I think almost all of these ideas of gambling for a stack are silly, especially in a tourney like the stars mill. [/ QUOTE ] O RLY? Just as an example, from the $27.5 buy-in $25k Gtd. on Stars: Entrants: 1347 1st place: $7169 Avg person should win: 1/1347=.07% Your theoretical win %: .14% Assume 15% ITM, any cash not a win is the first cash of $50.51 .15*50.51+.0014*7169-22=17.61 17.61/22=80% ROI This is not even accounting for all other FTs, etc., so me-thinks you haven't thought this through FWIW, not that anyone cares, I'm on nath and shaun's side here. I apply somewhat similar strategies with sports sometimes where if my future EV earning potential is better served by taking a slight -EV gamble now, the overall EV of the move is positive. Situations like these arise in things like tournaments because of the finite nature of things in that we have a certain period (before someone else does it) where we have to accumulate as much as possible (all the chips). [/ QUOTE ] i read this a bunch of times and all i can come up with is that you feel you poked holes in dan's hypothesis because you'd need an ROI well above 80% to win 2x as often. if that is correct, i imagine when dan is referring to a good player, he means someone who has an roi of like 125%+ at a $25 online mtt. which, correct me if i'm wrong because i'm extremely rusty with mtt stuff, is pretty reasonable for any typical mtt grinder pro |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
0evg0:
My analysis neglected all other finishes other than 1sts which you should've noticed, he also said way more than 2x avg to win Also, I assumed we're talking about bigger tourneys than $25 here, that was merely an example. I just don't think anyone is way more than 2x avg to win in an MTT, sorry. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
brendan I am quite sure many 2+2ers in anything over a 1k field with a resonable structere will be over 2x avg to win. Esp a lag player who ITMs less frequently but ends up getting deep scores more frequently.
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
[ QUOTE ]
0evg0: I just don't think anyone is way more than 2x avg to win in an MTT, sorry. [/ QUOTE ] I couldn't disagree more. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
war I am pretty sure I am >2x avg to win a 180 If someone has a sharkscope subby can you verify?
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
Anyone that is winning way more than 2x avg is going to have an absurdly high ROI, do you not see that?
|
|
|