Apathy or unquenched desire?

[NHFunkii]

no, that statement (as well as a couple others you've made) is simply an incorrect generalization

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
no, that statement (as well as a couple others you've made) is simply an incorrect generalization

[/ QUOTE ]
and you (as well as a couple other people who do this every time i post) simply tell me i'm wrong without telling me why. it's cool though. don't ever challenge yourself to re-examine your game. keep thinking of me as the crazy ranter person. [censored] i knew there's a reason i never even bother discussing strat on this forum anymore. bunch of inflexible thinkers who think they have it all figured out.

[NHFunkii]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
no, that statement (as well as a couple others you've made) is simply an incorrect generalization

[/ QUOTE ]
and you (as well as a couple other people who do this every time i post) simply tell me i'm wrong without telling me why. it's cool though. don't ever challenge yourself to re-examine your game. keep thinking of me as the crazy ranter person. [censored] i knew there's a reason i never even bother discussing strat on this forum anymore. bunch of inflexible thinkers who think they have it all figured out.

[/ QUOTE ]

the reason that statement was an incorrect generalization is because of the fact that it is not winner take all. ICM clearly shows that it is sometimes best not to make the decision that gives you the best chance of winning the tournament. If you really want a concrete example I can give you one, but that should be clear enough.

And no, I don't think I have it all figured out.

edit: the other blatantly incorrect generalization I was talking about was:

[ QUOTE ]
ANY time you think you can make people fold, you should.

[/ QUOTE ]

again, if you really want me to think of an example for this I will, but it's pretty clear. I'm not trying to be pedantic here, but I just hate when you go off on these rants and make silly generalizations, even if you do have a point underneath.

[stealthmunk]

GIGABLOCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKS

THE CHIPS FLOW LIKE A RIVER AND I AM THE DAMN, THE [censored] DAMN. WAFFLE CRUSH

[nath]

[ 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.

[flyingmoose]

Shaun, that was a really awesome post.

[KingDan]

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.

[WarDekar]

[ 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).

[0evg0]

[ 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

[kleath]

[ 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 ]

ICM is also not the end all be all of equity calculation, even in SNGs there are situations where you should be ignoring ICM(not even that uncommon), I think if someone REALLY did a lot of work in the field of math for MTTs it would be shown ICM doesnt apply nearly as much as most think it does. cEV is just a crutch used in general, I dont think anyone really has a full grasp of what various stack sizes are worth though I think some people have an idea, there are so many variables its a truly interesting problem. Good discussion going on in this thread, I like it.

Also I think it was a really REALLY low class move for nath to post dbs, though I agree somewhat with his underlying point relating to tournament equity.