Response to Sklansky's article "Chips Changing Value in Tournaments"

[Shandrax]

Snyder calling Sklansky's logic flawed and Sklansky calling Snyder the most overrated gambling authority ever to walk on earth shows makes me feel that some feelings got hurt along the line.

About the overall theoretical argument, I think despite all the fuzz about it, it doesn't matter. Even if someone may be right with his conclusions within the boundaries his model, the model may not be good enough to emulate the real situation.

Negreanu, Juanda, Lindgren and our forum-buddy Raymer have all shown and continue to show that tournament poker is all about having a big stack. If that's not in line with a certain chip model, you may have adjust your model, because you will hardly be able to adjust reality the way you need it to be to win that argument.

[David Sklansky]

"Negreanu, Juanda, Lindgren and our forum-buddy Raymer have all shown and continue to show that tournament poker is all about having a big stack."

At least three of those four players (and probably all four) are FULLY AWARE that above a moderately small threshold, their EV does not increase as fast as their chips do.

It is starting to get mind boggling how many people can't understand simple logic.

[Jbrochu]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that she could DERIVE the explanation. Only that she could understand it. To derive it she would have to be seven.

[/ QUOTE ]

nh, [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Shandrax]

Ok...let's try simple logic then.

Let's assume the relation between chips and EV as described has an impact on practical play. If that's the case and Snyder is wrong and Negreanu, Juanda, Lindgren and Raymer are playing almost exactly like recommended by Snyder, they must be doing something wrong also. I don't see that.

The other possibility is that Snyder's recommendations seem to work despite obviously violating the theoretical relation between chips and EV. In this case the whole theory wouldn't have any impact on practical play and therefore be rather worthless. From a practical standpoint, this outcome would make any further discussion about it obsolete.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
C'mon Al. I've shown you the proof on two different occasions.

You've already stated:

[ QUOTE ]
I understand the logic behind your contention that this can't be true when heads up, but I've gone through the latest article twice and can't find anywhere that makes this claim specifically for heads up situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

So why make such a silly statement?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is a feeble attempt at humor a valid defense?

Let me clarify my current thoughts on heads up situations and my quoted statement. The combined EV of the players left can't be more than the amount of prize money still at stake. When heads up we're in a winner take all situation. If we were flipping coins I beleive everyone is in agreement that there would be a direct proportional relationship between percentage of chips in a stack and our EV would be an equal percentage of the prize money at stake.

The question is whether, even for someone who believes in Snyder's utility value theory, if utility value can exist once you've reached a heads up situation. When I made that response I wasn't thinking in terms of utility value although in re-reading it I can clearly see that when you're talking about EV (or SV or whatever) in the post I was responding to that you're including any utility value that might exist. I didn't remember Snyder even discussing utility value in a heads up situation (obviously in the Tomko vs Phillips story he is).

Your proof shows that when heads up with extreme stack sizes utility value ceases to be a factor. I think most participants in this discussion who believe the utility value theory has merit (including me) have agreed that this phenomenom could exert itself prior to a match reaching heads up. At some stack size one player could reach a point where UV would become less and less of a factor. An additional chip would add an infintesimal amount of UV to the stack and the average UV per chip in the stack would decrease.

I'm not sure whether utility value exists heads up at less extreme stack sizes. I'm actually leaning towards thinking not, but not totally convinced. In any case I don't think the answer (or even understanding the answer) is so simple that a 5 year old could understand it.

Al

[trojanrabbit]

[ QUOTE ]
An equal-skill tournament analysis would lead us to believe that if only two players remained at a final table, with one player holding 90% of the chips and the other holding 10%, the player with 10% would still have a 10% chance of winning the event. In fact, if these players were flipping coins to determine the winner, that would be true. But it’s not true if the player with the bigger chip stack is a skilled tournament player who understands how to use his chips. In this case, the player with only 10% of the chips has almost no chance of winning, even if that player with 10% of the chips matches the skill level of his opponent.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Snyder actually believes this, he will have no problem accepting this. I will challenge Snyder (or anyone else) to this tournament:

I will play HU with 10% of the chips, but I only have to put up 5% of the prize money.

We can play with blinds of 100/200. I'll have 600 chips and you can have 5400.

The challenge is open.

Tysen

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
We can play with blinds of 100/200. I'll have 600 chips and you can have 5400.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you'd be starting with 3 big blinds?

[Shandrax]

Sorry, but I am not good at simple logic, so I fail to see your point.

You have to double up more than 3 times to win and even if you get the better side of 3 coinflips (0.55%) you chances are 0.45 x 0.45 x 0.45 = 0.091 and if we add the remaining fraction, you are about 7% to win. Anyone with a calculator and logarithm function may want to help out.

Of course you are thinking that 7% of first prize plus 93% of second prize money is huge in comparison to your 5% buyin, but look at it from the other guys perspective. He is getting about 93% first prize and 7% second prize money, so that's even better.

Your mistake is that you seem to forget that your opponent paid just 5% of the prize-money also while the rest of the money came from the guys who already busted out. So this is not only +EV for you, but HUGE +EV for him also.

In fact everyone should accept this sort of challenge. Even a trained monkey would have positive EV here. The only guys who lose are those who have to cover the other 90% of the prize-pool.

[trojanrabbit]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact everyone should accept this sort of challenge. Even a trained monkey would have positive EV here. The only guys who lose are those who have to cover the other 90% of the prize-pool.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I'm talking about a HU tourney. Essentially I'm laying 1-to-19 that I can win a tourney with 10% of the chips. Since I'd start out crippled with only 3BB and my opponent has a healthy stack I must have "almost no chance of winning" right? So a no-brainer for my opponent to take my challenge.

Tysen

[David Sklansky]

"If that's the case and Snyder is wrong and Negreanu, Juanda, Lindgren and Raymer are playing almost exactly like recommended by Snyder, they must be doing something wrong also"

Who said they are playing that way?