Poker Tournament Formula Revisited

[Bang584]

Think about it... let's say Player A has 4000 in chips and Player B has 2000 in chips. If neither player has an edge(they both play the exact same, no adjustments), over the long run, Player A would win twice as often as Player B.

I don't see anything pointless about it... the coin flip examples are used to simulate a game in which no one would have an edge. They show how someone with more chips will be a favorite against someone with fewer chips, unless one of the players has a large enough edge and small enough blinds to overcome their chip disadvantage.

[Deakon]

[ QUOTE ]

It's our policy to recommend those books and products which are good and from which all our readers will benefit from. It's also our policy to steer our readers away from that material which is questionable. You can do a search and find many non-Two Plus Two books that have been recommended by me.

MM

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't need to do any searching. I am aware of your support for other books written with similar subject matter. It's simply a matter of how many times are we going to have to "revisit" information regarding this book.


There are a ton of other books out there that you can steer players away from, but when you start an entirely new thread, it just seems more personal than informative.

Obviously, I am a bystander to these threads as there is more inforamtion to absord daily, than I can find time to reply. It is just my opinion, which we are all entitled to, that I had to throw out a line for the dead horse being beaten. It's nice to see new ideas, whether you support them or not, in the arena of NLHE.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Bang:

For your example to be accurate, you need to figure in the probabilities that Players A and B achieve the results they have, and you also need the probabilities for all other possible outcomes. Once this is done, you can then compute their overall expectation which will be to break even in your example.

best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Deakon:

I see your point. But the reason I decided to revisit was the idea that this book had unique mathematics in it which could not be disputed. So I thought it was important to show that was not the case.

In addition, understanding how to properly frame problems from a probability/gambling standpoint is key to being successful at what it is all of us are interested in. So while I do sort of agree with you that The Poker Tournament Formula has been discussed enough, it still seemed important from my point of view to address this issue.

best wishes,
Mason

[steamboatin]

okay, lets say that player a has more chips than player b, is a better player and bathes on a regular basis whereas player b is a shortstacked donkey with BO. Player B might still win because Donkaments are all luck in the short term.

Only if Player A has the emotional stability to endure mindless beat after mindless beat without losing his mind over a significant number of Donkaments does his edge begin to show.

I like the coin tossing scenarios beause they reflect the huge amount of luck involved in Donkaments.

Before the flame war starts, yes, good players have an edge in Donkaments yes, Donkaments are fun/exciting to play but, if you can't handle massive suckouts, stay away from Donkament play.

[Deakon]

Mr. Malmuth,

And, I see your point as well, sir. You and the people of 2+2 provide valuable information time and again and I value your opinion in regards to these matters of this insane game.

Thank your comments and I hope I did not come off as being offensive in any way.

Keep up the work you do and I look forward to more publications from 2+2 in the future.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Bang:

For your example to be accurate, you need to figure in the probabilities that Players A and B achieve the results they have, and you also need the probabilities for all other possible outcomes. Once this is done, you can then compute their overall expectation which will be to break even in your example.

best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason,

I want to make sure I understand your point here. It appears that you're assuming in Bang's example that the player with 4,000 chips has them due to a re-buy (although I didn't read that into Bang's example, especially in light of his comments just before that in the thred). Assuming A has the chips due to rebuying or adding on then since neither player has an edge Player A would win 2/3 of the time, but would have also contributed 2/3 of the prize pool so he would break even. I think that's what you're saying.

However if this wasn't a rebuy tournament and Player A had acquired the chips part way through the tournament (maybe by knocking out player C who isn't as skilled as either A or B) then at this point (staying with the assumption that A and B are equally skilled) then we would be correct in assessing player A's chances of going on to win the tournament to be about 2/3 or 67%, correct?

Al

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi BigAlK:

Yes. If Player A at some point in a tournament has more chips than Player B then he is a favorite at that instant over Player B. And in your example, Player A does have a 2/3's chance to win the tournament.

best wishes,
Mason

[MicroBob]

(Haven't read Snyder's book)


I'm not sure that analyzing so in-depth in a heads-up scenario should lead us to so many conclusions regarding the value of re-buys in a multi-player field.
However, I'm not intelligent enough to know why so I readily pass the baton to those who are smarter than I am.

But I was kind of surprised to see Mason use the 60/40 example here as being more closely related to pay-out structures in an MTT.

While it's true that the difference between 1st vs 2nd is often not too huge (you'll be pretty happy if you get either) I think about the rest of the tournament pay-out structure including the bottom pay-outs where you pretty much get back your entry-fee if you limp your way into the money.

I thought that most agreed that it is best to play with a 'win at all costs' type mentality because it's higher EV than just playing a weaker game designed to barely get you into the top 10% to make it into the money.


If we assume that it's best to 'play for the win' then wouldn't we also assume something closer to a 100/0 type of structure for these little heads-up coin-flip type demonstrations?


In other words, to simulate an MTT-type pay-out structure in this coin-flipping exercise I don't know why we would look at JUST the difference between 1st vs 2nd.

I would think we should look at the difference between a 1st OR 2nd place finish compared with a 99th or 100th place finish.
And with that perspective, wouldn't a 100/0 pay-out structure apply to the heads-up coin-flipping exercise?


Perhaps there's something from the exercise that I'm missing.

[MicroBob]

Also - I'm glad that Mason is continuing to address this as I find it quite interesting and obviously a lot of 2+2'ers did the first time around as well.


He is not beating down Snyder imo. He is disagreeing with him which he is certainly allowed (and welcome) to do.


It would not surprise me if Mason said that despite some of the flaws he finds in this book that he still believes it can help many players' in their tourney play.