Apathy or unquenched desire?

[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

[WarDekar]

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.

[shaundeeb]

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.

[coltranedog]

[ 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.

[shaundeeb]

war I am pretty sure I am >2x avg to win a 180 If someone has a sharkscope subby can you verify?

[WarDekar]

Anyone that is winning way more than 2x avg is going to have an absurdly high ROI, do you not see that?

[WarDekar]

I maintain that no-one is winning WAY more than 2x avg. Obviously I expect to win more than average, but winning WAY more than 2x avg (which I see as you know, like 4-5x avg) would be a little ridiculous.

I haven't played 180s much but I'm sure I'm probably better than 1/90 to win, but am I 1/45? hell no.

[gobboboy]

[ QUOTE ]
I maintain that no-one is winning WAY more than 2x avg. Obviously I expect to win more than average, but winning WAY more than 2x avg (which I see as you know, like 4-5x avg) would be a little ridiculous.

I haven't played 180s much but I'm sure I'm probably better than 1/90 to win, but am I 1/45? hell no.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a rather large difference between twice as much to win as four times as much to win.

WAY MORE than 2x average to win is something like 2.5x-3x.

[shaundeeb]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone that is winning way more than 2x avg is going to have an absurdly high ROI, do you not see that?

[/ QUOTE ]

wrong it's closer to a reverse bell curve if you are playing more optimally than your opponents. So you can finish 2x avg 1st and will be less then them in other finishing positions. While having a solid ROI not a massively larger ROI. Just because you are winning 2x as often as others you will be finishing less in other places then avg.

[THAY3R]

Did you not see Brandon's earlier post?