Jump to content

Coinflips In Tournaments And Sklansky's Theorum Of Poker


Recommended Posts

In a cash game, coinflips = Neutral EV because there are no other considerations other than pure monetary value.In a tournament however, you are playing with T$ to win real $, so when you make a neutral EV play for your whole stack you're basing the decision on the risk reward of winning/losing a flip in terms of real $ in relation to T$.A good example of this is the thread by Marco which sparked some debate partly about this situation.What i'm asking is, when do we want to take flips for our tournament life? The assumptions for this is that the play is exactly EV neutral so if you did the same thing a 100 times you'd wouldn't win or lose anything in T dollars, but half the time you'd be out of the tournament and half the time you'd double up.The answer to this ofc changes by our chip position, M, payout structure, number of entrants etc. so feel free to make up your own permutations for when it is right/wrong to take a flip for your tournament life.If you don't fully understand what i'm asking about, post what you don't get so i can try and explain it better because i know this might seem a bit complicated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are knowingly passing up an edge, you have to be able to justify it. Firstly you have to know you are one of the best players at the table, and you also have to already be in a good position to expect to accumulate chips.I also happen to think that for many players, doubling up in a neutral cEV situation can be very +$EV in many cases. The added benefit of the freedom to bully and dominate the table can definitely add a good amount of $EV on top of the absolute chip value. This effect will be more pronounced for a player like Negreanu or Gavin Smith, and less so for players like Ferguson or Harrington who tend to play more conservatively.If you have a big stack bully causing problems, it will almost always be correct to take a pure neutral cEV decision to gamble against them, especially if winning the hand would restrict their ability to play loosely. You would suddenly engineer a greater cEV game dynamic in the tournament.Oh, one other thing is that you show you're willing to gamble, and you aren't going to let yourself get run over.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can definitely apply ICM to this situation, so basically it works out like this.Any time your EV from calling is greater than your EV from folding then it is correct to call.For example,It is on the bubble in a $10+$1 STT, stacks are like this:UTG 5000MP1 5000SB 2000BB (us) 1500Blinds are 250/500.if you are exactly 50/50 and you know it you can call here all day long.Three things can happen:You call and win {5000, 5000, 500, 3000}Call and lose: {5000, 5000, 3500, 0}Fold: {5000, 5000, 2500, 1000}50% of the time you'll win, and your EV will be $24.498750% of the time you'll lose, and your EV will be $0If you fold, your EV will be $9.5404($24.4987 * .5) = $12.24935As you can see, your EV from folding is lower than your EV from calling, so you call.One thing though, if the blinds were smaller and folding was less penal to your stack, folding would have a better EV than calling.Also, there is no 250/500 blind level in pokerstars STTs, but it is suitable for the example.Edit: someone with better understanding of this concept should check my math, I used this calculator: http://www.pokerhelper.com/icm-calculator.php and refered to the examples in the article to make my analysis

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the guiding principle in such situations should be to have a big enough stack to get full value for your good hands and/or to be get people to fold by pushing all in. So if you have a low M, you should be willing to take coinflips, but if your stack is already large, you should be less eager to gamble.Although I also think there are meta-game benefits to being seen as a player who is ready to take risks, so that pushes the scales somewhat towards flipping.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post AimHigher, i'm not sure about the math as i suck at it, but that really helps.Another food for thought question(stolen from 2+2)-Of these choices what do you chose and why, 1) Double up your stack at the start of the tournament every time or 2) Every time you reach a FT, your stack will double.What would you chose for a 180 man SNG, and what would you chose for a large field major tournament like the Super Tuesday(1k runners)? What variables are important in the equation?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Great post AimHigher, i'm not sure about the math as i suck at it, but that really helps.Another food for thought question(stolen from 2+2)-Of these choices what do you chose and why, 1) Double up your stack at the start of the tournament every time or 2) Every time you reach a FT, your stack will double.What would you chose for a 180 man SNG, and what would you chose for a large field major tournament like the Super Tuesday(1k runners)? What variables are important in the equation?
The OP has nothing to do with the fundamental theorem of poker. That aside, there are far too many variables to come up with a comprehensive answer.To this question, 2>1 unless youre super short in 2. Doubling up early doesnt do that much to your $eV. Doubling a reasonable stack at the FT is very likely to move you up at least one pay position.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...