Jump to content

matros' cardplayer article


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You didn't understand my post.
Thanks for answering the simple questions anyway.
I don't know if this was sarcasm or not....BUT...my post was self explanatory...I just posted an example of a "system" that was as ridiculous as flipping a coin on the first hand and how the math would back it up.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You didn't understand my post.
Thanks for answering the simple questions anyway.
I don't know if this was sarcasm or not....BUT...my post was self explanatory...I just posted an example of a "system" that was as ridiculous as flipping a coin on the first hand and how the math would back it up.
No, your "system" was nonsensical, but flipping a coin on the first hand is perfectly reasonable.Surely you think you have some equity with 10k starting stacks in a tournament of 1000.Surely you also think you have some equity with a 20k stack in a tournament of 999 where everyone else has a 10k stack.Surey the second is larger than the first.Is it 1.86 times as large? Is it 3.11 times as large?
Link to post
Share on other sites
No, your "system" was nonsensical, but flipping a coin on the first hand is perfectly reasonable.Surely you think you have some equity with 10k starting stacks in a tournament of 1000.Surely you also think you have some equity with a 20k stack in a tournament of 999 where everyone else has a 10k stack.Surey the second is larger than the first.Is it 1.86 times as large? Is it 3.11 times as large?
You really didn't understand it.My system is as reasonable as calling allin on a coin flip for 10k total when you have $50 in the pot.Get it now? They both accomplish the same thing....
Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose the ironically named "doublemeup" is this confused because he's correctly observed that doubling up early doesn't guarantee you anything. If you need guarantees in life then you should be an insurance agent, not a poker player. Understanding EV requires visualizing the whole universe of possibilities from a fixed point in time. If all you ever see are actual results then you will never understand EV. Winning doesn't happen in a vacuum, and neither does losing.
See, this is where I think Matros misses the boat. I agree that it is definitely to your advantage to take the queens in this case and try to double and press your advantages when you have them. I also agree that mathematically it is to your advantage to do so. Where I don't agree, however, is that it is correct for EVERYONE to do so. He feels that it is absolutely the right play whoever you are, without factoring any outside factors such as playing style, ability to handle a large stack, and the background of the player.Personally, would I take the coinflip the first hand? Hell no. When I make the WSOP (and I plan to go next year) I have 3 goals in mind, in sequential order. First, I want to survive the first day. Second, I want to make the money. And third, I want to see how deep I can go. Does this mean that I will be sacrificing value for survival? Yes, it absolutely does. Am I fine with this? Absolutely.And Paul, you would be an absolutely welcome and amazing addition to this forum. May this issue hopefully spark your interest and keep you coming back.
Link to post
Share on other sites

All you guys saying that 'risking' your entire stack is ridiculous are goign about refuting Matt the wrong way. Don't confuse your risk aversion with a =EV play. In a cash game, this is simply a +EV play no matter what. The real question is what is your tournament EV with a 20k stack 53% of the time and what is your EV with a 9950 stack 100% of the time. Imagine 3 triplets all playing in the same tournament. Their play is identical. You must assume that they have an edge. If they don't, then this whole argument is reversed. Would you rather have the prize money of 2 of the triplets each with 9950 or the last triplet who has 20000? The 2 triplets with the shorter stacks combine to see twice as many hands to apply their edge as the last with 20000.Here is where matt left out some important points. He talks about the 20k stack having a greater advantage over his opponents, and sureley he does. BUT does this edge per hand double? It needs to, because the 2 triplets will be seeing twice as many hands as the last triplet. And for all you retards out there, i know that, 3 triplets wouldn't play exactly the same etc., etc. But this is a hypothetical situation or in other words a model to illustrate some important points. It can be argued that the last triplet will last longer and will eventually see double the hands, but I really doubt that this is true at any point in the tournament due to the rising blind structure. It would mean that the 20k stack would have to average 4 times the number of hands as the 10k stack. This just can't be true.I've heard that Tom Mcevoy wrote about how when you have a bigger stack, your chips are worth less per prize money value to you than each chip to a short stack. This is the perfect situation to apply that concept...Doubling your stack does not double your prize money EV due to the prize structure and the blind structure.It comes down to this: Is EV of average 20k stack + (the edge per hand (in prize money) of the 20k stack) x (average number of hands seen by 20k) greater than EV of average 10k stack + (edge per hand of 10k stack) x (average number of hands seen by 10k) x (2). I really doubt the 20k stack is within 50 chips as Matt suggests.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It can be argued that the last triplet will last longer and will eventually see double the hands, but I really doubt that this is true at any point in the tournament due to the rising blind structure. It would mean that the 20k stack would have to average 4 times the number of hands as the 10k stack. This just can't be true.
If you're interested this subject has been covered in vast, vast detail over the years, many times and in many places.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It can be argued that the last triplet will last longer and will eventually see double the hands, but I really doubt that this is true at any point in the tournament due to the rising blind structure. It would mean that the 20k stack would have to average 4 times the number of hands as the 10k stack. This just can't be true.
If you're interested this subject has been covered in vast, vast detail over the years, many times and in many places.
Is that you Paul? Extempore?
Link to post
Share on other sites

if train A leaves chicago at 10 o'clock ah nevermind if you know you have the best of it why not put your money in there is always a trn next week your gonna have to flip coins at some point in the trn might as well do it when you know you have the right side of the coin flip.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No, your "system" was nonsensical, but flipping a coin on the first hand is perfectly reasonable.Surely you think you have some equity with 10k starting stacks in a tournament of 1000.Surely you also think you have some equity with a 20k stack in a tournament of 999 where everyone else has a 10k stack.Surey the second is larger than the first.Is it 1.86 times as large? Is it 3.11 times as large?
You really didn't understand it.My system is as reasonable as calling allin on a coin flip for 10k total when you have $50 in the pot.Get it now? They both accomplish the same thing....
I can't see how they do if. If doubling up increases your equity by a factor of at least 1.86 then calling the coin flip is the correct decision. If it increases your equity by less than that amount then the correct decision is to fold. That's the trivial math.There are no assumptions being made or "systems" proposed. If X is your equity with a 9950 stack and 1000 players with ~10k and Y is your equity with a 20k stack and 999 players with ~10k then the decision is as simple as:Equity if we fold: XEquity if we call: 0.538*Y + 0.462*0Hence:if 1.86*X < Y: CALLelse: FOLDNow X and Y are different for different people and hence different people will get different answers, but the math is clear.You can make things become more complicated by adding other factors of course... Is your time actually worth something? If so then you might call if your equity increase is a little less, since going out early frees up your time to do other things which has some value and hence means the equity in the losing half of the calculation becomes non-zero.
Link to post
Share on other sites
devil offers:1) pay $10,000 for 100% chance to play in 1000 man tournament with 10,000 chips2) pay $10,000 for 50% chance to play in 999 man tournament with 20,000 chipsehhh... #1 please.
this thinking is completely wrong....where does it stop?"oh, i'll fold these aces against that allin first hand because i'll only have an 80% chance of being in a 999 player tourney, instead of a 100% chance of being in a 1000 player tourney"
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what's going on here is that people are overestimating the value of getting to play and have a good time, as well as overestimating the value of their skill "edge". What Matros showed through his article, is that the typical skill edge doesn't amount to consistently getting your chips in as more than a 53% favorite. He's basically showing that a player who gets them in on that basis has an EV of 5x the buyin, due to the amount of times that they'll get their chips in over the course of the tournament, so if your EV for the tournament is only 1.5x the buyin, it would be advantageous, to put your chips in as a 53% favorite, and would make you more money in the long run.Also, (while the math here is a little bit more guesswork) Matros also points out that having a big stack gains you extra EV. Anyone who's played a significant number of MTT knows this to be true, as not only can you use this stack to maximize your edge when getting all-in; but you can use all the extra chips as a weapon once you get around the bubble.Basically, he's just pointing out that being risk-averse in the first few levels of a tournament costs you EV.Now people are saying things like, well if I signed up for a $10,000 buy-in tournament, I'd want to play more. Well, that's one thing if you're playing for fun, and trying to do the maximum to preserve your buy-in because you can't really afford to play at that level. However, if you were a tournament pro that plays $10,000 buy-in events all the time, and is doing it solely to win money, then you wouldn't want to sacrifice the EV. Likewise, even in gaining experience, you do better to have a chance to win the tournament.I think for the argument to really make sense to people, you have to bring it down to their level. Imagine your playing a tournament on your level. You have an edge in the tournament, but it's not huge, and it's not a once a year type of event for you to go and play. Just think of your typical online tourney where you're playing to win as much money as possible and realize that taking a similar situation would gain you value in the long run.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think for the argument to really make sense to people, you have to bring it down to their level. Imagine your playing a tournament on your level. You have an edge in the tournament, but it's not huge, and it's not a once a year type of event for you to go and play. Just think of your typical online tourney where you're playing to win as much money as possible and realize that taking a similar situation would gain you value in the long run.
Very good post. I had been trying to convey this point, although you did it in a much more straightforward answer.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think what's going on here is that people are overestimating the value of getting to play and have a good time, as well as overestimating the value of their skill "edge". What Matros showed through his article, is that the typical skill edge doesn't amount to consistently getting your chips in as more than a 53% favorite. He's basically showing that a player who gets them in on that basis has an EV of 5x the buyin, due to the amount of times that they'll get their chips in over the course of the tournament, so if your EV for the tournament is only 1.5x the buyin, it would be advantageous, to put your chips in as a 53% favorite, and would make you more money in the long run.Also, (while the math here is a little bit more guesswork) Matros also points out that having a big stack gains you extra EV. Anyone who's played a significant number of MTT knows this to be true, as not only can you use this stack to maximize your edge when getting all-in; but you can use all the extra chips as a weapon once you get around the bubble.Basically, he's just pointing out that being risk-averse in the first few levels of a tournament costs you EV.Now people are saying things like, well if I signed up for a $10,000 buy-in tournament, I'd want to play more. Well, that's one thing if you're playing for fun, and trying to do the maximum to preserve your buy-in because you can't really afford to play at that level. However, if you were a tournament pro that plays $10,000 buy-in events all the time, and is doing it solely to win money, then you wouldn't want to sacrifice the EV. Likewise, even in gaining experience, you do better to have a chance to win the tournament.I think for the argument to really make sense to people, you have to bring it down to their level. Imagine your playing a tournament on your level. You have an edge in the tournament, but it's not huge, and it's not a once a year type of event for you to go and play. Just think of your typical online tourney where you're playing to win as much money as possible and realize that taking a similar situation would gain you value in the long run.
Matros used the "average player" for his computation, and the average player by definition would have no skill edge (over the field), understand? That's the problem with his computation, because (and this is conjecture) in the average tournament field I'd guess that 20% of the field would be made up of skilled players, another 20% of the field would be made up of average players, and the remaining 60% would be poor. And I do agree that playing tight in the early stages of a tournament costs you EV, because that's when the majority of the poor players will bust, and therefore, you'd be better served playing pots with them, as you hold the biggest skill edge over them. What I was saying, is that the mean would be the wrong measure to use in this calculation, because of the distribution of skill in the tournament field is so uneven.
Link to post
Share on other sites

First I apologize for bringing this topic back up.I just recently noticed something that Matros failed to bring up in his article. He mentions that one of the arguments for folding is "If you’re a good player, you want to use your skill to find a better spot to get your chips in." However, he never covers in his article the times when a player well make the laydown, find a better spot to get his chips in with and still lose.For example, a player folds in a 55/45 situation (which Matros states is incorrect) and then then next hands finds himself in a 75/25 situation. The player has successfully found a better situation but will still fail to double up.I think that this makes the coinflip situations more marginal than he describes or even possibly incorrect.As an aside, I do not claim to possess either the amount of poker knowledge or skill that Matros had, I just thought it was a point to be further discussed.Edited to add that this may be more applicable to tournaments with a lower skill level than those that Matros usually plays.

Link to post
Share on other sites
First I apologize for bringing this topic back up.I just recently noticed something that Matros failed to bring up in his article. He mentions that one of the arguments for folding is "If you’re a good player, you want to use your skill to find a better spot to get your chips in." However, he never covers in his article the times when a player well make the laydown, find a better spot to get his chips in with and still lose.For example, a player folds in a 55/45 situation (which Matros states is incorrect) and then then next hands finds himself in a 75/25 situation. The player has successfully found a better situation but will still fail to double up.I think that this makes the coinflip situations more marginal than he describes or even possibly incorrect.As an aside, I do not claim to possess either the amount of poker knowledge or skill that Matros had, I just thought it was a point to be further discussed.Edited to add that this may be more applicable to tournaments with a lower skill level than those that Matros usually plays.
how does this make it even more wrong to lay the queens down?basically, from what i get of your post, you say "if someone decides not to take a marginal edge, and instead waits for a big edge, and still loses with the big edge, it proves that it's a good idea not to try to double up earlier"?imo, if you take the chance with the queens and double up, then happen to lose the allin when you're 75%, you're still alive (unless the other guy had already doubled up as well) with as many chips as you would have had without the doubleup.
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

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...