Vegas & The Aftermath - Diary

[kinboshi]

Don't they have t'interweb in Canada?

[snoopy1239]

Re-reading through the debate, my theory, and please correct me if I am wrong as I would hate to make any inaccurate assumptions, is that tikay's fold was based on maintaining a level of self-satisfaction with his night of poker. From what I know of tikay, he loves to play poker, he's never been an all or nothing type of player, and if he can play the whole night and take away a nice sum of money, as many would consider £2,000 to be, then he is satisfied with his night's work and can go home a happy man.

However, if, on one of the very last hands of the night, he makes this call with the A-K and loses the hand, then he leaves with £750 and burdened by the disappointment that the night has ended on a downer. Of course, £750 is a profit, but when he has paid £300 to play, it would be a very disappointing result considering the position he is in. If he folds, though, he guarantees that he goes home a happy man with a genuine sense that he has achieved something that night.

For me, assuming that tikay is playing well within his bankroll and can happily afford to stump up £300, which I suspect he can, the maths and logic say this is a no-brainer. However, tikay did say that this was the right fold for him as an individual, so perhaps in terms of morale and what he was looking to extract from the tournament, it was a good decision as it meant that he went home a happy man rather than a potentially disappointed one.

[TightEnd]

Re-reading through the debate, my theory, and please correct me if I am wrong as I would hate to make any inaccurate assumptions, is that tikay's fold was based on maintaining a level of self-satisfaction with his night of poker. From what I know of tikay, he loves to play poker, he's never been an all or nothing type of player, and if he can play the whole night and take away a nice sum of money, as many would consider £2,000 to be, then he is satisfied with his night's work and can go home a happy man.

However, if, on one of the very last hands of the night, he makes this call with the A-K and loses the hand, then he leaves with £750 and burdened by the  disappointment that the night has ended on a downer. Of course, £750 is a profit, but when he has paid £300 to play, it would be a very disappointing result considering the position he is in. If he folds, though, he guarantees that he goes home a happy man with a genuine sense that he has achieved something that night.

For me, assuming that tikay is playing well within his bankroll and can happily afford to stump up £300, which I suspect he can, the maths and logic say this is a no-brainer. However, tikay did say that this was the right fold for him as an individual, so perhaps in terms of morale and what he was looking to extract from the tournament, it was a good decision as it meant that he went home a happy man rather than a potentially disappointed one.

brilliant stuff Holmes

[Simon Galloway]

Still can't believe the chip count method to deals.  Happy to abide by clearly advertised rules, no problem with that, it is good for a venue to do.  However, there isn't a linear relationship between chips owned and £ due. So whilst it gives a rough and ready approximation of "what you are worth" in a deal, it massively favours the big stack and massively disadvantages the small stack.  Of all the subjective poker discussions on here, this one is demonstrably objective.  To prove the point using an extreme situation, if you have a massive chip stack, your share tends towards first prize, which you would gratefully receive, a la Gosney a few pages back on this discussion.  If you only had a few chips left in a 4 way deal, rather than taking £50 extra, most sane people (who don't deem £50 as life changing that is..) would rather gamble and give themselves a shot at the £5k or whatever.  It is for this reason that there (should be) some shape to the curve, requiring (mainly) first place (and to a lesser extent 2nd and 3rd) to forfeit some of their chip count equity (and in return receiving a risk free payout likely in excess of 2nd place) to the player in 4th place (who gains some chip count equity at the expense of the opportunity cost of not going on to place higher by playing it out.)

So in DTD, regardless of whether it is indicative of being a good player or not, I will always deal in accordance with house rules as chip leader and will never deal as the short stack.

That said, there is a trade off to reach between the "Notts scream-ups" the "ill-feeling" and the "charlatans" that are mathematical able to quickly tune a deal to  maximise their return at the expense of someone else that really needs to deal.  FWIW, I would include myself in the last category, pleasantly allowing someone else to be happy with a bad deal is no different IMHO than making them put down a better hand pre-flop!

[jonah]

it massively favours the big stack and massively disadvantages the small stack.  Of all the subjective poker discussions on here, this one is demonstrably objective.  To prove the point using an extreme situation, if you have a massive chip stack, your share tends towards first prize, which you would gratefully receive, a la Gosney a few pages back on this discussion.  If you only had a few chips left in a 4 way deal, rather than taking £50 extra, most sane people (who don't deem £50 as life changing that is..) would rather gamble and give themselves a shot at the £5k or whatever. 

Isn't that the reason that they insist that "everyone" has to agree?

I won there a few weeks ago and it was the short stacks who were asking for a chip count.  Being the chip leader at the time I was more than happy to oblige.

[Simon Galloway]

Isn't that the reason that they insist that "everyone" has to agree?

I won there a few weeks ago and it was the short stacks who were asking for a chip count.  Being the chip leader at the time I was more than happy to oblige.

I thought that bit was redundant?  I've never heard of a deal being sanctioned where someone didn't agree?

[boldie]

Isn't that the reason that they insist that "everyone" has to agree?

I won there a few weeks ago and it was the short stacks who were asking for a chip count.  Being the chip leader at the time I was more than happy to oblige.

I thought that bit was redundant?  I've never heard of a deal being sanctioned where someone didn't agree?

lmao good point

[jonah]

I thought that bit was redundant?  I've never heard of a deal being sanctioned where someone didn't agree?

If we're all being smart then how about kicking out time when the games not finished?

[technolog]

there isn't a linear relationship between chips owned and £ due. So whilst it gives a rough and ready approximation of "what you are worth" in a deal, it massively favours the big stack and massively disadvantages the small stack.

Doesn't paying everybody 8th place money then pro-rata-ing (?) the rest of the money according to chip stacks flatten the payout and achieve the effect you're after? The winner gets less than 1st place money, 8th place finisher gets more than 8th place money.

[Simon Galloway]

If we're all being smart then how about kicking out time when the games not finished?

there is a world of difference between an elective player deal and a house enforced deal due to closure.  Chip counts are pretty standard everywhere, players are at liberty to adjust their strategy to suit as this time approaches.

Doesn't paying everybody 8th place money then pro-rata-ing (?) the rest of the money according to chip stacks flatten the payout and achieve the effect you're after? The winner gets less than 1st place money, 8th place finisher gets more than 8th place money.

It flattens it for sure.  But it still isnt perfect.  The small stack needs more incentive to give up their (allbeit slim) chance of winning the tourny than the pro rata technique provides.  Likewise, the chip leader should jump at the chance to give away very little £ in order to lock up the lions share.  8 handed, how often do you think the chip leader actually goes on to win it?

[technolog]

8 handed, how often do you think the chip leader actually goes on to win it?

28.72%

What do I win?

[Simon Galloway]

8 handed, how often do you think the chip leader actually goes on to win it?

28.72%

What do I win?

Not as much as you should if you let the chip leader out the door with 40% of the prize pool....

[MANTIS01]

The answer to Tikay's A-K dilemma cannot be found in maths. Don't get me wrong...there is no doubt you can prove that pushing is mathematically correct, and you would win in the long term, but that doesn't mean it is right to push here.

Personally I think maths can hamper some players in grasping the bigger picture. You can't argue with maths so some players can come to rely on it as the definitive answer to every and any situation. But just because an equation can be produced to prove something, it doesn't mean that it MUST guide your decisions.

Poker is a gambling game. As a player you look to identify favourable spots to gamble your chips so you can achieve your own personal objectives. That's it. Maths is a tool that will assist you to this end but I really don't think it should be the dominate force that decides things for you. Most of us play poker for money and in this example Tikay will get £1,200 more for sitting still for a couple of minutes....that's not only an excellent way to earn money but also the right way for him to achieve his own personal objectives. As such folding is the correct decision, a mathmatically flawed decision maybe, but still the overall correct one.

Calling all-in on the bubble of WSOP when you have average chips is a DIFFERENT SITUATION than calling all-in when you have a short stack at the end of the 1st day. The maths will stay the same of course but in one scenario you HAVE to gamble and in the other you don't. All things must be considered. In Tikay's example I'm not risking £1,200 on the turn of five cards with A-K when I can't win the comp outright. It is a favourable gamble for sure but not one that you really have to take on in this situation. Your edge has got you into this position so rather than committing everything to the luck of one hand take that £1,200 and use it to exploit your edge in another game.

[Ironside]

Calling all-in on the bubble of WSOP when you have average chips is a DIFFERENT SITUATION than calling all-in when you have a short stack at the end of the 1st day. The maths will stay the same of course but in one scenario you HAVE to gamble and in the other you don't.

the maths are not the same in the above quote

in 1 hand you are 99.9% likely to make over $10k in the other you are about 10% to make the 10k (although that increases if you double up but no where near as much as 99.9%)

figures are aproximate depending on number of runners number of seasts paid and the size of your average and short stacks

[Longy]

The answer to Tikay's A-K dilemma cannot be found in maths. Don't get me wrong...there is no doubt you can prove that pushing is mathematically correct, and you would win in the long term, but that doesn't mean it is right to push here.

Personally I think maths can hamper some players in grasping the bigger picture. You can't argue with maths so some players can come to rely on it as the definitive answer to every and any situation. But just because an equation can be produced to prove something, it doesn't mean that it MUST guide your decisions.

Poker is a gambling game. As a player you look to identify favourable spots to gamble your chips so you can achieve your own personal objectives. That's it. Maths is a tool that will assist you to this end but I really don't think it should be the dominate force that decides things for you. Most of us play poker for money and in this example Tikay will get £1,200 more for sitting still for a couple of minutes....that's not only an excellent way to earn money but also the right way for him to achieve his own personal objectives. As such folding is the correct decision, a mathmatically flawed decision maybe, but still the overall correct one.

Calling all-in on the bubble of WSOP when you have average chips is a DIFFERENT SITUATION than calling all-in when you have a short stack at the end of the 1st day. The maths will stay the same of course but in one scenario you HAVE to gamble and in the other you don't.  All things must be considered. In Tikay's example I'm not risking £1,200 on the turn of five cards with A-K when I can't win the comp outright. It is a favourable gamble for sure but not one that you really have to take on in this situation. Your edge has got you into this position so rather than committing everything to the luck of one hand take that £1,200 and use it to exploit your edge in another game.

Now Mantis you know i disagree with just about all of this, but i really don't want to get involve in the mud slinging contest that this subjest has caused in the past.

The bolded is wrong without question the maths does change at the bubble vastly making calling all ins is almost always wrong and shoving any two cards can often be correct due to calling ranges being so tight.