Odds and the $10 Million STT

[happybhoy]

This could very well be a daft question but in my defence maths was never my strong point.
After much work with slide rules, calculators, abacuses and bits of paper I understand that if your facing a 100 bet at a 400 pot and you have a 25% chance of hitting an out then this is a +EV bet as (statistic anomalies and implied odds aside) the 3 times you lose 100 are covered by the 500 you make the 1 time you hit it. Basically it relies on the fact that you get to play this situation out many times. In the proposed $10 million stt is this not altered by the fact that you will not necessarily get the chance to play this out the requisite X amount of times? In the above example, if you were only to play it once is it still the correct play?

[matt674]

Which is why in tournament play a move that has a +ev isnt necessarily the correct play - especially if your tournament life depends on it.

[happybhoy]

I've read that before but I've yet to be convinced of it. I'm not saying that I'm right, infact I'm quite happy to believe I'm wrong but there is a difference between believing something is correct and knowing it. If I'm on the bubble in a $5 MTT with that +EV play, I can understand how, in this tournament, it can be incorrect but if I think I'm going to be on the bubble facing this situation enough times in the long run - is it not just an extension of normal odds/EV thinking in that the 3 times I bust out the tourney are covered by the 1 time I give myself a shot at first place?

[Swordpoker]

I used to always call a big bet in tourneys if I thought I had at least a 60% chance of winning. I've changed my ways now because:

Let's say in a tournament I am faced with that situation 5 times, and each time has the potential to put me out of the tourney. To stay in I would need to win 5 60:40 shots in a row which actually has a probability of 8 out of 100.

I much prefer to be the one initiating the betting in these situations now as the odds of winning are far increased as there is a likelyhood of the other guy folding. And if they do call I still have my 60% chance of winning.

This does mean that I am often laying down the best hand in the name of survival.

Comments please......

[matt674]

but in tournaments you are likely to be faced with an -ev/+ev dilemma on numerous occasions. Say there are 3 times during a tournament before you have made it into the money that you are facing making a decision where you are certain that you are only a 25% favourite but you are getting more than 3-1 your money but the decision is going to cost you either all your chips or it will cripple you out of the tourney. If you decide to take the chance on all 3 occasions because you are getting +ev the chances of you surviving all three hands is just 1.56% (0.25x0.25x0.25=0.015625).

Yes you are getting +ev every time but the chances of you being out of the tournament is a whopping 98.44% for these three decisions alone - add into this equation all the other times when you're tournament life is on the line and the chances of you making the money are very very slim.

What you have to ask yourself is - "is it worth me taking these chances on a continuous basis for the prizes that are on offer?" Chances are for most MTT's the answer would be no.

[happybhoy]

Yeah, that makes sense, cheers. (Note to self re-raise those flush draws on the bubble).

I owe you a banana.

[matt674]

I owe you a banana.

Have to be careful there - monkey has a good memory and never forgets banana debts i'll be at the next blonde bash

[happybhoy]

True, the thought of getting onto the slippery slope of banana debt is not very apeeling (i wonder if hamilton accies need a new comedian).

[matt674]

although saying that i did hear that the Hamilton comedian was bad - fortunately we left after the quiz