Numbers Up

[peterbirks]

On "Lost" tonight, we learn about Harley, the fat guy. It transpires that he won the lottery, but suffered all sorts of other bad luck. When this episode was shown in the US (and it is quite a good episode) many thousands of people used those numbers the next time they played the lottery.

I mean, now, how stupid is that? I suppose that you have to allow for the fact that the average week-in, week-out player of the lottery is going to score lower on the intelligence equivalent of the Saffir-Simpson Scale (say "a mild breeze") than the general populus. But, what is going through their heads? Do they think that no-one else watches the programme, that the TV is talking to them, personally? Are they unaware that, should by some miracle the numbers come up, they are likely to win the grand sum of a tenner, despite hitting a 13 million-to-one shot?

+++++

Speaking of stictch-ups, the Gutshot "it could be YOU!!!" WSOP satellite has shifted more towards "it might be you, but we're doing our best to make sure it isn't". If you get through the cheapo satellite to the £200 big one, you suddenly find yourself playing a freeze-out, while everyone else is playing a rebuy tournament.

As it happens, the popular view that this is an unfair disadvantage is wrong. Provided you allow for the changes in the way other people play, and provided you do not go into survivalist mode from the off, your EV is actually higher. The common moan is "other players with deep pockets can take risks, but I have to fold". Well, no, you don't (have to fold). You can call. "But if I call and lose, I'm out!" So, enter another satellite. Because if you don't call, you are even more certain to lose. It will just take a little longer.

Oh hell, we've been here before. Perhaps I'll write my long "How to make a profit in rebuy tournaments by playing cards properly" piece one day. The clue comes, once again from the cash game. As Mike Caro wrote. "I have a perfect strategy to maximise the number of pots you win. Just play every hand, right to the end."

Now, apply that to rebuys. I have a perfect strategy to maximise your number of rebuy tournament wins. Just go all-in on every hand before the end of the rebuy period.

Alternatively, you can maximize your profit by playing properly, adapting to other players' different styles in the rebuy period (e.g., assume that you are at a table of maniacs for an hour, and then assume that you are at a table of rocks) but sticking to correct play.

There are published books out there that say "during the rebuy period you can afford to take those 60:40 shots, but when the rebuys end, you can't" and that you "don't play unless you can afford to rebuy twice".

It's all bollocks. One £50 tourney with two rebuys, or three £50 tourneys on separate nights? No difference in positive EV, provided you play correctly according to the circumstances.

Comments

[destiny2909.livejournal.com]

If you know loads of Lost spoilers, please don't mention them here... Or I may cry. I love Lost.

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Whoops, sorry: Well, not much more given away than was in the trailers in the TV ....

I downloaded all the episodes when they were shown on ABC. So I've been very good so far. I mean, I could have said at the end of episode one how it would all pan out.

Now, that would have been cruel...


PJ

[787style.livejournal.com]

It almost worked:

http://www.lotto.ie/prizes_results/prizes.asp?date=26/11/05&draw_date=Nov+19+2005

(The actual numbers are 4 8 15 16 23 42)

[(Anonymous)]

I'll steer clear of the rebuy/freezeout debate - I wonder what if any, given such a large population size, were subbliminal choices (in the lotto)?

chaos

[(Anonymous)]

One of my claims to fame was coming 3 or 4th in the UB freeroll of 25% of Phil H's winnings (this was a bad year for PH, unfortunately) . These were a freeroll, based on the number of UB points u had collected. This meant that everyone sat down with wildly different levels of chips, some monsterous stacks, some pee wee. And the folks with the big stacks had a huge advantage. I dont think this is too different a situation from that facing a player at the end of the rebuy period.

gl

dd

[(Anonymous)]

Just a little addition...

One non-technical argument to bear in mind is that if your advice assumes a rational model of the human mind, then it has a good chance of being wrong. In this case if your population will make more irrational errors when in a freezeout scenario, then you'd do well to advise them to have rebuys on hand, even if it makes no difference to the EV of the rationally minded. It is perhaps best/easier to put effort into optimising/managing our irrationalties than making them rational.

[(Anonymous)]

~ chaos

LOST

[-iggy.livejournal.com]

i wanna know how hurley isnt losing weight after nearly two months on the damn island. i've assumed that he's feeding on the corpses. they really oughta show that....

Rationality

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Broad brush comments are probably not a good thing to write first thing in the morning when you have lots of work to do, and I would definitely add millions of riders to my earlier comment. One of these would be that, of course, since the value of chips is proportionately higher when you have fewer than average, your fifty quid rebuy gets you more equity than if you walked away and sat down in a new tournament.

I would never disagree that people with a big stack have a huge advantage, and empirically this canot be denied. But have you noticed how Hellmuth is performing so much more poorly now that he is being called down? If you are playing in weak tournaments, one reason the big stacks have an advantage is because their bets get enormous folding equity. I know that I am tilting at windmills here, because much of my argument is theoretical rather than related to the world of "real tournaments" (where you get things like travelling time to and from the tournament, survivalist mentalities, people for whom any prize money is 50 times their original stake, and so on). All these things serve to benefit the big stack, and can make playing riskily to reach that big stack (where "riskily" = less than 50% shots) worthwhile.

In a sense, I'm proposing an alternative strategy, rather than recommending one that is the best given today's playing conditions.

It's a simple strategy and it's one that I was pleased to hear Greg Raymer propounding. Make what you think is the best play given the hand you hold, and let your stack and your performance in the tournament take care of itself. In other words, don't say "I need to get a big stack pretty quickly, so I'll punt a 45% chance here". Equally, don't say "I'm 85% certain I'm in front here, but if I'm wrong, I'm out, so I'll fold".

How often do you hear players say "I'd gone nowhere for two hours so I needed to get active". I think that this is putting the cart before the horse.

Of course, much of this represents my own style, and what succeeds for one player doesn't succeed for others. One day, one day, I'm going to really sit down and think about tournaments, because I remain convinced that a large part of the conventional wisdom is fundamentally wrong - it just happens to be right for the way most people play at the moment.

If that makes any sense at all.

PJ

Re: Rationality

[(Anonymous)]

Pete,

My view on rebuy tourneys is not connected to today's conditions at all, but rather those that existed back in 90's when I used to play them. If anything it was more effective then, as bullying was more likely to succeed, and fields were smaller. Another significant reason why big stacks are best, which is hard to measure, is simply that it gives you room to be unlucky, or make a mistake. Lastly, I would add that the big stack strange attractor may play a part (tip of hat to chaos.)

Back when I played, and won, those things on a regular basis, the most successful players were clearly those who played loose in the rebuy period. Interstingly I was known as the "white Ali Mallu" :)

gl

dd

Re: Rationality

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Ahh, but there are no real stats available on these live games. I'm not denying that what you are saying is true, but I think it may be less true than you are stating.

Clearly if you have a loose strategy during the rebuy tournaments then you are going to get into the prize money more often than a player who plays his normal game and then goes home without rebuying, or than the player who plays his normal game, but who is willing to rebuy.

Let's take average entry fee for LP as 3, average entry fee for NP as 1.5 and average entry fee for TA as 1.

That means that NP can enter twice as many tournaments as LP, while TA can enter 3 times as many tournaments, for the same buy-in. Put another way, it means that LP can get unlucky once and survive in the first tournament, but TA is playing in three tournaments. He is out if he is unlucky in tournament A, but he has two more tournaments "for his money". He has three shots. If LP gets unlucky THREE times, he is likely to be out. And he is no more likely to be unlucky three times in one tournament than TA is likely to be unlucky three (separate) times in three (separate) tournaments.

The undeniable strength of the big stack (particularly in the old days) was the fold equity you got for your bets. I think that the "it means that you can be unlucky" line is counterbalanced by the increased average entry fee that you are paying.

Re: Rationality

[(Anonymous)]

Your comparison of "times of being unlucky" is flawed because it doesn't take into account the heavily skewed nature of luck in tournaments, similar to what I wrote on my blog an age ago, using a pseudo-Harry D as an example.

When all the prize money is heavily skewed to the top few places - and back in the day, that was the *entire* of the prize money in most comps - then being able to have a crack at this serious money is the whole of the game. A tight rebuy strategy normally means that you normally enter the second stage of the tournement with a much smaller stack and not only do you have less resilience, but also you would need to be luckier to get into contention.

Another factor was that fields were so much smaller - 100+ players was a big comp - that coming out of the rebuy stage with a big stack meant that you were often in shooting distance of the final two tables already.

Back in the midd to late 90s I played small comps all over the UK. I wouldnt be exaggerating to say that 90% of the most successful ones were very loose in the rebuy stage.

cheers

Dave

vegas lhe games

[(Anonymous)]

hi pete
i see you're planning to play the 15-30 game at the bellagio.

i'd actually recommend the 8-16 game there, which i found very soft on 2 of my last 3 visits in the last 18 months.

by way of contradiction i did about $300 in 1 hr in the 15-30 (not a very large sample, i know).

also, the 8-16 game was very friendly.

also the playing styles are v str8fwd ie undeceptive.

a friend of mine who does very well online at lhe lost in the 15-30 game.

some of the 15-30 games are crazy wild loose.

your playing style and mine and that of my friend are quite similar ie tight.

don't want to put you in a negative mind-set if that's the game you're gonna play, but just my 2p worth.

good luck and have a good time, and don't play too much.

j davey

Re: vegas lhe games

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Hi James:

Yes, I have watched the 15-30 and you have to play against some serious pre-flop raising maniacs who will value-bet (well, perhaps just the word "bet" is the better term) to the river. I wouldn't have considered it this time last year, but I now feel more comfortable against that kind of aggression (having played some 15-30 online) and I have the bankroll to cope with a bad night (say, $2K, not that I intend that to happen!).

I'll still start off at 4-8, moving rapidly to 8-16 and, hopefully, to 15-30 by the end of the first week. You have to give it a shot and accept that your Aces are probably only 55% rather than 80%.

Position obviously becomes more important in this kind of game. One place you do not want to be is in the middle.

PJ