Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Decisions-Decisions; Might As Well Make Em' Good Ones
There have been some poker experts that write that the key to success as a poker player is just to make, on the average, better decisions than your opponents. If you are able to just make better decisions, the money will follow. These experts implore their readers to not focus on outcomes (money won or lost), but instead to focus on the decisions.
Poker Success then can be expressed as ƒ[(∑ your good decision)/( ∑ your opponents good decisions)]
A classic example is in blackjack. When you are dealt 2 aces and the dealer is showing a 6, the obvious and correct play is to split the aces and double your bet. This is the best decision regardless of the eventual outcome. Blackjack players easily understand this concept.
Anyway, I think good decision making goes beyond just the tactics used in any given hand (making a call on the river, making a value bet, over calling a raise, etc…). Good, profit maximizing, decisions are available before you sit down (seat selection, game selection, stakes, etc…), during the session or tournament, and even at the end of the tournament.
So I witnessed the end of a home poker tournement a few nights back. This was a 40-50 person, NLHE tourney. What made this particular tourney a little strange was that it was a season ending tournament where the players were playing for a very heavy overlay that was collected during the season of 10 tournaments. The prize structure was such that each of the top 8 finishers each recieved the same prize ($2000 cash/trip package). After play was down to 8 players, the tournament would end, and each of the remaining players would win the same prize - regardless of thier chip position at that point.
When play got down to 10 handed, players started discussing a chop. At first, the chip leader opposed making a deal. Eventually, the short stacked players applied enough pressure and the chip leader caved in and agreed to a chop.
The chop deal they worked was that each remaining player would recieve $1600.
I'm sure everyone thought the deal was fair.
From where I'm sitting, the deal was a real good one for the short stack and a real poor deal for the chip leader.
Let me explain. If you think of the final 10 players competing for 10 prizes, it helps conceptualize the issue. Think of these 10 players competing for 1st prize $2000, 2nd prize $2000, and so on down to 8th prize $2000, 9th prize $0 and 10th prize $0.
Each of the remaining players has an ownership stake in each of these prizes. Their claim or "equity" to these prizes is a function of their chip stacks in proportion to the total chips in play.
The short stack has a pretty small claim to the top prize, a slightly higher claim to the 2nd prize, and so on. The short stack does have a pretty good sized claim the very last prize. The short stacks total equity then is the sum of his claims to each of the prizes.
In contrast, the chip leader has a pretty good sized stake or claim to the top prize, a slighlty smaller claim to the 2nd prize, etc... and has a pretty small claim to the 10th prize. His total equity then is the sum of his equity in each of the prizes.
It is clear that the short stack in this situation would have a relatively small claim to the total prize pool compared to the chip leader-who would have a relatively large claim to the prize pool.
I'm not really sure what the actaul chip distribution was on this particular night, so it's difficult to calculate a precisely equitable chop distribution for this situation, but it's easy to imagine a situation where the chip leader could make a legitamate claim to almost all of the $2000 top prize (say $1950). The short stack would have a pretty large claim to the last prize ($0) but a pretty small claim to the top prizes. It's easy to imagine that the short stack could make a legitamate claim to say $600 of the prize pool.
The fact that the chip leader agreed to take the same amount as the short stack was just a horrible, horrible deal for the chip leader. He easily gave away $300 in equity in this deal. The short stacks made an absolute faboulous deal. They were able to somehow succesfully negotiate around $1000 in equity that they did not really deserve.
At first, you may say, 'so what's the big deal.' We'll, the big deal is in the poor quality decision of the chip leader. This decision was a looser. Giving up $300 in prize equity is the same thing as taking $300 over to the cash game and calling down a $300 bet on the river holding a jack high. It's a bad decision. It's giving away money. This was money that the chip leader earned by good play for the first 6 hours or the tournament.
Poker Success then can be expressed as ƒ[(∑ your good decision)/( ∑ your opponents good decisions)]
A classic example is in blackjack. When you are dealt 2 aces and the dealer is showing a 6, the obvious and correct play is to split the aces and double your bet. This is the best decision regardless of the eventual outcome. Blackjack players easily understand this concept.
Anyway, I think good decision making goes beyond just the tactics used in any given hand (making a call on the river, making a value bet, over calling a raise, etc…). Good, profit maximizing, decisions are available before you sit down (seat selection, game selection, stakes, etc…), during the session or tournament, and even at the end of the tournament.
So I witnessed the end of a home poker tournement a few nights back. This was a 40-50 person, NLHE tourney. What made this particular tourney a little strange was that it was a season ending tournament where the players were playing for a very heavy overlay that was collected during the season of 10 tournaments. The prize structure was such that each of the top 8 finishers each recieved the same prize ($2000 cash/trip package). After play was down to 8 players, the tournament would end, and each of the remaining players would win the same prize - regardless of thier chip position at that point.
When play got down to 10 handed, players started discussing a chop. At first, the chip leader opposed making a deal. Eventually, the short stacked players applied enough pressure and the chip leader caved in and agreed to a chop.
The chop deal they worked was that each remaining player would recieve $1600.
I'm sure everyone thought the deal was fair.
From where I'm sitting, the deal was a real good one for the short stack and a real poor deal for the chip leader.
Let me explain. If you think of the final 10 players competing for 10 prizes, it helps conceptualize the issue. Think of these 10 players competing for 1st prize $2000, 2nd prize $2000, and so on down to 8th prize $2000, 9th prize $0 and 10th prize $0.
Each of the remaining players has an ownership stake in each of these prizes. Their claim or "equity" to these prizes is a function of their chip stacks in proportion to the total chips in play.
The short stack has a pretty small claim to the top prize, a slightly higher claim to the 2nd prize, and so on. The short stack does have a pretty good sized claim the very last prize. The short stacks total equity then is the sum of his claims to each of the prizes.
In contrast, the chip leader has a pretty good sized stake or claim to the top prize, a slighlty smaller claim to the 2nd prize, etc... and has a pretty small claim to the 10th prize. His total equity then is the sum of his equity in each of the prizes.
It is clear that the short stack in this situation would have a relatively small claim to the total prize pool compared to the chip leader-who would have a relatively large claim to the prize pool.
I'm not really sure what the actaul chip distribution was on this particular night, so it's difficult to calculate a precisely equitable chop distribution for this situation, but it's easy to imagine a situation where the chip leader could make a legitamate claim to almost all of the $2000 top prize (say $1950). The short stack would have a pretty large claim to the last prize ($0) but a pretty small claim to the top prizes. It's easy to imagine that the short stack could make a legitamate claim to say $600 of the prize pool.
The fact that the chip leader agreed to take the same amount as the short stack was just a horrible, horrible deal for the chip leader. He easily gave away $300 in equity in this deal. The short stacks made an absolute faboulous deal. They were able to somehow succesfully negotiate around $1000 in equity that they did not really deserve.
At first, you may say, 'so what's the big deal.' We'll, the big deal is in the poor quality decision of the chip leader. This decision was a looser. Giving up $300 in prize equity is the same thing as taking $300 over to the cash game and calling down a $300 bet on the river holding a jack high. It's a bad decision. It's giving away money. This was money that the chip leader earned by good play for the first 6 hours or the tournament.
Comments:
<< Home
I don't mind people making a chop...or not. But the guy that wants to hold out - should hold out...or make a counter offer. The holdout has a very strong negotiating postion and should use this strenght to make a favorable deal. There is no reason he should be "giving" $300 to the table just because they whine and beg. As far as the dirty looks, screw em'! The holdout just needs to be confident in their decision to not accept the deal and focus their energy on winning the top prize.
As far as "prenp" like rules, I don't agree. I think players should be allowed to discuss and ultimately decide on a fair chop. The Tournament director should stop the clock and tell the players they have 5 minutes (max) to disucss a chop. After that time, if a deal has not been agreed upon, the clock will start and play will resume. The TD should, not inject himself into the negotiations or become emotionally involved in how good or bad of an idea he thinks it is. Further, the TD should explain to the final table that he will pause the game clock a maximum of 3 times for the entire tournament.
Just my 2 cents....
As far as "prenp" like rules, I don't agree. I think players should be allowed to discuss and ultimately decide on a fair chop. The Tournament director should stop the clock and tell the players they have 5 minutes (max) to disucss a chop. After that time, if a deal has not been agreed upon, the clock will start and play will resume. The TD should, not inject himself into the negotiations or become emotionally involved in how good or bad of an idea he thinks it is. Further, the TD should explain to the final table that he will pause the game clock a maximum of 3 times for the entire tournament.
Just my 2 cents....
The big stack was skip with 51k then i had 44k and everyone else had like 15-40k... if u do the math there IMO is no way that skip lost 300 dollars in equity by taking a chop. I dont really feel like doing the math but its not like skip had 75% of the chips in play it was very very even. i mean one double up by a short stack made him close to chip leader... even if a short stack stole the blinds twice and skip folded his blinds twice that would narrow the gap by a significant margin.
Post a Comment
# posted by 
: 10:40 AM
: 10:40 AM<< Home
