Sunday, April 08, 2007
A Retraction - sort of
I really like the math behind poker. I'm not too good at it, but I find it to be very interesting.
So in my last post, I mentioned what I thought was a bad chop decision by the chip leaders. I may have even called it "horrible". See post and comments.
I didn't know the chip counts or blind structure, but it seemed like a bad chop "from where I was seated".
But as you know, there is always more to the story.
For example, if every player, 1 through 10, had roughly the same chip amount (say between 8% and 12% of the total chips in play). And say, for example, that the blinds were very large in proportion to the average stack (say each player had enough to post only 2 or 3 blinds), then a straight distribution of the prize pool to all of the remaining players would not, mathematically, be too bad of a decision for the chip leader or the short stacks.
On the other hand, if the chip leader had a large portion of the chips in play (i.e, 30%-40%) and the blinds were low compared to the average stack size (i.e., chip leader has about 40 blinds and the short stack had just 2 or 3 blinds), then this chop deal worked out by the final 10 at the TOC would have been, mathematically, a bad one for the chip leaders.
Anyway, based on the chip distributions provided recenlty by one of the players, it looks like a straight distribution of the prize pools was not that bad of a deal for the chip leader (see file) . I still think the chip leader gave up about $100 in equity.
Having said that, there are still plenty of good reasons to give up some equity in a chop deal. These reasons include (risk aversion, tired, don't want to make enemies, need to get home to wife/kids, etc...).
Risk aversion goes like this, "well, I've been playing my ass off for the last 6 hours. Now, I'm so close to the money. I'd really hate to go home empty handed if I catch a run of bad cards. So, even though I should probably get $1700 in this chop deal, I'll accept $1600 and avoid the risk."
I think there are a lot of poker players out there that are risk averse. I think I'm one of them. In my last post I mentioned a play where I got my money all in with AK vs. QQ and I agreed to just chop the pot with the other player. This was the play of someone who would prefer to avoid risk. "Running it twice" is another example of avoiding risk.
Buying life insurance is another example of risk aversion. When you buy life insurance, you are in essense, paying a premium to insure against the unlikely event - you die.
Gamblers (of which poker players are a subset), even the risk averse kind, are generally seeking out opportunities to take risks when the odds are favorable (even just slightly favorable). The theory is that if you gamble enough times when you are a 51% favorite, you'll be a long-term winner.
So, I take it back - a retraction. The chip leaders did not make a horrible decision when then agreed to accept a chop. They just missed an opportunity to gamble when the odds were slightly favorable.
So in my last post, I mentioned what I thought was a bad chop decision by the chip leaders. I may have even called it "horrible". See post and comments.
I didn't know the chip counts or blind structure, but it seemed like a bad chop "from where I was seated".
But as you know, there is always more to the story.
For example, if every player, 1 through 10, had roughly the same chip amount (say between 8% and 12% of the total chips in play). And say, for example, that the blinds were very large in proportion to the average stack (say each player had enough to post only 2 or 3 blinds), then a straight distribution of the prize pool to all of the remaining players would not, mathematically, be too bad of a decision for the chip leader or the short stacks.
On the other hand, if the chip leader had a large portion of the chips in play (i.e, 30%-40%) and the blinds were low compared to the average stack size (i.e., chip leader has about 40 blinds and the short stack had just 2 or 3 blinds), then this chop deal worked out by the final 10 at the TOC would have been, mathematically, a bad one for the chip leaders.
Anyway, based on the chip distributions provided recenlty by one of the players, it looks like a straight distribution of the prize pools was not that bad of a deal for the chip leader (see file) . I still think the chip leader gave up about $100 in equity.
Having said that, there are still plenty of good reasons to give up some equity in a chop deal. These reasons include (risk aversion, tired, don't want to make enemies, need to get home to wife/kids, etc...).
Risk aversion goes like this, "well, I've been playing my ass off for the last 6 hours. Now, I'm so close to the money. I'd really hate to go home empty handed if I catch a run of bad cards. So, even though I should probably get $1700 in this chop deal, I'll accept $1600 and avoid the risk."
I think there are a lot of poker players out there that are risk averse. I think I'm one of them. In my last post I mentioned a play where I got my money all in with AK vs. QQ and I agreed to just chop the pot with the other player. This was the play of someone who would prefer to avoid risk. "Running it twice" is another example of avoiding risk.
Buying life insurance is another example of risk aversion. When you buy life insurance, you are in essense, paying a premium to insure against the unlikely event - you die.
Gamblers (of which poker players are a subset), even the risk averse kind, are generally seeking out opportunities to take risks when the odds are favorable (even just slightly favorable). The theory is that if you gamble enough times when you are a 51% favorite, you'll be a long-term winner.
So, I take it back - a retraction. The chip leaders did not make a horrible decision when then agreed to accept a chop. They just missed an opportunity to gamble when the odds were slightly favorable.
