|
| Author |
Message |
gho
Straight Flush
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 391
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gogzy
Royal Flush
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 825
Location: fife, scotland
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 4:40 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| that hurt my eyes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zophar
Moderator
Joined: 26 Oct 2005
Posts: 3584
Location: East Coast
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Interesting stuff. How it pertains to any given situation and is computed during play is beyond me, but hey, my mathematics skills have dulled in recent years. I love the only response to it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CitizenCain
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 23 Oct 2006
Posts: 2022
Location: Behind a huge stack of chips.
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:47 pm Post subject: Re: Some Poker Theory |
|
|
| gho wrote: |
Can someone translate this into layman's terms for me:
<link snipped: broke h-scroll>
Move over Sklansky!!  |
Hardly. This is a long, complicated way of "calculating" a player's tournament equity (expected loss/return on buy-in) as it relates to how many chips they have at a given point in the tournament.
If you look at his graph, all that BS results in him saying that if you're a better than average player, you're above the line (which is a "mathematically average" player's equity) and if you're a below average player you're below the line. That graph appears to graph Tourney Chips vs Amount of Money Cashed. (For the particular tourney structure he set up.)
His conclusions at the end of that monstrously complex post? Well, he doesn't really seem to have one. But I'll sum up his entire post in one long sentence.
More chips increase tournament equity, fewer reduce it, although this relationship (if graphed) may or may not be straight line, concave, convex, or irregular.
Yeah. This ***hole reminds of my Math 366 prof, who could take any simple idea and transform into a mind bending, 3 page long formula. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kardsh4rk
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 1279
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 7:18 pm Post subject: Re: Some Poker Theory |
|
|
| CitizenCain wrote: |
| gho wrote: |
Can someone translate this into layman's terms for me:
<link snipped: broke h-scroll>
Move over Sklansky!! |
Hardly. This is a long, complicated way of "calculating" a player's tournament equity (expected loss/return on buy-in) as it relates to how many chips they have at a given point in the tournament.
If you look at his graph, all that BS results in him saying that if you're a better than average player, you're above the line (which is a "mathematically average" player's equity) and if you're a below average player you're below the line. That graph appears to graph Tourney Chips vs Amount of Money Cashed. (For the particular tourney structure he set up.)
His conclusions at the end of that monstrously complex post? Well, he doesn't really seem to have one. But I'll sum up his entire post in one long sentence.
More chips increase tournament equity, fewer reduce it, although this relationship (if graphed) may or may not be straight line, concave, convex, or irregular.
Yeah. This ***hole reminds of my Math 366 prof, who could take any simple idea and transform into a mind bending, 3 page long formula. |
CitizenCain is on the right track with his theoretical explanation, however, his inclusion of 3 syllable words is still a bit much for my brain to absorb, so I will further expand (or, rather, condense) Cain's explanation as this:
More chips good. Less chips bad. A g-graph is a tall aminal leaf eater. I like pie. Mmmm. pie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BOYNAMEDSUE
Moderator
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 7575
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I think the answer is pi. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cat o 9s
High Card
Joined: 12 Nov 2006
Posts: 2
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I would disregard this as it is impossible to determine a players ability with numbers alone. 89% of people know that (bad pun) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HuJwang
Forum Blight
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Posts: 6018
Location: Halifax, NS
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
heh, i am a physics student so i see stuff like this a lot. really mathematical people like to take any problem and state it in the most general mathematical terms possible, which usually makes it extremely complicated to read.
basically what he's trying to do is figure out, mathematically, when in a tournament it is worth it to gain as many chips as possible and when you should sit back and pick spots. obviously you need to gain more chips when you are short stacked, and you should sit back and wait when you're big stacked... which is part of what he said.
he also talks about how, if you know that you are below the average skill level of everyone in the tournament, it is more important for you to take risks and build up a big chip stack, because you are less likely to gain chips through outplaying someone else.
conversely, if you are better then most of the other players in the tournament, you shouldn't take as many risks and you can wait for better spots than coinflips (unless of course you are very short stacked, in which case you need luck, not skill)
he also considers the payout structure. if it's very sharp and only the top few places get paid much, you need to build up a big stack quicker, otherwise you will bubble out most of the time.
if the payout is very flat, maybe the top 20% or more get paid, and the top spots aren't worth as much, then it's less important to build up a big stack.
i found it a good read since i understood it, but i wouldn't worry if you don't understand it. there's not much he said that wasn't obvious, he just said it in very mathematical terms  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
