|
| Author |
Message |
etothemc2
Straight Flush
Joined: 01 Jan 2008
Posts: 383
|
 Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 8:01 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
How can all of you poker players be so deficient in basic mathematical probability?
P(advance to R3) = P(win R1) * P(win R2)
P(player 1 advance to R3) = 1/2 * 2/3 = 1/3
P(player 2 advance to R3) = 1 * 1/3 = 1/3
Please do not give an advantage to the player with a BYE. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
NightPrince
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 1168
Location: United Kingdom
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| etothemc2 wrote: |
Come on people...
Player 1 (Round 1 winner, starts with 3k)
Probability of advancing to round 3 (2/3 [number of chips in play] * 1/2 [probability of making it to round 2] = 1/3)
Player 2 (Round 1 BYE, starts with 1.5k)
Probability of advancing to round 3 (1/3 [number of chips in play] * 1 [probability of making it to round 2] = 1/3)
Someone can make it look pretty if they want but the odds are same for everyone. Leave the structure alone. |
I agree with the maths, but I don't agree with your conclusions. Having a 2 to 1 chip lead allows you to put more pressure on your opponent than the amount of chips would actually suggest. It is a huge psychological advantage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
esperz
Full House
Joined: 10 Apr 2008
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 12:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is bs.
2:1 chip count = 2 allins. Reverse is not true.
.5*.5 = .25%
If you disagree with the face value...
2000 vs 3000
After all-in...
4000 vs 1000
1000 = 2 all ins. 25% chance.
So...
Assuming he wins the first all in, he has to defeat another 2 possible all ins... which he will manage 75% of the time.
So, after that 50% probability, you can deduct a third of that off for a 37.5% chance.
Opponent already had a 50% to get their, and has a 62.5% chance of winning that. Let's multiply. 31.25%.
Let's double check out math. 2 original opponents rated at 31.25 for all-ins vs 2nd round newcomer at 1:2 chip count.
62.5 + 37.5 = ?
What does this math state? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HuJwang
Forum Blight
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Posts: 6393
Location: Halifax, NS
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NightPrince wrote: |
I agree with the maths, but I don't agree with your conclusions. Having a 2 to 1 chip lead allows you to put more pressure on your opponent than the amount of chips would actually suggest. It is a huge psychological advantage. |
It's only a psychological advantage if you let it be a psychological advantage.
It's very well known in poker literature that in a HU contest (in fact, in any winner-take-all tournament), the equity for players of equal skill is exactly proportional to their percentage of the total chips. Starting the player who gets a bye with a 1:2 chip deficit is the fairest and most logical way to run the tournament. I wouldn't want to play in a tournament that gives the bye player extra chips. If you ever set up a private tournament like that, please make it clear in the description that that's how it will run so that I don't bother registering in it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Riddim
Moderator
Joined: 04 Dec 2005
Posts: 8057
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thanks HuJwang and etothemc2 for saving me time by already saying what I was going to say. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
skeeter1114
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 2446
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't get how anyone can think it's fair for the person who got a bye, to start off at a 2 to 1 deficit. It may make sense mathematically, but doesn't by common sense. The only way it makes sense is if you get the choice of playing the first match or having a bye if that is needed. Other than that, how is it fair that you enter a competition and have to face a deficit? Can anyone name me another tournament that employs this as a structure? I can't.
Are byes fair? When not determined by previous performances (like in the NFL playoffs or major tennis tournaments), they are not. But, they are randomly assigned, and has been the common structure in tournaments. There is a precedent here on how this is dealt with when there are not an even number of players to do a true bracket. Even the WSOP gave byes in their first ever HU tournament, and the byes were not put at a chip disadvantage.
Here's a scenario. Say there are 33 people entered and no one is eliminated at the start. How do you feel if you're the one person who got a bye, and now you have to face the person who has 3,000 chips (previously won one match), while all the other people who got a bye, start off on an even foot. Also, how about the other participants who will start at a disadvantage whenever they face the person from that part of the bracket? To me, it makes no sense and is not the fairest way to determine a winner. I've used the reference before, but to me, it's like giving a basketball team a 15-0 lead because they won a previous game, or giving a tennis player a 4 game lead in the first set because he won a previous match. Both are unfair to me, and I apply the same reasoning to a HU poker match. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flying_Kiwi
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6507
Location: somewhere spacific
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| skeeter1114 wrote: |
| It may make sense mathematically, but doesn't by common sense. |
That doesn't make sense to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cubbies760
Drawing Dead
Joined: 19 Oct 2006
Posts: 7403
Location: Suburban Chicago
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| skeeter1114 wrote: |
| It may make sense mathematically, but doesn't by common sense. |
The person that got the bye basically got past Round 1 without having to risk losing.
Yes, he's starting Round 2 with 1/2 the chips, but he advanced to Round 2 automatically. I'll take the free ride to Round 2 with a chip disadvantage, instead of having to play Round 1 and risk being eliminated there.
Usually when Round 2 starts, the blinds are still reletively low in relation to the shorter stack. Good poker can overcome the 2:1 chip advantage with the blinds still manageable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
etothemc2
Straight Flush
Joined: 01 Jan 2008
Posts: 383
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| skeeter1114 wrote: |
Here's a scenario. Say there are 33 people entered and no one is eliminated at the start. How do you feel if you're the one person who got a bye, and now you have to face the person who has 3,000 chips (previously won one match), while all the other people who got a bye, start off on an even foot. |
The other players with the byes are not playing players who won their first match... not hard to understand this. There have been several proofs posted in this thread, including one from an Administrator, who claims that Chris Ferguson also proved it. I guess your feelings are more important than what logic dictates? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HuJwang
Forum Blight
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Posts: 6393
Location: Halifax, NS
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Also, how about the other participants who will start at a disadvantage whenever they face the person from that part of the bracket? To me, it makes no sense and is not the fairest way to determine a winner. I've used the reference before, but to me, it's like giving a basketball team a 15-0 lead because they won a previous game, or giving a tennis player a 4 game lead in the first set because he won a previous match. Both are unfair to me, and I apply the same reasoning to a HU poker match. |
Both methods are equally "fair" in that they don't give any particular player an advantage, since byes are given out randomly. However, giving the bye player extra chips gives an added emphasis to the bye "lottery", thus increasing the luck and decreasing the skill factor.
I don't see how you aren't understanding this. By getting a bye, you have a 100% chance of making the 2nd round. The other player had half the chance of making it to the 2nd round. As long as no prizes are awarded until at least the 3rd round, there is no advantage being given here, except to a player who incorrectly makes adjustments because he thinks the larger stack gives some sort of inherent advantage.
If you really want to avoid this kind of trouble, then stipulate in your tournament that when the tournaments starts, the last players to register are removed until the field is a power of two. That's how shootout tournaments are supposed to be played, anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
etothemc2
Straight Flush
Joined: 01 Jan 2008
Posts: 383
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| esperz wrote: |
This is bs.
2:1 chip count = 2 allins. Reverse is not true.
.5*.5 = .25%
If you disagree with the face value...
2000 vs 3000
After all-in...
4000 vs 1000
1000 = 2 all ins. 25% chance.
So...
Assuming he wins the first all in, he has to defeat another 2 possible all ins... which he will manage 75% of the time.
So, after that 50% probability, you can deduct a third of that off for a 37.5% chance.
Opponent already had a 50% to get their, and has a 62.5% chance of winning that. Let's multiply. 31.25%.
Let's double check out math. 2 original opponents rated at 31.25 for all-ins vs 2nd round newcomer at 1:2 chip count.
62.5 + 37.5 = ?
What does this math state? |
wat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kazor
Royal Flush
Joined: 04 Feb 2007
Posts: 717
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| skeeter1114 wrote: |
I don't get how anyone can think it's fair for the person who got a bye, to start off at a 2 to 1 deficit. It may make sense mathematically, but doesn't by common sense. The only way it makes sense is if you get the choice of playing the first match or having a bye if that is needed. Other than that, how is it fair that you enter a competition and have to face a deficit? Can anyone name me another tournament that employs this as a structure? I can't.
Are byes fair? When not determined by previous performances (like in the NFL playoffs or major tennis tournaments), they are not. But, they are randomly assigned, and has been the common structure in tournaments. There is a precedent here on how this is dealt with when there are not an even number of players to do a true bracket. Even the WSOP gave byes in their first ever HU tournament, and the byes were not put at a chip disadvantage.
Here's a scenario. Say there are 33 people entered and no one is eliminated at the start. How do you feel if you're the one person who got a bye, and now you have to face the person who has 3,000 chips (previously won one match), while all the other people who got a bye, start off on an even foot. Also, how about the other participants who will start at a disadvantage whenever they face the person from that part of the bracket? To me, it makes no sense and is not the fairest way to determine a winner. I've used the reference before, but to me, it's like giving a basketball team a 15-0 lead because they won a previous game, or giving a tennis player a 4 game lead in the first set because he won a previous match. Both are unfair to me, and I apply the same reasoning to a HU poker match. |
I agree. Its also annoying when people try to convince you what they think is somehow correct and somehow "you" dont understand. In poker, most of the top pro's have varying opinions about how to play almost everything. Okay Chris Ferguson likes this....and??? Its amazing how simple/closed minded some people are. There are different ways to look at different scenarios and poker is far from just math. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flying_Kiwi
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6507
Location: somewhere spacific
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kazor wrote: |
| There are different ways to look at different scenarios and poker is far from just math. |
But the whole issue is whether the current system is fair or not. It has been mathematically proven to be fair, which isn't true for the alternative. It's fine for people to say that the maths doesn't convince them and they'd rather play without the chips carrying forward - but it's illogical to argue that it's fairer. It's an emotional thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kazor
Royal Flush
Joined: 04 Feb 2007
Posts: 717
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Well your arguing it with chip counts as being pure math probability. True probability is not subjective to outside forces or situations. I dont think a person with a 2-1 chip lead is going to win 2/3 of the time. We didnt even take into account blind levels but to me its all irrevelant. If I enter a tournament and I have to play my first match with a 2-1 deficit that makes no sense. I have a feeling arguments like this are just not going to go anywhere so anyone who wants to continue arguing can. I will go back to more important things, just wanted to put my opinion in on one side. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
skeeter1114
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 2446
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Flying_Kiwi wrote: |
| kazor wrote: |
| There are different ways to look at different scenarios and poker is far from just math. |
But the whole issue is whether the current system is fair or not. It has been mathematically proven to be fair, which isn't true for the alternative. It's fine for people to say that the maths doesn't convince them and they'd rather play without the chips carrying forward - but it's illogical to argue that it's fairer. It's an emotional thing. |
Again, if the use of "random byes" was unfair, sporting tournaments wouldn't be using it. They would make sure that had an even number at all times. I'm fine with the mathematical argument, and based on math, what you are saying is correct. However, the only reason you're using math is because you have a number to go off of. In sports, you can't carry over runs, points, etc.... That's where I'm coming from. For those of you saying this is not fair to get a bye and start at the same position as those who don't have a bye, do you have a problem then with all tournaments (you name the game or sports) where people are randomly get a bye? If you don't, then you shouldn't have a problem with NP's suggestion. Having a set number should not make a difference in your argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
