| |
BGonline.org Forums
More poker, part I (OT)
Posted By: Bob Glass In Response To: More poker, part I (OT) (Chuck Bower)
Date: Thursday, 11 February 2010, at 12:33 a.m.
The problem with poker tournament analysis is that we are still in the Dark Ages compared to our knowledge of backgammon tournament strategy. For example, Chuck used pot odds as a justification for certain plays. However, like backgammon and its match equity tables, we should be translating our calculations to cash prize equity, not pot odds. Yet that is something sorely missing from poker literature. If we know what the stacks are and where they are positioned,the prize money strucure, the blind and ante structure, the position of the blinds, the amount of time until the next blind/ante strucure, the amount of future blinds and antes, and the amount of time for each level, then we should theoretically be able to calculate our prize money equity at any time. This could be derived by programming Monte Carlo sequences or through empirical data analyzing thousands of hands of poker. In most tournaments, the standard formula for "chopping" tournament prize money is to pay everyone the minimum prize money they are guaranteed to win and then prorate the remaining prize by the chip stack sizes. Oftentimes, the low stacks will protest this arrangement and demand more compensation from the chip leaders who may or may not acquiesce. Is the chip stack formula fair? I don't know. The point is no one seems to really know. Even though the tournament final table may not be settling (which is prohitited in the WSOP anyhow), knowledge of the value of one's stack at anytime would help a player make more judicious decisions.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.