Mason posted this a while back.

Something about it is bugging me. I really think he is begging the question (asking a question based on a false statement). Or at least misusing expectation here.

Basically, he is saying it is impossible for a player to double their expectation in a tourney by doubling their chip stack. There are some interesting mathematical reasons given, but they really don't apply early.

I think the basic flaw is in where a pro player gets his increased expectation. I believe it is actually through the early double ups that someone would have a much greater (4x+) expectation over the field. Imagine Daniel Negreanu or Gus Hansen with an average stack - well, we have seen it, it equals an early exit or a huge stack. Imagine those to players with huge stack, it equates to a frightened table (please let's not argue over specific players). It is quite possible that those players have their great expectations because of what the big stacks allow them to do, play the players and intimidate the table with little risk to themselves.

These players play with chips better than the field, they exploit opponents weaknesses better than the field, they play short handed better than the field, they play the bubble better than the field. The more chips they have the more advantage they have.

I think the bubble is key here. The extra chips won with the double ups greatly increases your advantage IMO. Especially if you are a much better player than the others at your table. People will be playing scared while trying to make the money. The big stacks can be used efficiently. The skill variable is important in how it affects the observations. Could the expectation more than double with a losing player? However, with more chips he could becomes reckless and take more risks.

There is also the point that you get moved to another table. Perhaps two people split a big pot while busting the third guy. These two guys have 1.5x the starting stack, and your advantage is affected.

I tend to shy away from the math problems since I almost always bring skill levels, etc. to the topic. Case in point.

For reference, Paul Phillips has argued that with a player like Phil Ivey, doubling a chip stack could more then double their tournament equity.

If you double quickly and a few others at the table also have large stacks, that doesnt have to erode you advantage. The safety factor is somewhat reduced, but a large part of the advantage comes from stack:blinds. Deeper stacks/larger implied odds, great reward for a skilled player.

Beav, did you read most of the thread? I found the Wotmog theory to be very interesting.

Wotmog

You have to scroll down to the post by "ericeicecream"

I didnt read that one, but it gets to the heart of the problem

First, no one has that big of an expectation.

Second, where does your edge of the field come from?

I agree with you, and I don't have the answers to that question. I also don't know how the theory applies to staggered payouts rather than the winner-take-all situation that Erice presented.

Also, does expectation increase due to who you knocked out on that first hand? What happens if I knock out Phil Ivey, leaving crappy players at my table?

after reading most of what was posted on that forum: the whole debate seems to be about the proportion of one fabricated number (your expectation on hand one) and another fabricated number (your expectation on hand two, after doubling up on hand one).

i see very little point in attempting to quantify your expectation in MTTs on a hand by hand basis, much less trying to work the rate of expectation gained per chip...

this Wotmog thing makes sense, but only within the context of the original nonsense. If you had a 100 man $10 tourney and ask everyone to predict their expectation at the begining i'm pretty sure the number would add up to more than $1000, after all, why would 100 ppl enter if 90% of them expected to make back less than they put in? whos values for expectation do you use then, assuming player 1 is as good at making up numbers as player 2.

the whole thing seems like a pseudointelecutal way of asking 'does doubling up on the first hand double your chances of winning?'. The problem with that question being that ignores every other factor in the game except your stack size (and maybe an arbitery skill multipler) and then tries to come to an answer with an imposible degree of exactness (i.e. the 100% increase). Its imposible to know what your per chip equity was on hand two until the games over, and you'll never be able to prove that doubling up on hand one caused you to win twice as much as you would have won otherwise.

__________________
I love him who is ashamed when the dice fall in his favour and who then asks: Am I then a cheat? for he wants to perish.

Paul Phillips(PP) posted some good stuff about this on his blog. His arugument was that when a good player doubles up early their EV more than doubles. I think PP is right in some sense. If I hit 3k early in a tourney I'm much more likely to finish well.

__________________
“There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.” - John von Neumann