Yup, if he takes that deal, which is unlikely ime, you try to get him to leave the tip. If he wins one all-in, the tables are turned and you trail 2-1. Skill has little to do with who wins at this point.

I think it really depends on HOW he's a fish. The biggest determining factor is if he's the kind of player who will let you rape his blinds. If that's the case no deal and put the pressure on him.

How long do these STTs run?

Depending on which ones and who is playing. 125/175s usually are 1.25-1.5hours but I've had one be over in 30 minutes.

Completely disagree. If skill is equal, and you have X% of the chips, you are X% likely to win. Variance is high at that point, but it doesn't change the long-run EV. If you each had 1000xBB somehow, such that variance is low, if you are equally skilled, you have X% chance of winning also. The only thing that could change the X% chance of winning is a skill difference.

If there is $2620 in lammers and cash to play for, and you have 2:1 chip lead, the other guy's equity is $873. Just offer him 1 lammer, $300 in cash from your pocket, and tell him you'll tip the dealer for you both. Depending upon how well you tip, that's solid profit for you.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

I guess that's why I'm not a Main Event champion. Fair points, Greg. I only play 10-15 of these STS's every year, which is a small enough sample that I try to manage my variance when opportunities arise. I won't argue with your math. I guess a lesson here is that if you are the one on the short stack, you might as well push for the 2-lammer deal because you might be up against someone like me who will take a discount to limit the variance. If you can exploit that tendency (which I think is a common one, at least at the $125-175 tables) when you're the short stack and insist on full equity when you're the favorite, that's definitely +EV.

Also you guys should all watch out for me at the STS's now because I just learned something. No more easy chops with this guy.

Yeah, but you'd have to play thousands of these things for the long-run EV to work itself out.

You can ask for a chip-chop with a 2:1 lead, but ime in these low buy-ins, you won't get it. It only takes one hand to flip the advantage to the other side and by the time you get to heads-up the only play is a shove. Skill won't have much bearing. These low buy-ins only have 10k-15k chips on the table - everyone will be shortstacked.

Don't play any game where you'll make -EV decisions because you are scared of variance.

And don't be stupid enough to ignore it. I don't care who you are, your "skill advantage" means nothing over the course of four hands.

Imagine I have 2 chips and you have 1 chip, we're both all-in preflop until someone has all the chips. In the long run, where we do this exercise an infinite number of times, I'll win 2/3rds of the time, yes? So therefore if I were in this scenario and looking to make the highest EV decision without regards to variance, I would happily play it out or chop for 2/3rds of the remaining prizepool.

There might be circumstances were I would give up a little EV because the stakes were so high (like at the final table of a small-buyin huge-field tournament where life-changing money is on the line) but at least for me, a $125 STT is not such a circumstance.

So I guess I take back what I said about not playing games where you make -EV decisions due to variance. Sure play those games, but recognize that you might be making -EV decisions when it comes to chopping. You're always welcome to make -EV decisions, but it would seem to me that 2+2 forum as with all poker forums has the goal of helping it's members make the best possible decisions. That's all I'm saying.

I don't get this concept. And I hear it a lot. Just because the decision won't present itself often enough for you to guarantee a long-run balance of results, why would you knowingly make the inferior decision?

For example, you and I are the last ones left in the tournament, but the poker room has to close for the night. The TD says we will settle this by rolling a die. Since you have me 2:1 in chips, you win if it comes up 1-4, I win if it comes up 5-6. Or, I offer to chop the money with you 50:50. Do you take the chop, or roll the die? This is a strange ruling by the TD, so I doubt you will ever do this again, so there will be no long-run, just this one time in your life.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

I can't really argue the math, and you guys really have informed my thinking a lot. But one more consideration. Variance can be tilting. The math alone says we should be indifferent among the options of a chip-chop, playing it out and losing, or playing it out and winning (if we assume a heads-up situation with equal skill). Over the long run the EV is the same. But speaking only for myself, if I decide to play it out with a 2:1 chip advantage and end up with zero when I could have had a guaranteed $1500+, I will be somewhat pissed and it is likely to affect my mindset at the next STS. So avoiding that situation is worth something. I'm not saying it's worth the full discount of taking a 3:2 deal when I have a 2:1 lead. But it's worth some amount.

And yes, zoogenheim is right, if I'm skittish about the variance it probably means I'm playing in a game I'm not fully bankrolled to play. But that happens all the time at the WSOP. People take shots. And in the course of shot-taking, avoiding the tilt that comes with variance has some value.

I understand the reasoning. And as I said in my last post, as long as you understand that taking scared deals is -EV, you can go from there. I think some people deny that taking a 3:2 deal with a 2:1 lead where both players have equal skill is -EV.

Side note, what do you guys generally tip the dealers on these? $60? $80?

I think you have to be more specific on the buy-in size. I'm usually at $40 tip on a $175, for example.

Fair enough. I mostly play $125-275 range. Cash paid on top of the lammers is $120 for every buyin from $125 to $525 (at least in years past). The structure and starting stacks are the same (15 min levels/1000 chips) from $125-225, and so is the total rake. Stack size and level length go up to 1500/20 for the $275 & $325 points.

I try to take into account the time spent, ~70 minutes on average. $40 is about what an engineer or programmer earns in many areas, too much for me to want to pay a dealer.

As per the huge Tipping thread, it's very polarized. Many players who may know to tip $1+ on any cash game pot don't bother to tip a single ¢ in any tournament. Personally, I tip at LEAST 3% of my net winnings in a tournament. "Fun" players who don't care about ROI may tip a bigger percentage, but too many tournament winners "forget" to give anything.

Toke the entire $120. The dealer doesn't get paid and each STT takes 2-3 hours for them.

The dealers get $, not even an hourly while dealing STS ? Is this true?

So, it sounds like there is no real market consensus. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't way off base in what I've done in the past. My thinking on these is a little different than in a standard tournament because (1) you have the same dealer the whole time, (2) there's no staff fee in the rake, and (3) the rake itself is actually quite low relative to tournaments. I also figure that the dealer spends 90-120 minutes at each table, since they're there waiting for players to fill the seats and sit there through payouts, and some go longer than others. And if their alternative is dealing a cash game, where they might deal 20-30 hands per hour with an average $1 per pot, I think $60 is usually reasonable, or even $80 if they're really good (a few of them are).

I haven't personally been in a chop where we tipped the dealer the full $120. That may be high for the length of these STS's. But I also haven't played one that went three hours. And I don't think it's reasonable to compare to the hourly wages of engineers. Engineers don't get paid in tips and their hours are different. It's not really a comparable market.

Tip them whatever you want, but they don't spend much time, if any, waiting for players once a game has been established because players have to pre-pay. Payouts are generally < 5 minutes. The absolute longest one I've ever played in was < 90 minutes and that one was because 3 handed we kept passing the chiplead every hand for 2 full levels. It was almost hilarious.

Right. I've never seen a smaller buy-in go anywhere near three hours, and doubt I've played in one that lasted two hours.

FYI for those interested, WSOP posted the structures for all single-tables this year. Structure and rake on the 10-handed NLH tables appears to be the same as in past years, I can't speak to everything else.

https://t.co/izIYwzDQJs

My favourite are the two-winner satellites so I'm glad that the WSOP will be running them this year. Only $15 rake is taken from each of the $235-$635 buy-ins, so the higher buy-in you play, the lower the rake. Most players join the last-longer or bubble pool to make the rake even lower.

$635: 2.4% rake
$535: 2.8%
$435: 3.4%; 2,000 starting chips for $435+
$335: 4.5%; 1,500 chips; 20-minute levels for $335+
$235: 6.4%;
$110 + $10: 8.3%; 1K chips; 15-minute levels.

Please ask the WSOP supervisors to call out these two-winner satellites as they will be used to calling out only the one-winner different buy-ins from last year. The $120 sat. has a more beatable rake of 8% compared to the lowest buy-ins for one-winner sats, which have rake as high as 15%. To get the highest starting stack of 2,000 chips, you only have to buy-in for $435, compared to $525 for the one-winner sat.