Try to solve it faster next time. BTW, your conclusion is clearly wrong.

(This assumes that you can always see the cards of the person to your right, even if you get reseated, he busts, etc. and also assumes you know that you'll have the information for every hand)

It seems the best plan is to lean very heavily toward folding immediately whenever your friend to your right isn't in the hand. When it's just you and him, you've got a very high expectation, which you would parlay into a stack bigger than his. At this point, you would continue your strategy: playing hands exclusively against your new best friend with the comfort of knowing he can't bust you. If he somehow passes you in chip count (ex. doubling up off another player), you just repeat the first step until you've regained the lead. At this point, you might as well continue "playing it safe" against your friend and accumulate a massive chip stack. Once you've got a monster lead, you can start executing each player unlucky enough to be seated to your right. Proceed to win and sign up for the next available tournament.

So my estimate is that your probability of winning the tournament approaches 1 as the number of hands you can play before busting approaches infinity. In the case of the given event (WSOP main event), your probability of winning is reasonably near 1, with the following ifs:
1. IF you follow the correct strategy
2. IF you have enough opportunities to play HU against your friend (and I believe this is a big if considering the loose play in the early levels). The more opportunities you have in comparison to Harrington's M, the more likely you are to win the tournament.

Of course, your chance of winning the tournament is certainly less than 100%, since the possibility of any series of unfortunate events that causes you to bust out of the tournament:
1. Exists, and
2. Is greater than 0,
then your probability of winning the tournament must be less than 1.

This is what took me twenty seconds to figure out the 100% probability answer.

Yes, it took some extra seconds, but I have a bag of tricks as I mentioned, and they work soundly within the spirit of the puzzle.

If you read my posts, I mention the worst of the scenarios re unlucky situations. Recall sitting to the left of a completely crazy all-in player much of the time, thus crippling your chances to do ANYTHING; and having an opponent heads up at the end getting AA twenty or 20,000 times in a row, while you have crap. Indeed, it took me 20 minutes to figure out how to get 100%. I realize you are skeptical, but think it through, get a bigger box, don't need to be high-falootin, be mid-falootin, then go low-falootin, if you need to, try to go falootin-free... you'll get there.


Your idea of tight play at the beginning of the tournament is correct. However, you don't have to be quite as conservative when you've built up a stack. Remember what Ivey says when he plays "without a plan." E.g., limping in when at least you know that an ace is out thus eliminating the ace high flush, and yes, that only helps a wee bit and maniacs can force you not to bother... etc.

What's the worst advantage you could have upon arriving at the heads up scenario given that you've had about 1800 hands to acquire an advantage?

Oversimplifying the problem, how many doubleups do you need to beat 5000 players?

(These two hints don't address your objection, obviously--they are for those who are still further from the solution.) Hope this helps. Your answer is one of the better ones.

I can't blame you for not seeing the tricks, so think again how to pound it from 99.9% to 100%, yes, it's a big leap and it's all the difference in the world. (I haven't forgotten my comments re 100 minus 10^-23 or 10^-80 or whatever it was... bag of tricks, real world, etc.)


P.S. your claim is not a proof.

In the words of the famous Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien,

"a proof is a proof, you have to have a proof."

BTW, I assumed without searching/researching that Dromar, and other lurkers; are fully capable of making $2M per year online if they aren't doing that already. The point is I mean no disrespect to anyone--this statement should allow you to understand where I'm coming from so as to take this puzzle more seriously, the value of examining it goes so far beyond the answer to scenario one.

Pose the next question this way: given that you have an edge that assures you with correct play a 100% chance of winning a tournament, how would you go about it?

If this is too outlandish a proposition, just substitute 95 or 99%... whatever you can digest--but I advise 100%.

What aspects of poker play are we unaware of given the current theory? How would you go about discovering them?

I reiterate my guess that Doyle Brunson would be the most likely person to first claim 100%; if I am right, would you be willing to admit that he knows what he's talking about or would you say its mere hyperbole?

Now consider what he claimed about 'give me the button and I would win every time ... I wouldn't even have to look at my cards' and put that into context. Sklansky's scenario gives you 100% certainty of some information ALL of the time. Yet Brunson doesn't even need info, he just wants mere position.

Hope this helps. Have fun.

P.S. I used to play in a free league with 8000 players, I was such an outlier in it they were certain I must have been cheating.

I've never cheated in that league. Lol...

They told me cheating was rampant in that league, and I still outdid them.

They would hold unadvertised games for points where I was not told. The structure gave more chips to those who would buy drinks/food. People would incorrectly hoard and steal chips to use later. I used a negligible amount of food chips. One guy spent about $8-10K in food in a three month season (lol, makes no sense, I know). I spent about $50 food & drinks in 3 months.

When I won the online (they had both b&m and online sections) hardcore championship, they didn't even mention me as the champ--why? maybe resentment!

Anyhow, I look up to you lurkers who make real dough as an inspiration. This thread is my way of giving back.

Cheers!

it's not 100%. here's where it could go wrong:

after several hours of "tight play" and bad luck, meaning a lack of opportunities to raid your friend's stack without jeopardizing your own, you find yourself with 16,000 in chips. the blinds are now 200/400. you're the BB w/KK. he has 88 in the SB. it's folded to him, he raises to 1200, and you call. the (rainbow) flop is K 8 2. he bets 2300 and you call. turn is a 3. he bets 4500 and you call. river is the case 8 and you've lost the hand and half of your stack. after a couple more hands like this, minus the blinds and antes, your tournament is over.

let me know if i'm wrong, seemorenuts. a less cryptic explanation of your thinking would be appreciated.

Im in the ~99+% boat. It cannot be 100% simply because say Tighty McRock sits on your right. Catches aces early and doubles up off someone. Plays very few hands, when/if you ever get him heads up he flops big and you flop no pair no draw and he fires a pot sized bet.

Think Jamie Gold. Tricks. Amnesia.

Also, you need not focus so much on only the player to your right.

I will take your 20000-1 bet that a poster in this thread besides you has achieved double 800s. No "time to spare" conditions since they can't be verified. Let me know how much you are willing to bet and then we will get to the business of determining the winner and transferring money.

There are ways of determining time to spare.

I don't think you could be relied on to deliver the money when you lose. You haven't contributed an iota to this thread, btw.

Okay, you're on.

I'll bet my 20 Quadrillion dollars to your 1 billion.

Now show me the proof, and let the person demonstrate how much time they had left (honor system).

Please, contribute something to the thread, do you think scenario one has you at better than 80% to win?

LOL at "I don't think you could be relied on..." Based on what? Just the general nature of Internet anonymity and wagering? I have paid bets before to other 2+2 members, including one mod. Plus we could use some type of escrow or something. But it doesn't look like you're actually wanting to lay 20000-1, so whatever. Somehow I don't think I could rely on you to deliver me the size of your proposed wager either.

I got two 800's when I took the GRE in 2000, which is why I have been so confident that someone else in the thread has done it. I had essentially no time to spare on the analytical section and in fact had to make educated guesses on the last couple, as my time was short. I had tons of time left on the quantitative section. I don't have digital proof, but I guess if you're in my neighborhood and stop by, I can show you my score results sheet.

My point was that you shouldn't rely on just beating people over the head with your intelligence/accomplishments, no matter how impressive they are. Also, you should be cautious about laying 20000-1 when there is a chance someone knows something you don't.

I agree that I haven't contributed to answering the original question. I don't really have much to say that hasn't already been said.

By the way, 20000-1 on a billion is 20 trillion, not 20 quadrillion. I know it's just a careless error, but given the nature of our conversation, I can't resist needling you about it.

The edge can only approach 100%, it can't hit it. The hypothetical I'm proposing is indeed an extremely extreme case, but it demonstrates that the edge cannot overcome extremely cold cards.

Let's say you are at the main event, first table. You know EVERYONE'S cards. You are the button. First hand, UTG goes all-in. He has those magnificent pocket aces. You have...well, anything else. Everyone folds to you, you fold, blinds fold. UTG won blinds.

Next hand, you are in the CO. Again, UTG goes all-in. Lo and behold, he has aces! Everyone folds. UTG wins blinds. This happens every hand, until YOU are UTG. You get dealt 23o and see that UTG+1 was dealt pocket aces this hand. You fold, UTG+1 pushes all-in, everyone folds.

Play at the table continues in this manner. You never get to win a pot as someone always has aces and you never do. If you do play a hand, you will have about an 80% chance of busting against the aces, as they will always have you covered.

That being said, I do think the edge would be very near 100%. I have not done any math to approximate it, but it seems quite logical to have a 99%+ chance of winning the tournament. Only the most extreme cases seem to be able to prevent a win.

My comments in caps:

I AM A GENEROUS MAN.

So, simple question, oh great double 800er do you think it's more or less than 80% to win. Your fans want to know what you think. Be of service to the thread, why don't ya?

There has to be a time limit on this.

If anyone prior to my bet proposal who had posted scored two 800s on the GRE, please scan your scores and post them.

Otherwise, MCS owes me a billion dollars.

I am so nice, I gave him 20,000,000:1 .... that must be some kind of world record!

(no smiley because I'm serious)

P.S. 20000-1 is 19999, I didn't want to upset you over this

To take real advantage you should be able to see at least the turn. As the blinds go up action will consist of mostly preflop raises and reraises. Even if you reraise after your partner have raised with his 76s and nobody moves in on you he might be forced to call and since he has around 43% chance might as well beats you.
Considering this as a typical scenario I don't think you are favorite to make even the final table.

rotanimid, your extreme case is why I was thinking along the lines of 100 minus 10^-23 to 100 minus 10^-80 percent at first.

Again, my repeated clues should get you to 100%.

Jamie Gold. Amnesia. Tricks. Doyle Brunson.
Think outside the box--after all, it's poker, right?

The cat is out of the bag.

There are still posters who are thinking of individual hands, this is not so productive.

I'm going to get a new wave of criticism for this, but:

you don't need to call raises early on, even with KK;
more often, if you are raising, you are open min-raising;
otherwise, you are limping, checking and folding early in the tournament because you KNOW YOUR EDGE far exceeds any known authentic edge that the pros have today--partial omniscience, no human has that so persistently.

Hey, MCS, over or under 80%?
You can get other posters to pay me $10000 each, you only need what, 100,000 2+2ers?

i would play 100% of pots that this player enters. my cards don't matter if i have the ability to know how hard or soft this player has hit various board etc. i would win every blind battle vs. him and i would always know if he is stealing. i would say my chances of winning the tournament would be upwards of 25%. There are still times when I would have to survive an allin with AA etc. and call semibluff allins when I have top set or w/e against a flush draw against some guy who isn't the guy on my right but i think it is unlikely that i would be allin for my whole stack more than a few times.

In the first case, where you know you will be able to see the cards of the player on your right every hand, your chance of winning approaches 100%

I just wanted suggest two things that I haven't seen mentioned yet in the thread. Heads up with the player on your right whose cards you can see, you have to radically alter your play. The idea here is to wait until the river until committing your money. With this sort of an edge, you don't want to leave anything to chance. so you get to the river as cheaply as possible, and when you are best, you bet whatever you think the market will bear. (i think this is why DS mentioned that the other players will not notice odd plays--because your play HU with the person on your right would be very strange).

The other thing no one has mentioned yet is this: eventually, everyone is going to be on your right.

I don't know. I haven't thought about it. Many people, including you, have thought about it plenty and will continue to have good discussion.

We could probably just keep arguing forever, but to semi-tie things up on my end: I wrote "someone in this thread besides you" with myself in mind in the first place. My verbal score has nothing to do with anything. I do not have a scanner and am not taking time out of my day just to convince you that I'm telling the truth. You may well be much smarter than me. I do not owe you a billion dollars and never will. I probably won't post here again, since as you have pointed out, it clutters the thread.

What's the use of being smart if you don't contribute anything?


-Wise Young on Marilyn vos Savant, 1986

(short stories? lol)