Quote:
Originally Posted by maximumprobability
I actually wanted to say ; could stupidity of inferior players actually work to their benefit in tournaments, fully wanting to depict the irritation one derives from getting eliminated in tourneys by some idiotic play , a clear stupid , dead wrong in EV choice of a player that goes on, totally unaware in bliss of their error, looking only at the result they eliminated you and their stack is now larger.
Example ;
You are small stacked but still not doing something dead wrong (GRRRRRR) when in a situation with a limper and the 2 blinds left to act you go all in for 5 bb with A7s, only to be called by both "idiots" the small blind that has 56o (lol) , a rather medium size stack and the original limper J8o (lol part 2) . You get your miracle (but clearly deserved given your hand) 2pair at flop A and 7 fully excited of an emerging stack rebuild possibility, only to see these punks check each other all the way to the turn and river where the bs strikes with the turn and river both being 5s. Talk about backdoor bs to defeat the flopped 2p when the cards are revealed (yes i can recall myself having predicted it with the 2 5s back to back, asking who is the criminaly insane that had 5x and called before i even saw it , lol)
And then you ask yourself what the hell is this garbage ? Why did the sb call me with 56o with the big blind left to act and the other limper too when clearly he has at best a 24% equity in a 3way pot (but this is not all in for the others ,only me so far , so he basically is in deep trouble at flop without some 4-5% miracle and it's tourney where the stacks are not big enough to be able to exploit any such miracle anyway) (and could be even in worse shape since the bb could raise him or the limper could be tricky slow playing something big , basically why try to see a pot with such stupid hand instead of just giving up on the tiny 0.5bb . Lets say the pot if both called without the big blind was 5+5+5+1.75=16.75 and this guy has 24% at best if he could go all the way to the river without being pushed out at flop etc. So he has seemingly 4bb to get back for the extra 4.5bb he puts in, even if all proves ideal and only 3 see the board all the way to the river without any action. If the limper folded it would still be a 5+5+1+1.75=12.75bb pot with his 65o vs say a top 15% hand for me giving him a 32% equity or again 4.08bb out for the extra 4.5bb he puts in (vs folding) . So basically he takes part in a clear negative EV decision here given the fact that he can be raised by the bb or the limper or even flat called by both and then see flop with a stupid hand of little possibility and a real threat to never see river with it to realize the full mediocre 24% equity (in 3way , less in 4way) . And of course dont get me started on the limper with J8o that calls too all too happy only to check all the way to the river and lose to the stupid backdoor running 5s together with me lol. I hate people who think because they are loaded they can play whatever. Or rather i dont hate them, since i benefit from them mostly , but i certainly look down on them.
Those guys apparently served in this hand only one purpose, to eliminate me at the cost of a negative EV decision and a small chance to improve their stack.
So here is my question now. Can it be possibly ever true that those idiots actually by being simplistic like that actually do themselves a favor?
I mean take the well known bold betting theorem in losing games such as roulette where its optimal to bet all at once in the red say instead of doing it in smaller pieces in various numbers or blocks, red, black etc. Can it be true that the inferior players are best served by taking negative bold big risks like that to improve their stack instead of doing it step by step possibly getting involved in worse multiple negative EV decisions, being outplayed post flop by others etc? Can it be true that the cost to eliminate a better player is worth it for them ? (if they perceive this to be the case by the kind of game seen so far , the quality of hands the "better" player has shown and the careful efficient game they may have observed with good timing being aggressive and nimble moreover the bad beats that have taken the stack of that player down which probably add to the impression that was a better player since they have had the luxury to witness showdowns with all ins and all cards exposed and better understand that way the betting street by street etc evaluating the game style and quality like an observer on TV) . Can it ever be argued that one less such opponent even if at the cost of occasionally tripling him up+ with the added benefit of boosting their stack when they suck out, ends up improving their tournament (or table ) equity ? Is it possible that this is a kind of bold stupid crude betting approach applied here in a losing for them on average game? Can in general be true that their odds to win something are improved by taking such sub 0 EV risks when we finally use the true tournament equity function that incorporates skill (if we had such analytical expression that is) and which clearly is not supposed to give the same result that ICM type arguments do (where all stacks assumed of equal skill) .
Is it in the end a small price to pay to eliminate a bigger problem down the road (ie the kind of problem that they may have if they both folded and the "better" player got an uncontested 65% stack improvement... At the very least i have started thinking that it may actually pay to be idiot like that when you know no better anyway and that the end result for them with you out as one alternative is probably changing the negative EV choice to either marginal or possibly positive one, given their inferior stake in the prize pool anyway. (ie say one inferior skill player has true equity 1% of total prize with the good player in and it goes to 1.2% now with him or others like him potentially out, while ICM-using equal skill logic-would have assigned say a 2% equity before the bad ev play and a 1.90% avg after choosing it for a skill free analysis player. In other words under equal skill ICM the choice is wrong but under true inferior skill real equity the elimination and the introduction of volatility for their stack boosts the equity higher a bit albeit still below what it would be under equal skill logic) . Think of it like a war between 2 armies one very advanced , the other less so , where instead of having the airforce decide the outcome, the weaker army offers a middle ages or antiquity like glory promoting duel to decide the war between their general and the general of the superior army thinking that they suddenly have elevated their chances to survive taking out the high tech differential. The implication of that here might then be that being inferior means you need to be taking as much big bold crude risks in a tournament to improve stack as possible because all else is lethally ineffective like the lengthy roulette betting session...
Is this like the final table heads up idiot opponent with no real skill that goes all in every hand and still enjoys that way a 40% win probability (for stacks below 15-20 bb say ) possibly outperforming that way with bold stupidity the alternative of normal game where they might have had less than 40% total.
Anyway sorry for the length of the storyline and the details . I just wanted to question my own sense that those idiots are damaging themselves by being crazy wrong like that at surface. Can it be that they have converged to the kind of optimally stupid behavior that fits their inferior skill and serves it best? Obviously its a long term losing idea to treat yourself as an idiot and not care about such things for sooner or later one has to make the transition to a better player and respect themselves more to not play like that , but until then maybe eliminating you at some affordable negative EV choice may be worth the curses they receive afterwards ! lol !
I wrote a long rebuttal, but I decided to shorten it down to this:
You don't seem to grasp M, nor fold equity.
Edit: Nor effective stacks
Last edited by jackaaron; 02-18-2009 at 11:32 AM.
