lol. no ****ing way would i grant a pause after all that either. zugwat, this whole thread is completely unreasonable and i feel like imnotsogood is completely justified in his actions. i mean the dude has ****ing finals and you keep blowing him off when he obviously won't be able to play in a few weeks. stop being such a selfish douchemonkey. though, the single/multi table thing is hilarious.

/tilt

.

I owned you? You gave your chips away to me?

And I ran good?

The first match I had K4 on a KT4 vs your KT, that was 0-1 right there.

I had one outdraw, and it was a 67-33, plus it was a damn cooler.

I outplayed you tommy, face it.

If Zugwat didn't run like god I would have ran through him as well.

I was down 0-1 with 500 chips in the 2nd table and came back to win and end up playing a 4 hour long tie breaker that was very painful to lose...

sounds like a HU 4 rollz challenge to me. I have popcorn ready.

Yes. What skier_5 said. So you are basically both morons.

You know what I find hilarious?

A bunch of 2p2ers who feel like knowing how to calculate pot odds makes them math experts. You are the idiot if you criticize my math but don't do some of your own to counter it/disprove it.

I am actually pretty sure that I am at least roughly correct w/ my calculation, and that the common solution is incorrect for this situation.

The equation you all are using is not taking into consideration the two tables being played originally (when Hero is already 0-1), and the final table(tiebreaker) when it's 1-1.

I'm looking to lose some money and feel like a complete moron, someone prop bet.

dude you have to win both tables. if you lose one of them then you just saved yourself some time. you act like going into the 3rd table 1-1 changes your equity when it doesn't.

I'm aware you have to win both tables, everyone keeps repeating the exact same thing, but not once posting any type of math.


I never said going into the match 1-1 changes your equity. I'm saying, adding the "3rd table" when already down 0-1, and leading 3k-1k in the 2nd match will have a significant affect on your equity.

Im saying that you are better off single tabling your 2nd match, secure a win, and then go for the final table. Is this not obvious to anyone?

Do you not see that there HAS to be a difference between playing your second table where you have a 3k-1k edge alone, will have different EV than playing that, while also playing a 3rd match @ 2k-2k.

Think common sense, you are 0-1, you have a 3-1 edge in the 2nd match. Would starting another table @ 2k-2k that if you were to lose, would end the match affect the outcome?

You geniuses obv need to educate me, the idiot, who knows nothing about math or poker... so please, dont just say something, prove it, show it, i hate this subjective blah blah ****,

Oh, and if you play two tables @ 0-1 neither is the 3rd table, they are both the 2nd table until there becomes a need for a tiebrkr, or a lack of such.

you're not showing any math yourself. the two events are completely independent (apart from emotions or w/e). you have to play the 2k-2k match anyways and if you lose that one you still lose - whether you are in the one where you have a chip lead or not.

HOW does adding the 3rd table affect your equity? you still have to play and win it. you state that adding it affects your equity like it's fact and there needs to be math to disprove you, when in reality it's the other way around.

ps. im done with this, but i noticed you offering a propbet earlier in the thread, so if you like we can bet oh i dunno, say 10k? on this and i'll go into more detail

Yes, think common sense, winning a 3-1 and then a 2-2 has the same chance of happening as winning a 2-2 and then a 3-1, the match ending is irrelevant as you're gonna have to deal with the 2-2 either way if you are to win, doesn't matter if it happens same time as the 3-1 or afterwards, why would it?


This is like the twilight zone, but I'm just waiting for that moment when it clicks really loud in your head

Haha I wasted post 4000 on this thread, guess I'll have to wait till 5k to post something thought provoking

I hope you didn't take my last post as aimed @ you, though it seems like you did. I did post some math earlier in the post, I just want people to stop being typical flamers and add something. As for the prop bet, well talk in a bit, studying for a test right now.

this! But it will still probably go over his head. I think it best to just leave him in cloud cuckoo land

yes definately, everybody im stupid, plz gimme action HU, i dont know numbers and stuff



Heres a hypothetical

Say in the 3k-1k match (Still 2nd table, while 0-1), the 3k stack is a 95% favorite.


And suppose in the 2k -2k match, (lets call it 2ka, and 2kb), 2kA only wins 10% of the time.

In this scenario, while the 3k-1k match is going on, (0-1, 2nd table), would it have 0 effect to add the 2ka-2kb table?

i think u have a right to be upset w/ how many times zugwat put u off but ur being ******ed. either u win both matches or u dont. not 2 tbling him when he has a 15k tourney in the morning is equally as ridiculous and the reasons u give just make it LOL.

Weee, this is like a 2p2 minigame, I'll take another swing!

To win the match, you're going to need to win both the one where you have 95% chance to win, and the one where you have 10% chance to win. Bringing it in now, assuming drool doesn't start pouring out your mouth when more tables are open, makes 0 difference as you have to bring it in directly afterwards either way to win the match, and you still have the same chance of winning the match on the whole.

Address what you do not comprehend.

Sooner or later, the picture will be painted. Maybe you're an auditory person and need to say it to yourself outloud, or maybe you need to feel your way through it, either way well get past this roadblock champ

no? I don't know where those numbers came from, but I guess you're trying to make them more extreme to show your point, which makes sense if you actually have a valid point. Now you have a 95% chance to win one match and a 10% chance to win the other. If you had not started the third, you would have a 95% chance to win the second followed by... a 10% chance to win the third. turns out those are the same probabilities!

the only two reasons I can think of not to 2-table the other two are because you (or he) play different multitabling or because you want to stall him out and make him play bad because he's playing an EPT in the morning. but since you did it to the previous guy you played, I'll assume it's just because you are bad at math.

p.s. I'm assuming you won't take skier's 10k prop bet, so I'll just put up 1k right now that you're wrong if you want. however much you want.
this thread is now awesome.

"The problem is, the 3k-1k stack will be winning more quickly and more readily than the 2k-2k stack, which leaves us with the inferior stack in the tiebreaker more often than not."

But if you win the 2k-2k match, you're left with the 3k-1k as the tiebreaker... so your tiebreaker becomes a more favorable scenario if you were to win the 2k-2k match. This seems to be one of those cases in which english tends to do justice to an equation. WHen you say "leaves us with an inferior stack in the tiebreaker more often than not", this is true, but you left out the point about how playing the 2k-2k match simultaneously will sometimes leave you with a superior stack. If you take this into account, I think your preference in playing the 3k-1k match first will become decrease.

I also don't think point about combining stacks may have been done too quickly. Its not like you have a combined 2.5k-1.5k lead in the match if you play both tables... I feel like you may also have to take into account the first match in which zugwat has 4k-1k. If you combine tables... you're still a 0k+3k+2k to 4k+1k+2k underdog. That doesn't change no matter if you play a bunch of tables or not. I'm not sure if this has anything to do with anything, but it may adjust your seemingly short-sighted time/order of play preference here.

My point is that you can approach solving this logically. You're acting as if the multi-tabling affects your chance of winning (since you may be left with an 'inferior stack' if you were to win the 3k-1k match). I dunno, to be honest, none of your math makes too much sense to me here, especially this:

"Heres a hypothetical

Say in the 3k-1k match (Still 2nd table, while 0-1), the 3k stack is a 95% favorite.


And suppose in the 2k -2k match, (lets call it 2ka, and 2kb), 2kA only wins 10% of the time.

In this scenario, while the 3k-1k match is going on, (0-1, 2nd table), would it have 0 effect to add the 2ka-2kb table?"

Additionally, your write, "Im saying that you are better off single tabling your 2nd match, secure a win, and then go for the final table. Is this not obvious to anyone?"

Intuitively no. I think partially why nobody seems to be countering your scenario with math is that, logically, your point seems void. No offense. I would take some more time to review your math here.

wow, ....

If I two table while 0-1, I should have a 52.5% chance of winning round 2 (Assuming the Extreme %'s I gave earlier).

While I'm 2 tabling, neither tables have anything to do with the 3rd table yet. Both tables are concerned with winning a second table and making it 1-1. Only then is the 3rd table really its own entity, as before it was trying to get a win to make it 1-1.

.625 x {(.75).50+(.25).75} = .3516

.75= CHANCE YOU WILL PLAY W/ THE 2K-2K STACK AS TIEBREAKER(CHANCE I OF 3K-1K STACK WINNING)

.25 = CHANCE YOU WILL PLAY W/ THE 3K-1K STACK AS TIEBREAKER

Can you explain this again? is the .625 your chance of losing? I'll admit, I'm a little lost at the math. But please don't take my inability to clearly justify your math here as a point in your favor. As the person countering, I don't think the burden of proof falls on me/or anything else who takes the side that your point seems a little strange.

Crazy attempt to save ImNotSoGood some money.

Lets roll a dice, then another dice.

Dice 1: If it rolls a 1, 2, 3 or 4, you win. 5 or 6 and I win. (The 3k-1k game) 66/33
Dice 2: If it rolls 1, 2 or 3 you win. 4, 5 or 6 and I win. (The 2k-2k game) 50/50

Now lets try rolling the second dice first, with the same rules.

Dice 2: If it rolls 1, 2 or 3 you win. 4, 5 or 6 and I win. (The 2k-2k game) 50/50
Dice 1: If it rolls a 1, 2, 3 or 4, you win. 5 or 6 and I win. (The 3k-1k game) 66/33

Now lets do something really crazy, lets keep the same rules, but roll dice 1 and 2 at the same time!

Hang on? This sounds familiar!

plz stop posting itt. thx.

I laugh every time i see OUTRAGEOUS in caps in the thread title.

I can sort of understand where he is coming from with his thoughts and mathematics. It's like trying to convince one of those "50/50, happens or it doesn't" kids that probability does work, or that the Martingale is a fail scheme.

ImNotSoGood: Assume you win the 3:1 match 100% of the time. Does it matter when/in which order you play the 2:2 match?

Another simplification to help you understand is the following - imagine the first match is decided by running AK vs KQ and the second one is decided by running 22 vs AKs. Does it matter in which order you do these?

This should hopefully clear your confusion.