Re: [ba-poker] Quantification of skill edge in tournaments

[Steve Daniel <stephen.daniel(deleted the rest)>]

Yes the math showed it was a coin flip without taking into account the
skill level of the players.  But things don't change much even when you do
include estimates of player skills in the math.  The prize pool numbers and
stack size dominate the math in this case.  There is one aspect of this
situation that may turn out to make my call a bad play.  In retrospect, I
believe the short stack would call with a very wide range of hands here.

Crunch




Ed Fernandez wrote:

> On Feb 2, 2004, at 11:46 AM, William Chen wrote:
>
> > Frankly, your edge lies mostly in
> > picking up something like 66 and getting your
> > opponnent to shove in with a substandarh hand like J2.
> > Getting to pick up 66 here *is* a big part of your 15%
> > equity edge, and Crunch was right in taking it.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
>
> Bill,
>
> Its quite possible I'm being stupid here, I definitely don't have the
> math background that you do, so bear with me on this. I thought (from
> JP's analysis) the math showed that it was basically a coin flip
> whether calling with the 66 was the right call or not? So in my mind,
> if the decision is really that close, then the overwhelming factor as
> to whether to make the call depends upon the two other players. One we
> have as the maniac, but what about the short stack? Since there is a
> substantial jump in money between 3rd and 2nd here, I think figuring
> out how the short stack is reacting to the maniac is the most important
> factor in deciding whether to call or not. If the short stack is
> letting himself get blinded off, why in the world would you gamble here
> with 66? You should be pounding on the short stack too, and once he
> gets busted, then you take your shots with the maniac. I'm I missing
> something here? Also, to a point I made earlier, I don't think anyone
> said the maniac was calling all in often, just that he was raising all
> in when he played and not likely to lay down a hand once he did raise
> less than all in. So you could still go after the maniacs blinds as
> well by moving all in. Doesn't seem like you need to do anything that
> is a close call here until you move up into second.
>
> Ed