RE: [ba-poker] tournament alternates

[Andy Latto <Andy.Latto(deleted the rest)>]

> 
> As we all know, in a proportional-pay tournament, the average value
> of each chip in a small stack is worth more than the average value of
> each chip in a large stack.  This is because having one chip 
> can win you 
> second place money.  Moreover, the value of each chip 
> increases the more
> people bust out.

I agree with this.

>  In fact, as the chips get unevenly 
> distributed even if
> nobody busts out, the "middle-sized stacks" gain in equity 
> against the big
> and little stacks.  

I don't agree with this. I think that there is no special advantage
to being middle-sized. The smaller your stack, the greater your
ratio of equity to stack size.

> 
> This can be seen most obviously when a proportional-pay 
> tournament gets 
> 3-handed.  If the small stack loses a big hand to the big 
> stack (even if
> he doesn't bust out), the total number of chips in play remains the
> same, but the chips the short stack lost are each more 
> valuable than the
> chips the large stack won, and the extra equity has to go 
> somewhere, so
> it "flows" to the middle-sized stack.

If the 3 remaining players are A, B, and C, then whenever A and B have
a big confrontation, this benefits C. So as you point out, the middle
stack benefits when the small stack has a confrontation with the big stack.
But the small stack benefits when the medium stack has a big confrontation
with the small stack, and the big stack benefits when the medium stack
has a big confrontation with the small stack, and these benefits seem
just as important to me. So I don't see any justification for your claim
that the middle-sized stacks gain in equity against the big and little
stacks.

                                Andy Latto
                                andy.latto(deleted the rest)