Re: [ba-poker] tournament alternates

[Jeffrey Siegal <jbs(deleted the rest)>]

On May 24, 2004, at 15:34, Nick Christenson wrote:

> Jeff also said, regarding Ed:
> > Its also worth pointing out that the average skill level may be higher
> > as well, if the worst players bust first.
>
> > If this theory is correct, then if you start out as an average player
> > against the field, entering late might put you a disadvantage to the 
> > field.
>
> This is absolutely true, and this is why I prefaced my remarks with,
> "Let's pretend there will be a tournament where I don't think I can
> *massively* outplay the field, ...".

The above theory doesn't necessarily require that you can't massively 
outplay the field or even that there be any particular relationship 
between your skill and the skill of the rest of the field.  It only 
requires that the field gets tougher as the tournament progresses.

Perhaps you can massively outplay the field, but only to the extent 
that you get to play in the first few rounds, before the dead money is 
gone.  Perhaps you're *very* good at collecting the dead money, and 
that's where most of your edge comes from.  In that case, it is to your 
significant disadvantage to enter late.  Even as a huge favorite over 
the entire field, you might not be a favorite at all against the 
remaining field.

Similarly, imagine you're a big dog to the field, but there are lots of 
other early players who are also a big dog to the field.  My entering 
late, you give up your opportunity to play against the other bad 
players, against whom you might not be at much of a disadvantage.  That 
phase of the tournament might be your only opportunity to accumulate a 
lot of chips from other *bad* players, allowing you to get lucky and 
win something in the tournament, despite your disadvantage later.  
Again, entering late works to your disadvantage.

Even if the effect might not be quite in real tournaments as suggested 
above, if it exists at all, it might well be larger than the effect of 
any chip equity non-linearity for alternates.

> If I can significantly outplay the field, then I want to play as long 
> as
> possible in order to increase my edge.  Note also that a corollary 
> holds.
> It is less fair to the field to let a *bad* player in late than a good
> player, as doing so gives the field less of a shot at his money than 
> they
> deserve.

In this case, you'd prefer to let the *bad* player in late regardless 
of what sort of alternate rule is used.  Perhaps the *bad* player is 
getting some sort of "advantage" due to chip equity but it only serves 
to marginally decrease his disadvantage.