Hybrid Strategy

I will be playing the Aquarius tournament in a couple of days. From what has been posted about it, it starts off with one or more rounds of table elimination format, until they narrow the field down to 49 players, then, the final round is accumulation, with all 49 getting some payoff, but the most money going to the higher finishers, with $10,000 for first.

This is not a situation dealt with in Wong, or any post I have seen on this site. What you are wanting here is not to advance to the next round, but to maximize risk/reward. Any suggestions as to strategy for doing so?

 

Wong (in CTS) does have a section on Accumulation Strategy and there are posts on this site that discuss it. Use the appropriate strategies independently for the table elimination and accumulation rounds.

Chips

 

Wong's strategy

is geared to setting a target and hitting it or busting out to advance to the next round. All the posts on accumulation I have seen on this site address the same issue. This is not an advancing situation, but the money round, everyone gets something, but, the higher you finish the more you get. So there is not a 'set target' you can calculate which should get you the advance, but, rather, a risk/reward situation, where you need to balance the risk of crashing out against the additional reward from a higher finish and more money. I am assuming that all players will be playing simultaneously, so you won't know what the other players are doing. Wong says you can't use his formula for setting targets for small fields and says it breaks down if less than 20 players advance, so you can't fudge his formula to get a target for finishing in the top seven, say. Obviously it will pay off to finish as high as possible, but, you can't set a target, and I am assuming that there are some tiers in the payoffs, where a little higher finish might pay more money, even if you are not one of the top finishers. So, how would one approach this type of situation, where you can't set a target, and it may be the best ev to settle for less than a win, at some point, but where you can not estimate where that point is.

 

I respectfully beg to differ

Not sure what you are asking for in general terms re “maximize risk/reward”. Everyone has a different risk tolerance for a given reward. One needs to decide that – i.e. what is the minimum prize one will be “happy” with and make that your target. For some it is First place, for others it is a dollar amount. This is no different than being (one's strategy) at any “money table” if you think about it – there are just 49 people at this “money table”.

Re: setting a target, you can indeed make an assessment or “estimate”. The “square root” strategy is not “perfect” when 20 or more advance. It is “less perfect” when less than 20 advance, but it is a good basis for an initial assessment. Those that have become proficient in accumulation strategy know that there are many other - both mathematical and experiential - factors (that are not in the public domain) to apply to this initial assessment to make it more accurate. One might say this would be to “fudge his numbers”. This applies to no matter how many “advance” (more or less than 20) or where in the range that one wants to target.

Chips

 

Thanks

for the replies Chips, I appreciate them. I guess where I am really coming from here, is that I have not played accumulation before. I understand what Wong is saying about setting targets to advance, but I am seeing this final round accumulation more as a big table with 49 players, and you can't see the chip stacks or bets of 42 of them. Obviously one does need to set some type of target, but I would think one might also want to maximize ev, and that would mean weighing the risk of your betting strategy, meaning going bankrupt, against the potential reward, and the reward part is not a win all or lose all game - so is there a point where the additional risk of bankrupting outweighs the liklihood of acheiving a certain increment of increased payout? I think there may be some ways to approach this, so will be thinking it through the next couple of days.

 

To counter your first issue, the square root formula (with adjustments) gives you an estimate of what the other 48 player's chip stacks" will be at the "final count". The response to your second issue is redundant of what has already been posted. It is not a matter of "maximizing ev", but I will attempt to drive this home for you. Do you have this much trouble deciding where you want to end up at a "traditional" final (money) table of say 7 people with a declining prize schedule from First to Seventh place? Because it is no different! All "final tables" are "accumulation" format if one properly thinks about it - and you have a "moving target"! Here you have the advantage of an estimate of the final chip counts from the beginning - the law of large numbers gives you that. Don't know how else to put it.

Chips

 

EV for me

Chips,

I disagree slightly -

I'd say it is always a matter of maximising EV, whether consciously or not.

In the last couple of rounds, I certainly do! Surely we all go through the process of trying to decide if it is still realistic to chase first place, with its higher pay-off, or better to settle for a greater chance of a lower-place finish?

The moving target makes things easier; you know the precise situation at every stage. Plus you know that betting smaller than your rivals is generally the better option, so long as you have enough rounds and chips left to eventually change tactics and give chase, if that is what is needed.

 

The key factor that is unusual would seem to be the fact that all 49 players get paid. I think you need to get hold of some more information -

• How top-heavy is the pay structure?
• Do all players that bust out get paid the same, or do you receive more for lasting longer?
• How may rounds (hands) will be played?

With $10K for first, it may be that all the complications you are considering melt away if you discover that second-place gets considerably less. Just set your target for first and hope for the best!

It might be worth trying to avoid going broke, if you estimate that a proportion of the field will do so, and that you can win significantly more than they do, simply by hanging on. So if you make a series of big bets and are left with a small remnant of chips, maybe give up and min bet to the end.

 

All valid comments

All valid comments LC (and I have always enjoyed your well thought out posts and articulation despite our disagreement on how certain words are spelled!)

My comments to yours:

1) Re "EV". Yes, of course as I always do - just making the point that this is not unique to this "49 person table accumulation round" - it is true at all stages of a tournament - you weigh the risk/reward situation constantly and it is not something that is done "in advance" of the round as I understood the initial question. As you state, it is always a matter of maximizing EV - that is a given and there is not a "special strategy" for such - in this format or others. It comes down to what you are "comfortable with" given your risk/reward tolerance.

2) Re adjusting the target. Yes INDEED - covered pretty much in 1) above. Again, was just making the point that this occurs when one is at any finals table - perhaps not eloquently or as clear as I could have. Wanted him to realize that what one does towards achieving a target (or changing that target) is no different in a 7 horse race than a 49 horse race. The initial target for us all is first place and we adjust as necessary depending on our progress. Again, just trying to point out that there is nothing conceptually different from this format than ones he has played.

3) Re moving vs fixed. We each have our own preferences. And there are Pros and Cons to each. One thing is certain though - you have to beat the some number of people to end up at the same position no matter what the format.

Appreciate your take on it - don't think we have any fundamental disagreements.

Chips

 

Well articulated

Well articulated and I complement you on your spelling of the "King's English"!!
All part of the tactics that determine the target that one sets.
Chips

 

Heading out

Well enough of this fun, games and rhetoric for a while - heading to the airport shortly for a week or so in Las Vegas! Will have limited but daily internet access for a few days.

Chips

 

Aquarias Tourney

Just some clarification...

1st place was 7500.00 last time not 10K even though 10K was advertized

The semi finals (48 players 8 tables of 6) is not really an accumulation round, the top 5 amounts make the final table that competes for the BIG money. 1 wild card for a total of 6 players at the final table.

I set my goal for 7500 to get a seat at the final table. 3300 was 5th. 3 players made it from ONE table. I believe high was 4400. I ended up with 2350, pushed the last 6 hands with a 19, 20 or 21. The 21, I had 2200 as a double down. That was very disappointing, but nothing really surprises me in this game. What are the odds for that to happen. Finished 10th, got 250.00.

Hopefully this will be a better event.

 

Thanks

have never played this tourney - and was just going by the descriptions I have seen here - and thought it was a single accumulation round - for the final - should have reread the posts on this I guess - so - it is table elimination to get down to 48 players, then accumulation to determine the top 5 to final table - then a six person final table - that makes more sense I guess -

 

Thanks for the kind words, Chips. I hope you are having a fun and profitable time in Vegas. I must say, though, I'm a bit perplexed by your spelling comments. I've been poring over my posts, looking for any British/American English conflicts.

As far as accumulation tournaments are concerned, I have to admit my experience is very limited. All the events in which I've played have featured a leaderboard that can be monitored at all times. This does lend itself to a very dynamic approach, as far as setting and revising a target is concerned.

I'd have thought that with no information about how the other players are faring, other than perhaps what can be gained from registering late after monitoring events at the tables, it might well be appropriate to set a target other than first place, in the name of maximising EV. It would depend on the gradient with which the payout falls away for lower-placed finishers, more than on how many get paid. At the extreme, you could imagine the top N finishers all receiving equal prize money; the final is then no different to an N-advance tournament round, such as the one it turns out will feature in RK's event.

As far as revising the target is concerned, I suppose the time (or number of hands) remaining is the only factor to consider, if you don't know how the other players are doing. If you are in a position that ought to earn you a payout, and the tournament is drawing to a close, then you can revert to min betting. Similarly, if you are close to such a position, you can try a last-gasp progression, to get you over the line.



Monkeysystem, your post seems to lay out the initial-target options very clearly, but with more stress on the psychological factors that might make different approaches attractive to different people, rather than the detached, money-making notion of EV. It's probably a purely academic question, because of the steep decline in payout in most tournaments, but I do wonder if you could go through a process of estimating the BR needed to finish in various positions (e.g., first, top 5, top 10, etc.) and then calculate the probability of achieving each of these goals, in order to arrive at an EV-estimate for each.

As you say, the reality is likely to be that first-place is the optimal target; plus, it's more fun that way!

 

The King's English

Greetings from Las Vegas LC! Yes, having a good time here both personally and professionally!

The spelling of "maximising" is what prompted my initial comment. My second one - complimenting you on your King's English - was just the recognition in your subsequent post - that I did not see any difference of opinion in spelling! I am reminded of our President U. S. Grant, who was a notoriously bad speller. When questioned about an "improper" spelling, his reply was something to the effect - "Well, to my way of thinking, any man that can't figure out more than one way to spell a word cant be very smart!".

Had the opportunity to spend quite a bit of time in the Hammersmith area years ago on a job. Just curious as to what part of town you live in?

All the best

Chips

 

The ize have it

Ah, I see. I didn't even notice that we had differed. As it happens, -ise and -ize are both valid in British English, but -ise is the more usual spelling. I'm glad to see that the time I spend on this forum hasn't corrupted me into aping your American ways.

I live in S.E. London, in the borough of Lewisham. It's quite central; about a ten-minute train journey from London Bridge.


P.S. It's the Queen's English, unless I've missed a major news story in recent days!

 

Who's English?

Ah another difference. Here in "The Colonies", I believe I have heard it referred to the King's (as opposed to the Queen's) English more often - but as with your -ise/-ize, I have heard both. "London Brige"! believe you all put it up for sale and we bought it in the '60s! It is a pleasant boat ride from Laughlin Nevada on the Colorado River!

Chips

 

"Temporary lodging facility"???? Any bars on the windows there? :laugh: