Hybrid Strategy

Close but not quite right. The formula is:

(Starting Bankroll) * Square root of (Number of Players / Number Advancing)​

To reinforce a little of Monkeysystem's comments, Wong's formula is only meant as a means to arrive at a ballpark target. It is totally inadequate at arriving at a target for a specific place (2nd, 3rd, 4th or 10th). With some tweaking, one may be able to arrive at a target for a 1st place finish, but again it's just an estimate at best. Using Wong's simple formula does not take into account the many variables at play when playing accumulation formats such as:

Quality of other players
Maximum bet in relation to starting bankroll (Wong does not account for this)
"Hot" tables
"Cold" tables
Extremes in the proportion of advancing players
Other stuff that I can't think of off hand​

Of critical importance is observing the play of other players to determine an estimate of the deviation from the "norm". Unless one makes adjustments as the play progresses and tweaks Wong's formula to go "Beyond Wong", one is condemned to a small advantage over the competition.

 

Indeed. There's a popular myth that the gentleman who bought it thought he was getting Tower Bridge, but I gather that probably isn't true.

Absolutely. I was waffling slightly, but my main point was to quibble with Chips's assertion that you ought always to start out by targetting first place. The reliability of the estimates may not be high enough to warrant feeding them into further calculations, but in theory at least, you could calculate for each cash-paying position in the final round -

• The target BR needed to finish in that position.
• The probabiliity of reaching that target, if you aim for it.
• And hence the EV (Prob * Payoff), associated with going for each of these targets from the start.

So, whereas at an elimination final table you would always start out with the goal of first place, and only events at the table might serve to make you lower your sights, in an accumulation format you might conceivably ignore first place from the very beginning, in the name of maximising (or possibly maximizing) EV.

 

Which is, in fact, the same thing.

 

Upon further examination I agree. Just 2 different ways of arriving at the same number.

 

More good comments

I have been out of touch for a few days, so am just reading the newer comments, very nice of all of you.

Payoffs at the final table were $10,000, $2,500, $1,500, $1,000, $600, $500; with players getting $500 for 7-10; then $300 and $100 (top 48 got paid). Nice spread paying 48 players, but top heavy at the final table - a lot of the $25,000 prize pool went to the non-finalists - they had 408 buy-ins and rebuys, mostly buy-ins, only a few rebuy rounds, I think - so more than 250 players -

Wong's formula is just a quick and dirty way to use the standard deviation and standard error to estimate the percent of players who will reach a certain level - with some generous assumptions as to what the standard deviation and error are - a little crude but a useful quick estimate - I went to the basic math - and what I thought were reasonable assumptions, and came up with a target of $5,400+, to reach the final table - conditions were 68 players in the accumulation round, starting bankroll of $2,100, $5 min bet and no max, 21 hands, top 5 to final table, then they added a wild card. My calculations were a little too precise, as the lowest qualifier had $5,300+, next to lowest had $5,500+, so $5,400 would have just edged in, not enough slack in my calculation, but not bad for a first try - fortunately - a nice and timely 2-1 bj put me to $8,455, qualifying me as the top finisher in the accumulation round, but even without the bj, would have made it as the fifth qualifier. Ended up 5th in the tourney - lost the last 4 hands at the final table, would have been second if I had won just the last hand - sucky -

This was a well run tourney, pretty much, except for the 7:45 AM cattle call the second day to get your seat assignments for the accumulation rounds, which went off at 8:00 and 8:45 AM - don't they know that tbj players are degenerates who don't do anything at 7:45 in the morning?

They comp a lot of players, so this might be a nice tourney for a lot of players to try, and to get some experience in accumulation format; I have decided I like this format - as a smart player can have a big edge over the less experienced and less skilled players -

I am, however, mystified as to why all the players in the accumulation round liked to bet $200 every hand? - About 90% of the players just bet $200 every hand, then went all in for the final hand, after leaking a good amount of their bankroll - maybe it was the pretty orange $100 chips - magpies and pack rats like bright shiny colors, maybe tbj players do too. Maybe there is something basic psychologically about betting 10% of your bankroll? Very few players who had much of a clue as to how to play this format -

BUt a nicely run tourney in most respects.

 

First off, congratulations on making the final table. Just wish those last few hands went better for you. Looks like you adopted well to the accumulation format.

Sounds like a covert from a most unexpected person.

More experience with this format will show you that a bet well above the minimum but small enough to avoid busting out is very common among the ploppies. They think that as long as they can retain most of their bankroll that should be sufficient to advance. False thinking but that's why they are ploppies.

The more you play this format the more you will realize the truth of this statement.



In closing I want to say that one thing took me by surprise. Since BJ paid 2:1 and there was no max bet, I would have expected a much higher cut-off point. I thing the lack of knowledge by most players is the reason for that. If this tournament continues to be played, I think the cut-off point will rise as more players gain some knowledge so this should be taken into account in their future tournaments.

 

toolman1

"In closing I want to say that one thing took me by surprise. Since BJ paid 2:1 and there was no max bet, I would have expected a much higher cut-off point. I thing the lack of knowledge by most players is the reason for that. If this tournament continues to be played, I think the cut-off point will rise as more players gain some knowledge so this should be taken into account in their future tournaments."

They've run several of these I believe, Barney's played in a couple of them. I think they comp in a lot of their regular customers, so don't necessarily get a lot of tournament people - saw Skip there, and noticed John Ressman was playing, saw a couple of others I recognized, but didn't seem like many regular tournament players came out for it. Didn't see anyone playing anything like a reasonable strategy, except for watching John play a couple of hands. Figure 5 of 68 is about a 1 of 13 1/2 raw odds (7.4%), I figure the strategy I played gave me about a 33% chance of making the final table; that's an incredible advantage. Of course I gave up the lower cash finishes for it, but it was the right ev decision.

 

With more experience you should improve on the "33%" especially if the other players continue their ploppy ways. As for passing on the lower prize money, I agree 100%. I virtually always "GO FOR THE GOLD".

 

33%

33% is the probability I would win the big bets/progressions I had to make to reach my target in the accumulation round. Win or Die. Don't think I could have played more efficiently than I did. A different target would have resulted in a different betting strategy, and a different probability, but I had to more than double my starting bankroll, so needed two bets/progressions. I picked the highest probability combination that would put me over my target. Target was $5,400+ as stated, but bets made would have given me $5,600+, without hitting the bj, which would have been the third highest qualifying total.

I think that the accumulation format creates an opportunity for counting to be useful in a tourney, if you have enough hands to play a waiting game. If you can hold until you get a reasonable positive count, then make your bet, it increases the probability you'll be sucessful, and every small advantage helps.

Comparing 33% to 7.4%; that's a 346% edge, for the accumulation round. That's a little higher than my edge in table format.