What is the value (% advantage) of guaranteeing you will get to bet last?

Heads up tournament this weekend. 8 people left, payout is this:

5-8th place $10k
3-4th place $30k
2nd place $125k
1st place $275k

I paid my opponent (not a tournament expert by any means but not a total idiot either) $3k cash to guarantee I would have last bet on last hand (it was randomized). Putting aside all the rules/enforcement issues... what would fair market value actually be. Assume the following:

A loss is worth $10k
A win is worth Expected Value $115k

If you assume two players are 50/50 in terms of odds to win, what does the last hand advantage do to those odds? 60-40? I realize it matters if the 2nd player is experienced or not. My sense is that for an experienced player it shifts the odds to 60-40 and for a novice it shifts the odds to 75-25. (Although in reality if opponent is a novice then your odds start out above 50-50). Remember the question here is what are the odds before the first hand is dealt and before the order of hands has been randomized. (So I have a 50% chance of betting last even without any deal).

I obviously got a good deal -- it was a huge bargain at $3k. But I'd like a good way to approximate the % win/loss odds change so that I can price these side deals accordingly in the future.

Thanks.

 

Did I read this right? You CHEATED and want someone here to figure out if your cheat was a good deal???

Sure hope I read it wrong................

 

Something new

In all my years of tournament play I have never seen or heard of anyone paying to switch the button. Now I have heard players kidding about paying and even players trying to slip the button position to their advantage,but never just outright paying someone...lol.

Talk about a gamble, if you bought it before play started and a player or two busted out early you could have cost yourself $3,000.00 and if I was on the table and the button was mis-placed I'd called it before the hand started. Now if you paid the table and they all agreed, more power to you.

 

Good grief - first two words of the post and I missed 'em, too. :yikes:
My apologies, masonuc, I thought you were suggesting collusion between two players at a "normal" BJT table.

 

Cheating by any other word ....

Let me condense this situation to a two sentences:

masonuc paid his opponent $3,000 so that if the button on the last hand ends up in masonuc's position, the opponent will put his bet out first, therefore giving masonuc the advantage of betting last when he should be betting first. Play will then proceed with masonuc playing first since he is on the button.​

Now maybe this isn't cheating in the sense that other players are not directly affected because masonuc's actions have no effect on other players winning their rounds. However, other players can be affected because they may be playing their next round against masonuc instead of masonuc's opponent who received the $3,000.

Seems to me that anytime a person pays, "under the table", to help influence the results of a game, that person is doing something illegal. Now that may not be "cheating" in the pure sense of the word but it is, in my opinion, unethical. So does unethical mean cheating? All I can say is cheating by any other word is still cheating.

Suppose we carry this to the Super Bowl. Player A (team A) pays Player B (team B) $100,000 so if the opportunity arises, Player B will do something that would allow Player A to gain an advantage in the last minute of play. That advantage may or may not win the game. Is that cheating? Probably not but if it became known the consequences would be incredible.

Do we want to use this site to "give odds" on unethical behavior? I guess that's up to the Administrator and/or members. You folks decide.

 

I missed it the 2nd time also

Even after reading Ken's post I went back and still missed the heads up part, had to look again before seeing it.

Interesting concept, clever actually if within the rules of the tournament. Last bet in head to head is nice, very nice.

 

Good guesses

Value of position in one-on-one play will vary depending on players’ skills and game rules.
If we would play only one round using close to optimal strategy, with players starting with the same bankroll, then player with betting/playing position have about 5% edge, but this number is somewhat tricky as there will be many ties.

Ties could result in as many as close to half of all matches. Both players, especially player betting last, have relatively numerous possibilities to either opt for “win or lose and no ties”, or go for a sure tie. In one round game a tie could be worth 50% of win. However, in the game consisting of two rounds (or one game with a one round playoffs) a tie in the first round is worth whatever is the expectation of the following round; and that will differ depending if the order of betting changes or not. In three rounds play the tie is worth whatever is the value of remaining two-round game including consequences of subsequent betting order. The more round is to be played the lesser chances of tieing and the edge of player having better tournament position levels at a little over 18% when we play 9 or more rounds.
Note though, that without surrender option allowed the edge is smaller.

So, having good betting position should make one win the match about 57% to 60% of the times. But expert will win against average player about 70% to 80% of the times if supported by having good betting position.
Average player in good betting position against expert will have only a slight advantage, if at all, but somewhat proportionally he will have lesser chances if playing without benefits of good position.

In masonuc's case, for average skilled player, since the difference in value of losing and advancing was about $100K, assuring better betting position increases chances of advancing by 15% to 20% in half cases -when he would end up in bad betting position as result of random drawing - the value of buying the position was worth $7,5K to $10K.
For the expert, if his remaining opponents were average skilled, with that particular payouts, it would be worth about 30% more.

S. Yama

 

Just to be clear, I can't think of any reasonable argument to suggest what we did was in any way unethical. It was a heads up match, everything we did was above board and the tournament director watched and approved everything. Both players, the dealer, pit boss, and director understood everything. Yes I theoretically changed the odds for the next opponent (since he was more likely to face me than my opponent in that round) but I don't see how that is relevant. Would it have been unethical if my opponent simply decided to forfeit? No. In fact it would not have been unethical if I had simply paid him money to forfeit. This was a legitimate side deal -- and side deals/chops happen in 95% of high stakes tournaments from my experience.

And as far as the next round -- the tournament was chopped after the round in question anyway, so it was doubly irrelevant.

Thanks to Ken and S.Yama for your thoughts on the question posed. Would love to hear more opinions if they are out there. It would be interesting to have a lot of this info in some way to help all of us evaluate EV in a tournament. I realize it is hugely dependant on skills, opponents, etc. But still a range of % chance to win a table of 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 opponents based on # of skilled opponents, betting position last hand, etc. At high stakes a small % can make a big difference and it would be helpful for evaluating chop deals, etc.

Just a thought....

 

Seem fair to me

On a heads up match (which I didn't realize it was until Ken's pointed it out,sorry about that), I don't see any problem with what you did. As long as it is within the rules or at least stated that it cannot be done. It was a cleaver move on your part increasing your odds to advance.

The only party that could be hurt would be the other player and by accepting your offer for $3,000 was compensated for the deal. And I might add a deal that had the button ended up on him anyway would have received nothing except what was won from that round.

As long as both parties agreed prior to the start of the match and cut a deal it seems like a legit deal. And you are correct deals are cut in poker events all the time and there they have a full table of players.

Bottom line is both of you still have to play out the match and just because he has the button doesn't mean you'll win the match. It just becomes a $3,000 gamble on your part to increase your odds of advancing.

 

This is interesting. Suppose a few hands into the round, at a time where I have more chips and bet second, I turn to him and offer him cash to bet it all. He may think "what the hell, it all comes down to one hand anyway and I can win it right here." He takes the cash. This is a strong deal for me, I think, if the price is less than 10% of EV difference of winning/losing the round. So in my recent case that would be about $10k.

Once he goes all in, I match his bet and have a 57% chance of winning the round right there (if he loses) and even if he wins there is a very good chance (70%?) I win the hand, too, and all I lose is the $10k.

By the way, does everyone agree that the right move there would be to match his bet? Because that exact same situation occurred in one of the other heads up matches at my table. A novice player was up against a very famous poker player (who is not very good at tournaments, but that's another story) and the novice was betting first and BR2 (heads up). This was like the 5th hand. He goes all-in. Poker player thinks for a while and eventually bets about half his stack. That might be the right bet, actually, because he gets the split+double option. In any event the novice won the hand and the poker player busted out a few hands later trying to catch up. (He lost the big hand -- so he was kinda screwed after that). They were close in chips -- something like 25k to 23k before the big hand.

So after all that rambling, three questions.

1) What is the right bet when faced with situation poker player had, i.e., you are BR1 heads up, betting second on an early hand and BR2 goes all in. Match bet or bet half? (I guess you could also bet minimum but that seems like a poor choice). Remember this is not a standard "Win Both Ways" situation because it is not the last hand. Assume it is a very early hand.

2) What's the value (in terms of % win/loss change, EV) of convincing your opponent to do this? Assume roughly equal in chips, early part of the round, and your opponent is not an tournament expert but a good player. Two scenarios, obviously -- you are scheduled to bet last on last hand, and you are scheduled to bet first (because that changes the calculus substantially).

3) Is there another deal I could offer to my opponent, similar to the all in offer or the last hand betting order offer, that would dramatically increase my odds of winning the round (heads up match) and could likely be gotten reasonably inexpensive from a non-expert? For instance I don't think someone would agree to bet it all 3 times in a row. But maybe twice? (For say, 10% of EV difference?). Any other ideas? I can't think of anything other than betting it all and giving me betting position.

 

Buying the match

I don't see buying the button position as a big issue. If your opponent is willing to sell it to you that should be up to them. After all it is a 50/50 chance on who gets the button anyway, so if they are willing to sell it for $3,000 I can't see anything the matter with that.

Now when it comes to paying for your opponent to throw a match thats a different issue. I believe that a direct action to alter the out come of the match shouldn't be allowed.

The button position wouldn't make the buyer an automatic winner and for that matter he may have won the button to begin with and just given his opponent $3,000 he didn't have to.

As a Tournament Director, I'd have to say okay to the button sell, but no to any other deals. The exception's would be if all the remaining players wanted to split or in the finals where if the final two players wanted to split or even if one wanted to throw the match there would be no effect on any other players then the two remaining players making the deal.

 

No. No. No No, Noo NoNo.

This scenario is NOT a chop. Is NOT a prearranged partnership per centage split. Is NOT a side bet.

It is a purchased advantage over a "know no better." Without all the exagerated manipulations of a "pay to play" which posters so far have suggested, it is but a small step from bet last to play last.

Certainly "Know no better," is compensated for his foolishness, but at a significant discount to potential. A moderately good experienced player already has an arsenal for betting and playing positions. By Yama's analysis the edge increased from 55-60 percent to 75 per cent or more.

Know no better took 3 and 10 grand to lose or diminish a shot at 115. Or on the contrary "know no better" would take 3 grand and 115 anyway.(If he were part of the final chop.)

As far as legal under the rules concept, how many tourney directors, pit bosses, dealers, even know the ones they are to enforce. The rules of play would have been written and should have been observed. I'd surmise, covering this situation they stated(by what has been posted) Starting position will be determined randomly and thereafter play will alternate, with starting player betting and playing first.(If that were the RULE, there should not have been any deviation.Most tourney players realize the importance of position in any elimination format and take that into consideration during a round.

If masonuc feels that the same proposition to just forfit for the 3 would also be ethical, I can only ask how many credit default swaps to derivitives did you buy? Or are you a Zen student? Good outcome for you, but I think it's the type of manauver that gives AP a bad name.

 

LA-LA LAND or just dis-illusioned

I consider all team sports to be in the category of an ongoing tournament. Be it baseball, football, basketball, or whatever. At whatever level the team plays, the object is to beat the opponent(s), during regular season or play-offs, so in the end a Number 1 ranking is achieved. Therefore tournaments are going on all the time be it professional sports, college sports, high school sports, golf, card game tournaments, craps tournaments, slot tournaments, etc.

Now this thread comes along with members condoning paying off someone to possibly gain an advantage in a part of a tournament. I don't know if I've been living in LA-LA LAND or just dis-illusioned but I was under the impression that all tournaments (not just BJTs) are conducted and run so the contestant with the best combination of game skill and luck, at a particular moment in time, wins. But I guess that's not really true. So now we say:

The contestant with the best combination of willingness to bribe, skill in bribing, game skill, and luck, at a particular moment in time, wins​

So do we condone this action only within the confines of BJTs and be hypocrites in the process? And don't we care if BJTs are carried out in something less than a professional manor?

I congratulate noman on his post - my hat is off to you!

 

If Player No. 1 goes all in.

Player 1 = 1st to act
Player 2 = 2nd to act

If player 1 goes all in and player 2 has less than player 1 or slightly more than player 1 then player 2 should hold 1 chip and bet the rest. Sure he player 2 could swung. but that happens only 19% of the time.

Look what happens if player 2 only bets 50% of his bankroll and both win (a 30% chance), then player 2 has a lot of catching up to do and may eventually lose the round without being swung.

Now if player 2 is way ahead of player 1, say has 2x player 1 BkRll then all but 1 chip in may not be the best bet.


........................................BlueLight

 

Debate anyone?

This is one of the most interesting situations I’ve come across in sometime. As a TD it’s really has my interest up as to what the proper call should be without written rules. Let me say ethically I think what they did was wrong, but as TD I would allow the sell of the button. Bottom line is a more experienced player took advantage of a weaker player to increase their odds of advancing.

A perfect example would be people selling their mineral rights for $5,000 an acre who don’t know any better while those in the know sell their acre for $20,000, is it legal yes, ethical no!

It comes down to what the rules stated, in most tournaments there is something stating where the button will start or how it would be determined (TBJPA for example states how and where).

If rules stated that the button started based on coin toss, high card, or roll of the dice then that should be enforced, however if no should item be found in the rules here lays the problem.

My ruling would have to be fair for both parties:

1) Player 1 wishing to purchase the button prior to the determination of where it would start.

2) Player 2 wanting to sell the button and put extra $3,000 cash in his pocket.

From my understanding player 2 wasn’t a season tournament player and figured he could cash in an additional $3,000 for sure and still have a chance to advance even with the button on the last hand.


Let's say as TD I tell the two contestants the selling of the button position would not be allowed, now I'd have both players up-set on the ruling. Then player 2 has the button on the last hand after the coin toss (or however they decide position). Now I've cost him $3,000 cash, is that fair to him?

I still believe legally that if all players agree to the button position it should be their call, if done before the start of the round, with no rules stating it cannot be done.


Let’s look at the legal aspect of this situation, using the same scenario as above, player 2 isn’t allowed to sell the button, then he loses the match anyway and now he’s mad because he is out $3,000 and nothing listed in the rules said the two players couldn’t make such a deal.

As TD, player 2 might have a legal case against me and could probably win. Maybe we can get Bob Nersesian to answer this legal question for us.

We can look at it another way, lets say the players make a deal regardless who has the button on the last hand, that player 2 bets first? What are the rules? In the TBJPA should a player bet out of turn the bet stays.

Ethically most all of us have done something un-ethical in tournament play, Just think about the time you and your friend or wife were scheduled at the same table so you switch with someone else so you wouldn’t have to play against each other? Or you were playing multiple events and you needed to change tables for a different time? These were not the way the seating was arranged and changes were made. How about the surrender trap, isn't that just taking advantage of a lesser player? Don't forget over betting the last hand so the players only see's $5 left back, when in realitity the player that bet $5 will be getting back $20 more, but not until after the others have made their bets, (this is covered in the TBJPA rules).

Wouldn’t these be as un-ethical as the button sell? We don't think twice about these and in most cases talk about how skillful the player was that made them or no problem in switching times and tables. Yet, aren't we really doing is taking advantage of a lesser player?

Were the above mentioned a big deal, not really, did it effect the out come possibly, but in most cases they are allowed because it really doesn’t hurt anyone. I look at the buying of the button the same way.
1) Who did it affect?
Player 2 possibly.
2) Was the effect player compensated for what he gave up?
Yes.
3) Was he fairly compensated?
Probably not, but he was the one that accepted the amount offered so legally there was nothing done wrong.

So my final decision as TD would be to allow the sell of the button. But please challenge me if you feel this is the wrong decision. If your arugment is good enough maybe you can change my mine.

Thanks to Swog, Monkeysystem, and leftnut for their imput.

 

I find it fairly absurd to call the deal unethical (even 0.001% unethical) because you don't think the price was fair. This wasn't cheating some old lady out of her retirement fund. These were two sophisticated and wealthy gamblers making a deal that they both 100% agreed to. And even if the EV of something was say $20,000 -- selling it for $3000 hard cash isn't necessarily unreasonably. You may be risk neutral or risk preferring but some people are risk adverse. If you are on Deal or No Deal and there are two cases left, one has $1 and one has $1 million, is it unethical for the "Banker" to offer you $400,000? Is it unethical for you to take $400,000? But the EV is $500,000! So what. It's a deal. And the fact that he maybe didn't perfectly understand the value of the button is irrelevant. Neither party knew the exact value, we were just estimating based upon on our own skills. It wasn't like he didn't understand why this crazy guy was offering him $3000 to win the coin flip. He knew full well that the button was an advantage on the last hand and chose to sell that advantage for guaranteed cash. If that's unethical then so is every tournament chop, every side deal, etc. This wasn't a high school football game. It wasn't a qualification round for some tournament to determine who really is the best BJT player in the world. It was an actual casino tournament with lots of money at stake.

At the point that any tournament or round is heads up, the two people left can make any deal they want. Just like the final table of a tournament can make any deal they want so long as everyone agrees.

I will agree that there could theoretically be a slight issue in this case given that a deal was done at our table and technically that changed things for the other people playing at other tables -- it changes who might advance. However, I still don't think that is an issue even one tiny bit. First of all they have no real interest in our round -- yes they'd prefer the "weaker" player advance but I don't think they had any reason or way to know which that was. Nor were they entitled to have the weaker player advance.

For what it is also worth, I am 100% confident that if we asked those 6 other players if they had any problems with the two of us making a deal -- any deal -- all 6 would have said "I don't care." I am certain of that. And like I said before everything was chopped at the next round anyway so it really, really didn't matter.

At the end of the day this discussion has been 80% about nonsense that had nothing to do with my original question -- although I appreciate the people that have actually weighed on the important stuff like pricing these deals, and actual game strategy. Thanks again.