why did i lose?

The implication also seems to be that this figure represents the player's EV from a single table Sit&Go (before any rake), and that it is unaffected by the number of players at the table.

That was the starting point earlier in this thread; it was suggested that it is disproportionately harder to overcome the vig heads-up, whereas I started out with the assumption that there would be no difference and ended up wondering if there might actually be advantages (both in EV and in other areas) to playing smaller tables.

 

Found it!

Yes, Joep's record is indeed 17% final table rate which is 1 out of 5.66. I'm speculating that this is entirely B&M casino tourney FTR and does not include online tournies. Be interesting to see what his exclusively online record is because I suspect it'll be less than 17%. I believe (but have no experience to back this up) that online MTTs are wildy different animals to B&M MTTs.

Cheers

Reachy

 

Have we come to any concrete conclusions regarding this assumption?

 

what do you make of this?

Just like to add something. The above assumes only 1 advances at every stage. If we assume 2 advance then the "average" player would make the final table 1 in 12.25 attempts. Now here's where it gets interesting. The expert player that has a 50% advantage over the average would make the final table 18.4% of the time: 1/7 = 0.142857143; Expert player = 1/7 x 1.5 =0.214285714; 2 advance = 2 x 0.214285714 = 0.428571429; advance from 2 tables to make the final = 0.428571429 x 0.428571429 = 0.183673469 = 1 in 5.44. That's very similar to joeps figure of 17%. Just coincidence?

Cheers

Reachy

 

Joep

obviously plays a lot of very small - multiple-advance - minis - that's the secret to his success - you got it right Reachy - so he's probably 1.7% to the final table in elimination format on-line tourneys

 

Well it seems implict in everything that Ken, RKuczek, and Toolman have said that the expert's expectation is unaffected by the number of players at the table. To get the probability of winning, you multiply the default probability (50% for heads-up, 20% for five players etc.) by '1 + the edge'.

Although I've been arguing that there may be advantages to playing heads-up, it occurs to me that this would only make sense in comparison to other 'winner takes all' formats (e.g., Global's $5 happy-hour tables).

With two players being payed then presumably part of an expert's edge comes from recognising when it makes sense to give up on being BR1 and go for BR2 instead.

 

London, Reachy and others,

What happens when two "experts" play heads up? I would assume that it then reverts back to the 50:50?

Now when you've got a table of 5-7 with 1-2 experts vs. 5-6 amatures there is an advantage.

 

This is an interest premise. My limited experience is that the advantage for the expert is diminished as chip counting no longer factors into the equation.

Having said that online MTTs allow for things that B&M do not - calculators, tables, etc. So yes, I agree with you that it is a different breed. The question is how much in term of advantage and percentages!

 

expert edge would change

depending on quality of oposition (if 'average' player was an expert - then no edge) - format of game - etc. - also environment - on-line - live - do chip counting skills come into play - all of that - to calculate your edge - should track by casino/tournament/format - then you would get a range of advantages which would shift depending on format and quality of opposition - in example - I do better at multiple advance tables - as far as any 'edge' goes - I am real good at finishing second! - I have tended to play a very conservative style - maybe good - maybe not - I am trying to be more agressive in online play - and have transfered some of that increased agressiveness to live tourneys - but multiple advance tables fit my style - better than win to advance - so I do better at them - also have weak chip counting skills - so like on-line play in that respect - but working on the chip counting - getting a little better -