Sunday, January 10, 2010

Satellite math

I have been thinking about this for a while and need a bit of math help here.

Its a satellite that pays the top 25% (like a token frenzy). Starting stacks are $1500. Let say 140 play, so it pays 27.

There are 96 left. How may chips do you expect to need to be better than 27th when there are 27 left.

Asked another way, what is the average chip stack with 27 left? And what chips stack would you need to post and fold with 50 left?

I have been taking the 27th place chip and multiplying by the multiple of 27 players lift. So with 81 players left, I guess I need 27th place chips * 3. Is this a good quick formula or a fatally flawed one?


MHG said...

At the start of the tourney (140 out of 140), the average chip stack will be 1500.

When there are 27 players left, the average chip stack will be (140*1500)/27= 7778.

Asking how many chips you'll need at 50 left to fold into the top 27 is a great question to ask, but there are likely too many variables to come out with a helpful answer. How many short stacks are there when the bubble happens? How quickly does your table play vs. the other tables when playing down from 50 to 27? If you sit out at 50 players left you will be auto-folding, which means more hands on your table, which means more blinds that you have to pay.

BLAARGH! said...

Yeah, first thing I always do is find the average stack. It doesn't mean you have to have that stack, but it helps to know when you're way over (sit out) and way under - need to make a move. Also helps to know if others are sitting out... if the blinds next to you are pretty much playing nothing but AA, you can usually bet a small amount and pad your stack, just in case the bubble takes forever. And even if the blinds are getting stupidly huge.. if you're average, there are probably plenty of shortys that are desperate. They'll be gone way before you will..

Bayne_S said...

As a roach I feel I am qualified to weigh in on this subject.

For evidence I point to ( where Don accidentally captured me just missing a seat when he was final bubble.

I think looking at average stack is meaningless, there are always a few players that have garnered monster stacks and as they keep pounding on people average gets skewed higher than median stack.

I try to focus on whether I am currently in position to win a seat or not and my standing at my table.

I prefer to have a large enough stack at table to get largest stack under the current gets a seat position if he loses all in confrontation.

If big stack can lose and still be 2x seat stack I try not to tangle with him at all but I still have never folded KK or AA pre.

columbo (at eifco dot org) said...

Thanks for the thoughts.

BLAARGH! said...

hey Bayne... the problem with looking at only your own table is that you often get moved, and inevitably, you get moved between the 2 biggest stacks in the tourney, who are moving all in on every single hand. I just use average as a barometer, if I'm over it, I can breathe, and if I'm too far under, I have to pick my spots to gamble. And I want to do it early when I still have some leverage and folks don't know that they're already in trouble, rather than late when I'm down to 2bb and will get called by 16 people.

But who am I to argue with a roach?

columbo (at eifco dot org) said...

I use average stack to determine my AK strategy. If the average stack has an M or 20 or less and I am less than average and there is an ante, chances are that my money goes in pre-flop. Otherwise, I want to see a flop.