Taken From 2+2

[BaseJester 1]

I could beat infinity-NL, I'm just not rolled for it. I figure it would take about 20 infinity dollars to handle the variance.

[Dratj 0]

That is precisely why you would have 0% VPIP everywhere but the button. Your positional disadvantage is intensified the deeper stacked you are, assuming no skill edge.I'm not sure though. It could be that I'm missing something very fundamental here. It could be that there is an asymptote in there somewhere. All I'm thinking is that if you wanted to play a hand from the CO, could you ever play any hand profitably when the button 3bets 100% of his range? I'd need to think about it a little more, but I would assume that every single hand you played would end up being -EV, so folding preflop would be the only non negative play.

i'm not thinking any deeper than this: you'd just keep reraising in perpetuity and the hand would never be over because you have infinite stacks, you could always reraise. You wouldn't even have to have a hand.

[Snamuh 0]

Then again, I'm getting close to concluding that a perfect player at a table of infinite stacks should play 100% of hands on the button and 0% of hands elsewhere.

Revise to 100% of hands on the button and shoving all in (if possible with infinite stacks) preflop with AA from all other positions.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Interesting philosophical exercise, but put always is a game of finite sums.. if you have an infinite stack size, and are playing against an infinite stack size, you can never win anything. If you win a 400 dollar pot, your stack size is now infinity+400?

[BaseJester 1]

I apologize to Dratj if I'm taking his thread too far off course.The only time that competent players get all-in (assuming for the moment that's even possible by what we mean by infinite stack depth) is when they both have the nuts with also the best possible chance of improving. Occasionally, people coin flip for infinitely large pots. (Like when Snumuh pushes all-in in with AA, he gets called only by a player also holding AA. We'll root for him making the flush instead of the villain.) All the other hands logically resolve to pots of finite sizes in proportion to the blinds. Saying the stacks are infinitely deep just means that the stack size is never the limiting factor in the action. That's not the same as saying the pots themselves would be infinitely large, except when the equity is equal and the action is irrelevant. If that's really right, I don't think we should be playing solely based on position. If we play 92o on the button, because we hope to see a 992 or 222 or 999, we still can't get (really) infinite action.You can see something close in practice in a 1/2 no-max game with sufficient bravado. Those stacks of bills seldom come into play until there's a clash of the nuts with a redraw between real players, or some whale overplays his hand.

[BaseJester 1]

Interesting philosophical exercise, but put always is a game of finite sums.. if you have an infinite stack size, and are playing against an infinite stack size, you can never win anything. If you win a 400 dollar pot, your stack size is now infinity+400?

That's a really good point. I think that's what ultimately torpedoes the Martingale.Can we suppose an infinite stack size that doesn't work that way? I dunno, probably not.

[simo_8ball 0]

I think we should simplify it to just HU.If the game is shove or fold, then for very large stack sizes no-one ever plays anything except aces. Taking shoving out of the equation makes things very complicated though. Would the blinds become totally irrelevant? How would postflop play work in a perfect game?I need to go back and reread Mathematics of Poker. There is probably something in there that would help.

[Dratj 0]

I think we should simplify it to just HU.If the game is shove or fold, then for very large stack sizes no-one ever plays anything except aces. Taking shoving out of the equation makes things very complicated though. Would the blinds become totally irrelevant? How would postflop play work in a perfect game?I need to go back and reread Mathematics of Poker. There is probably something in there that would help.

I love deep stack poker. I'd rather play 1 2nl with say 800 to 1000 bucks than 5 10 nl with the same stack size. more action.

[mtdesmoines 3]

I love deep stack poker. I'd rather play 1 2nl with say 800 to 1000 bucks than 5 10 nl with the same stack size. more action.

Better stated, there's more poker in a 500 BB game. I, too, <3 true deep-stack poker. It rocks and it's profitable.

[ship 0]

only because this thread got toally jacked by situations that willl never occur... dude gave results early(same day i think) on 2p2 so i assume most of you have seen themi calls BTN folds SB shows 44 and ships pot

[BaseJester 1]

I think we should simplify it to just HU.If the game is shove or fold, then for very large stack sizes no-one ever plays anything except aces. Taking shoving out of the equation makes things very complicated though.

I think that's essentially what infinite stack sizes means, or at least the most interesting thing it could mean.

Would the blinds become totally irrelevant? How would postflop play work in a perfect game?

Having no blinds leads to pushing AA and folding all else.Infinite action is the same as no blinds, but I don't think infinite stacks imply infinite action. Post flop is the same as other poker only better, since you can never pull the rip chord and end the hand.

[Canadianpoker83 0]

Haha awesome clip. It was have been crazy though if Von Sachsen had not showed his top set though.