one big bet an hour

[Smasharoo 0]

ok but assume for a second that there is no ratio of worse players. every player in the world is worse than you by some constant amount y. now table selection is not a factor. all tables are composed of players of equal skill, and this skill level is worse than yours by a constant amount. does that not change the argument?No, if all players are equally bad, you'd want to play at the ten handed table.Here's a simple, extremely ludicrous example of why....Let's assume every other player in the world is the *absolute* worst player possible. They cap every street and then fold on the river.You can see how 9 people playing that way would be better for you than 5, yes? Or one?

[speedz99 145]

I'm not going to waste any more of anyone's time by arguing with you. It's pretty ironic that you are the king of not admitting when you are wrong. No, what's ironic is that I so readily admit when I'm wrong that you apparently don't even realize it.Again, this is why I post the way I do. Because of people like you.You're the reason. I admit that I'm wrong quickly, and consistently when I am and point how why I'm right when I'm right. Morons like you somehow see that as never admitting to being wrong because they don't bother to read the times I quickly say "Oh yeah, I was wrong there" They're so used to their own behaviour of continuing to argue when it's clear they're wrong because of their ego and petty insecuritis that when someone doesn't they refuse to believe it.Again, to sum up, I post the way I do, because of morons like YOU. If it wasn't for YOU I'd be polite, but there's clearly no point as morons like YOU aren't bright enough to even develop the slightest idea of what's going on so it's simply not worth my effort.Thank yourself and give youtself a round of aplause for being so stunningly stupid and ignorant that you force me to post the way I do. The forum would be a much better place if you refrained from posting so stupidly. I'd probably be a much kinder, gentler poster if I didn't have to read the bile you spew out periodically and disguise as posts.Thanks in advance.

I have admitted I was wrong. You can go ahead and look up my posts, one recent example is when we were discussing Muslim attitudes towards Bin Laden (I'm sure you remember that thread). Go ahead and give me an example of when you admitted you were wrong.You really have problems. At this point I feel bad for you (and your poor wife). I hope for your sake that this is just a character you are playing, or are just messing around. I refuse to believe that any normal human could be so high and mighty about poker strategy.Ok, it's time to thank me for being a moron and proving your point.

[bobbytheo3 0]

So if anything, the opposite of the commonly argued case is true, the more players at a table, the higher your *potential* BB/100 is.nah, smash, you were right the first time, when you replied to me. table size is irrelavant if the quality of play at each table remains constant. neither bigger nor smaller is better. your own argument of what the difference of table size is if your playing against all players equally as good as you fits here.

[Smasharoo 0]

the problem with this is that at a full table less hands can be played per 100 dealt. so while you are getting paid off by more players, you are getting paid less frequently.You're assuming that more hands played = more hands won = more BB/100.That's not the case.

[speedz99 145]

I'm not going to waste any more of anyone's time by arguing with you. It's pretty ironic that you are the king of not admitting when you are wrong. No, what's ironic is that I so readily admit when I'm wrong that you apparently don't even realize it.Again, this is why I post the way I do. Because of people like you.You're the reason. I admit that I'm wrong quickly, and consistently when I am and point how why I'm right when I'm right. Morons like you somehow see that as never admitting to being wrong because they don't bother to read the times I quickly say "Oh yeah, I was wrong there" They're so used to their own behaviour of continuing to argue when it's clear they're wrong because of their ego and petty insecuritis that when someone doesn't they refuse to believe it.Again, to sum up, I post the way I do, because of morons like YOU. If it wasn't for YOU I'd be polite, but there's clearly no point as morons like YOU aren't bright enough to even develop the slightest idea of what's going on so it's simply not worth my effort.Thank yourself and give youtself a round of aplause for being so stunningly stupid and ignorant that you force me to post the way I do. The forum would be a much better place if you refrained from posting so stupidly. I'd probably be a much kinder, gentler poster if I didn't have to read the bile you spew out periodically and disguise as posts.Thanks in advance.

I have admitted I was wrong. You can go ahead and look up my posts, one recent example is when we were discussing Muslim attitudes towards Bin Laden (I'm sure you remember that thread). Go ahead and give me an example of when you admitted you were wrong.You really have problems. At this point I feel bad for you (and your poor wife). I hope for your sake that this is just a character you are playing, or are just messing around. I refuse to believe that any normal human could be so high and mighty about poker strategy.Ok, it's time to thank me for being a moron and proving your point.

Man, I've quit smoking (a number of times) and that isn't even as painful as letting you have the last word...

[justblaze 0]

the problem with this is that at a full table less hands can be played per 100 dealt. so while you are getting paid off by more players, you are getting paid less frequently.You're assuming that more hands played = more hands won = more BB/100.That's not the case.

why not? im assuming this, with the knowledge that a wider range of hands are +EV against 5 random hands than against 9 random hands.

[cdddc75 0]

Here's the flaw I see with your argument. If the 5 opponents at a shorthanded table can be beaten for 1 BB per hand played, then 9 opponents of equal quality at a full table should be beaten for 1.8 BB per hand played. 15 x 1.8 = 27BB/100 playing against 9 opponents versus 20BB/100 playing against five. the problem with this is that at a full table less hands can be played per 100 dealt. so while you are getting paid off by more players, you are getting paid less frequently.

Apologies, I abbreviated the math before.15 hands played per 100 at a "full table" x 1.8 BB won per hand played = 27 BB/100 hands20 hands played per 100 at a "6 handed table" x 1 BB won per hand played = 20 BB/100 handsOf course, the above calculations assume that the increased frequency of blinds paid at a short table is negated by the increase in hands played.

[Smasharoo 0]

I have admitted I was wrong. You can go ahead and look up my posts, one recent example is when we were discussing Muslim attitudes towards Bin Laden (I'm sure you remember that thread). Go ahead and give me an example of when you admitted you were wrong.There are probably hundreds. If you offer me cash or something, I'm sure I could find you ten.On the other hand, having nothing to prove to someone randonmly attacking me peronsally about things that are prima facie false beyond any doubt, I don't think I'm goign to bother. If you want to pay me, let me know.You really have problems. At this point I feel bad for you (and your poor wife). I hope for your sake that this is just a character you are playing, or are just messing around. I refuse to believe that any normal human could be so high and mighty about poker strategy.Ok, it's time to thank me for being a moron and proving your point.Probably time to stop lying about not responding anymore too. Filthy liar. You may as well ahve said you weren't going to post here anymore and then come back. Twice.

[Smasharoo 0]

why not? im assuming this, with the knowledge that a wider range of hands are +EV against 5 random hands than against 9 random hands.Because you are paying nearly twice as many blinds per 100 hands.That's why it's more +EV to play more hands, not because it's 5 random hands instead of 9.If there were no blinds, you'd simply wait for aces every time, no?

[cdddc75 0]

I have admitted I was wrong. You can go ahead and look up my posts, one recent example is when we were discussing Muslim attitudes towards Bin Laden (I'm sure you remember that thread). Go ahead and give me an example of when you admitted you were wrong.There are probably hundreds. If you offer me cash or something, I'm sure I could find you ten.On the other hand, having nothing to prove to someone randonmly attacking me peronsally about things that are prima facie false beyond any doubt, I don't think I'm goign to bother. If you want to pay me, let me know.You really have problems. At this point I feel bad for you (and your poor wife). I hope for your sake that this is just a character you are playing, or are just messing around. I refuse to believe that any normal human could be so high and mighty about poker strategy.Ok, it's time to thank me for being a moron and proving your point.Probably time to stop lying about not responding anymore too. Filthy liar. You may as well ahve said you weren't going to post here anymore and then come back. Twice.

Funniest. Post. This week! (sorry to ruin the subtle joke by making it obvious...but there are a few posters on this forum that need things spelled out for them)

[bobbytheo3 0]

Let's assume every other player in the world is the *absolute* worst player possible. They cap every street and then fold on the river. there would be no way to fit a "player" like this into a formula. instead, if you assigned a value to the players skill (say you assumed every decision your opponents made had a -.01 EV over time, while every decision you made was 0 EV), it wouldnt matter if you played 9 of them or 1 of them. your BB/100 would be the same

[justblaze 0]

Here's the flaw I see with your argument. If the 5 opponents at a shorthanded table can be beaten for 1 BB per hand played, then 9 opponents of equal quality at a full table should be beaten for 1.8 BB per hand played. 15 x 1.8 = 27BB/100 playing against 9 opponents versus 20BB/100 playing against five. the problem with this is that at a full table less hands can be played per 100 dealt. so while you are getting paid off by more players, you are getting paid less frequently.

Apologies, I abbreviated the math before.15 hands played per 100 at a "full table" x 1.8 BB won per hand played = 27 BB/100 hands20 hands played per 100 at a "6 handed table" x 1 BB won per hand played = 20 BB/100 handsOf course, the above calculations assume that the increased frequency of blinds paid at a short table is negated by the increase in hands played.

ok, makes sense. but those numbers were just pulled out of my rectum, it would be interesting to see the actual numbers on what percentage of hands were +EV vs. 9 randoms, and what % were +EV vs. 5 randoms. anyone got the numbers?

[cdddc75 0]

Here's the flaw I see with your argument. If the 5 opponents at a shorthanded table can be beaten for 1 BB per hand played, then 9 opponents of equal quality at a full table should be beaten for 1.8 BB per hand played. 15 x 1.8 = 27BB/100 playing against 9 opponents versus 20BB/100 playing against five. the problem with this is that at a full table less hands can be played per 100 dealt. so while you are getting paid off by more players, you are getting paid less frequently.

Apologies, I abbreviated the math before.15 hands played per 100 at a "full table" x 1.8 BB won per hand played = 27 BB/100 hands20 hands played per 100 at a "6 handed table" x 1 BB won per hand played = 20 BB/100 handsOf course, the above calculations assume that the increased frequency of blinds paid at a short table is negated by the increase in hands played.

ok, makes sense. but those numbers were just pulled out of my rectum, it would be interesting to see the actual numbers on what percentage of hands were +EV vs. 9 randoms, and what % were +EV vs. 5 randoms. anyone got the numbers?

I don't have those numbers, but it's not just how many hands are +EV. How much more EV you can extract from more bad players is a HUGE variable here.

[justblaze 0]

Here's the flaw I see with your argument. If the 5 opponents at a shorthanded table can be beaten for 1 BB per hand played, then 9 opponents of equal quality at a full table should be beaten for 1.8 BB per hand played. 15 x 1.8 = 27BB/100 playing against 9 opponents versus 20BB/100 playing against five. the problem with this is that at a full table less hands can be played per 100 dealt. so while you are getting paid off by more players, you are getting paid less frequently.

Apologies, I abbreviated the math before.15 hands played per 100 at a "full table" x 1.8 BB won per hand played = 27 BB/100 hands20 hands played per 100 at a "6 handed table" x 1 BB won per hand played = 20 BB/100 handsOf course, the above calculations assume that the increased frequency of blinds paid at a short table is negated by the increase in hands played.

ok, makes sense. but those numbers were just pulled out of my rectum, it would be interesting to see the actual numbers on what percentage of hands were +EV vs. 9 randoms, and what % were +EV vs. 5 randoms. anyone got the numbers?

I don't have those numbers, but it's not just how many hands are +EV. How much more EV you can extract from more bad players is a HUGE variable here.

this is really interesting to me. I have asked for a mathematical analysis from a few other places. ill cross-post the replies i get. Smash, speedz, bobby, kill the flame wars please. This is an interesting discussion, i think it would be beneficial to those trying to follow it if they didnt have to wade through the flames.

[bobbytheo3 0]

it seems to me that they way to figure it out is to assign some sort of appropriate numbers in the analyis to quantify each players play, and then see if changing the table size changes your BB/100. the only number i can think of right now to evaluate a players skill level over time would be the avg. EV of every decision they make in the game.

[justblaze 0]

it seems to me that they way to figure it out is to assign some sort of appropriate numbers in the analyis to quantify each players play, and then see if changing the table size changes your BB/100. the only number i can think of right now to evaluate a players skill level over time would be the avg. EV of every decision they make in the game.

yea but you have to somehow factor in the range of hands we can expect them to play in each table situation, as obviously it will change. when you start adding in these variables it gets tricky.

[john kane 0]

i find it amazing there is even a debate on this.short handed for a good player leads to a higher BB/100.you are engaged in more hands during the 100 hand period, and so you have more chances for the worse players to make mistakes during the 100 hand period, and so, in accordance with the fundamental theory, you therefore profit more frequently (due to higher number of mistakes vs you) during the 100 hand period.simply incredible smash and any others could think that ring games and short handed games would yield the same BB/100

[cdddc75 0]

i find it amazing there is even a debate on this.short handed for a good player leads to a higher BB/100.you are engaged in more hands during the 100 hand period, and so you have more chances for the worse players to make mistakes during the 100 hand period, and so, in accordance with the fundamental theory, you therefore profit more frequently (due to higher number of mistakes vs you) during the 100 hand period.simply incredible smash and any others could think that ring games and short handed games would yield the same BB/100

Last time I checked, nine players will make more mistakes per 100 hands than five players will. You will win more pots at a shorthanded table, but logically you will also win larger pots against a full ring table.It's simply incredible you could miss this fundamental oncept completely. I like to win money, not pots.

[bobbytheo3 0]

cdddc, do you think the larger pots outweigh the number of pots won? i don't know, and no body seems to definitively. after considering this discussion, i would think that the number of people would not matter and your BB/100 would be the same

[cdddc75 0]

cdddc, do you think the larger pots outweigh the number of pots won? i don't know, and no body seems to definitively. after considering this discussion, i would think that the number of people would not matter and your BB/100 would be the same

I already expressed my mathematical opinion, which is that a full ring game appears to be more profitable under certain conditions (see the 27BB/100 v 20BB/100 post I made earlier).However, one could easily argue mathematically that a short game is more profitable than a full game. Let's assume that we can beat each opponent by an average of .1 BB/100. If we assume that we can sustain this average playing twice as many hands against a short table than a full table, then short tables become more profitable.15 full hands/100 x .9 BB/100 = 13.5 BB/10030 short hands/100 x .5 BB/100 = 15 BB/100To answer your question quoted above, the breakeven point between full games and short games is playing 1.8x more hands against a short table whine maintaining the same BB/100 win rate. Against identical opponents, you have to play 27 hands per 100 at a short table to match the win rate playing 15 hands per 100 at a full table. Some people can play 30-35 hands per 100 successfully at a short table, some cannot. Ultimately, quality of opposition is FAR more important than number of opponents. I think you would easily agree that playing nine opponents that can be beaten at .5 BB/100 each is more profitable than playing five opponents that can be beaten at .2 BB/100 each, regardless of how many hands you play at the shorter table.

[justblaze 0]

i find it amazing there is even a debate on this.short handed for a good player leads to a higher BB/100.you are engaged in more hands during the 100 hand period, and so you have more chances for the worse players to make mistakes during the 100 hand period, and so, in accordance with the fundamental theory, you therefore profit more frequently (due to higher number of mistakes vs you) during the 100 hand period.simply incredible smash and any others could think that ring games and short handed games would yield the same BB/100

did you read the debate? obviously not, for if you did you would have found mathematical arguments against what you have postulated. Care to refute them? you will note that my theory is the same as yours, but i am, unlike you, willing to consider different view points.

[justblaze 0]

cdddc, do you think the larger pots outweigh the number of pots won? i don't know, and no body seems to definitively. after considering this discussion, i would think that the number of people would not matter and your BB/100 would be the same

I already expressed my mathematical opinion, which is that a full ring game appears to be more profitable under certain conditions (see the 27BB/100 v 20BB/100 post I made earlier).However, one could easily argue mathematically that a short game is more profitable than a full game. Let's assume that we can beat each opponent by an average of .1 BB/100. If we assume that we can sustain this average playing twice as many hands against a short table than a full table, then short tables become more profitable.15 full hands/100 x .9 BB/100 = 13.5 BB/10030 short hands/100 x .5 BB/100 = 15 BB/100To answer your question quoted above, the breakeven point between full games and short games is playing 1.8x more hands against a short table whine maintaining the same BB/100 win rate. Against identical opponents, you have to play 27 hands per 100 at a short table to match the win rate playing 15 hands per 100 at a full table. Some people can play 30-35 hands per 100 successfully at a short table, some cannot. Ultimately, quality of opposition is FAR more important than number of opponents. I think you would easily agree that playing nine opponents that can be beaten at .5 BB/100 each is more profitable than playing five opponents that can be beaten at .2 BB/100 each, regardless of how many hands you play at the shorter table.

excellent analysis.

[justblaze 0]

Here is what Gary Carson said to me about this question:You're making two assumptions here which are both pretty much nonsense.One is that there is some linear skill metric that means something. There isn't -- your skill advantage over another player depends on the interaction of the kinds of mistakes he makes and your ability to exploit that particular skill. Also, skill rankings of players aren't transative, so an attempt to tweak your metric to just make it non-linear won't work either.Secondly, you're assuming that each player has a skill level that's independent of the number of active hands. Many players do okay in full games and completely fall to pieces when just a coupld of seats go empty. That's mostly for psychological reasons, but it's no less real.

[bobbytheo3 0]

excellent analysis.i agree. there have been some good idea posted by ccd, just and smash on the issue, but our problem right now seems to be that nobody knows the math of the issue for certain. our guesses have been logical, but im sure there is a definite, provable answer to the following question than can not be argued (i would like to know this DEFINITE answer) : If a player of skill level X plays in a full ring game vs. opponents of average quality Y (Y< X), would player X's BB/100 be greater or less than if he played in a shorthanded game against opponents of average quality Y?

[bobbytheo3 0]

Here is what Gary Carson said to me about this question:You're making two assumptions here which are both pretty much nonsense.One is that there is some linear skill metric that means something. There isn't -- your skill advantage over another player depends on the interaction of the kinds of mistakes he makes and your ability to exploit that particular skill. Also, skill rankings of players aren't transative, so an attempt to tweak your metric to just make it non-linear won't work either.Secondly, you're assuming that each player has a skill level that's independent of the number of active hands. Many players do okay in full games and completely fall to pieces when just a coupld of seats go empty. That's mostly for psychological reasons, but it's no less real.

so basically it is indeterminable??? so we were all wrong with our guesses since there is no right answer??