Jump to content


more info related to buy ins oct 16th


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#21 copernicus

copernicus

    Poker Forum God

  • Members
  • 10,676 posts
  • Interests:Hockey; poker...duh

Posted 19 October 2005 - 02:09 AM

pwoblo said:

This is such an easy concept... The only chips that are in play are determined by table stakes. If you have 1k and the other guy has 500, then it's the same as if you had 500 and he had 500. A +EV play with $500 will average winning money. A -EV play will lose money in the long run.That thing about busting a guy with a huge bankroll is fairly interesting. Try looking at Jim's Poker page. Look for doyle brunson vs. bill gates. You guys will be surprised by the real answers (done through math and big samples not by using rhetoric).
1k vs 500 is different from 500 vs 500 in a freezeout format which is what is being discussed. Each individual hand is determined by the smaller stack, but the fact that both stacks are committed to play until one is busted gives the 1k player an advantage.

#22 copernicus

copernicus

    Poker Forum God

  • Members
  • 10,676 posts
  • Interests:Hockey; poker...duh

Posted 19 October 2005 - 02:36 AM

pwoblo said:

That thing about busting a guy with a huge bankroll is fairly interesting. Try looking at Jim's Poker page. Look for doyle brunson vs. bill gates. You guys will be surprised by the real answers (done through math and big samples not by using rhetoric).
The Brunson/Gates scenario is not the same as we are discussing, but closer to the Beal/Pro challenges because its fixed limit, not NL. It is akin to a biased coin flip with fixed stakes and no blinds, and assumes a fixed advantage in every round thus is very easily calculated without simulation from formulas or from binomial distribution tables. Cycracs math does the job just fine if its modified to fixed stakes instead of NL. The Brunson/Gates scenario on Jims poker pages is , in fact, extremely misleading because it ignores the size of the blinds relative to the initial stakes. Its conclusion that DB would only need about a 51/49 edge if his stake is 20 mill vs Gates 50 billion and a 1 million at a time buy in is nonsense unless the blinds are insignficant relative to the buyin. With big blinds similar to the Beal/Pro challenges that got as high as 4% of the buy in, the pros "short run" edge ( a lot more than 51/49) was pretty much eliminated and Beal would be a huge favorite to bust the pros eventually, and he wouldnt need 50 billion to do it.

#23 pwoblo

pwoblo

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 100 posts

Posted 19 October 2005 - 08:27 PM

The 51-49 edge that Jim is talking about means that one person will 51 times out of 100 after taking into account all the game conditions. It doesn't matter what the blinds are; the edge and the percentage of the bankroll at risk are what's important.

#24 pwoblo

pwoblo

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 100 posts

Posted 19 October 2005 - 08:39 PM

What you seem to be talking about is when someone sits down with 1k and another guy sits down with 100k, and they both decide to play until one loses all the their chips. In this scenario, obviously the guy with 1k will lose the vast majority of the time. However, if they are of equal skill and there is no rake, their EV is 0. If you look at this game in isolation, no one has an EV edge.However, the effect of this game on each player is different depending on how much of their bankroll is in play. This thread is about table stakes and how DN sat down with 125k in a 5-10 NL game. It is not about how DN and the other players both set down their entire bankroll at one game.Also, if some player had an edge in this type of game, he would expect to win money irrelavent of how much of his bankroll is at risk. He may be placing himself in an extremely risky position from his perspective, but his expected value will still be positive for this game. In the Beal/coporation games, if the corporation has a 1% edge with their whole bankroll at stake every hand, their expected value is still positive. It's just that every time Beal goes broke, the pros will go broke far more often. Don't confuse this with the expectation of the game.

#25 pwoblo

pwoblo

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 100 posts

Posted 19 October 2005 - 08:42 PM

The only reason that the pros would involve themselves in a game like this is due to the Kelly Criterion. They will not maximize their edge in the long run if they risk too great a fraction of their bankroll.

#26 Eastwood Jr.

Eastwood Jr.

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 134 posts
  • Location:Rhode Island
  • Interests:Poker, movies, sleeping and pool.

Posted 31 October 2005 - 12:06 AM

Daniel I like your website. I think that writing about your experiences as a player helps improve your game so if I ever meet you in person I'll buy you a Coke because your site may be helping me to earn an extra buck or two. With that said I don't know where the appropriate section to post questions is, so I figured I would just ask mine in this forum. I am a very aggressive player but because I like to have position and be the aggressor I rarely defend my small blind. However there are situations where you must play marginal hands and even trash hands in this position and I seem to have trouble deciphiring the right move at times. I'll give a couple examples. 1. At a six handed table I'm in the small blind with 9c 5c. A weak player limps in from second position, the button calls, I complete the bet and the big blind checks. The flop comes 9 7 4 giving me top pair with a weak kicker. Ordinarily in a four way pot with little way to read my opponents hands (two loose limpers and the big blind) I would tend to think that my hand is probably the best but definitly needs protection. Usually I'll take a stab at the pot by betting say half of whats in there. The problem here is obvious. It's tough to get called by a weaker hand but if I check then maybe everybody else checks and I give a free card with the best hand. Since I have no data on my opponents hands (particularly the big blind) any card that comes off the deck could beat me. How would you play here? (consider that my style and hence table image is somewhat similar to your style but not quite as super aggressive and obviously not nearly as good. But give me a couple years on the latter. LOL x 3) 2. I'm in the SB again with A 6o and the button "a true calling station" limps in. I complete and the big blind raps the table without a seconds hesitation. The flop comes 9 6 2 rainbow. I bet out 60% of the pot, the big blind passes and the button hesitates then calls. The turn card comes a J making a potential flush draw. What is the play here? Do I continue to bet in case my opponent has ace high or 78? Do I check and call, check and fold, check and raise. Should I have bet the flop in the first place? It seems like agianst this type of player in these types of situations you could make a case for any option but I was looking for a little insight on what you would suggest. Thanks for your time and your forum. I hope you get the chance to get back to me.

#27 Eastwood Jr.

Eastwood Jr.

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 134 posts
  • Location:Rhode Island
  • Interests:Poker, movies, sleeping and pool.

Posted 31 October 2005 - 12:10 AM

I think all you really need in terms of a stack is enough chips to play an effective strategy based on the blind structure for that game. It's funny that Daniel buys into 5 10 games for 125k but I agree that is a very small part of his advantage. (Besides where do you think he got the 125k in the first place)




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users