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.