Thinking about Mr. Malmuth's "Magic Number"

[Q8offsuit]

I have just finished reading "Poker Essays" by Mr. Mason Malmuth which I think is fantastic.

One concept I have been particularly interested in is the "Magic Number" (p. 67). Basically, Malmuth advocates that the "perfect" buy-in in a $15/30 razz game is precisely the size of the ante, which I completely agree with.

My question is, can this concept be applied to limit texas hold 'em as well?
The largest drawback of using this "magic number," according to our author, is...

"No cardroom will allow you to buy in for only $1 [the size of the ante], much less to leave every third hand (on average), cash in your expected $5 profit, then return to make another buy-in" (Malmuth 68).

I generally play low limit HE at pokerroom- let's take their $0.25/$0.50 game as an example. If I buy in for $0.25 - exactly the size of the big blind, couldn't I expect some kind of profit from doing this over and over again?
In this game, the minimum buy-in is $0.05 (for some reason) so a $0.25 buy-in would be perfectly legitimate. Also, I would be able to do this many times over, there are generally at least 20 games at that limit going at one time.

Seemingly, the advent of the internet has nullified much of the problems associated with using the "magic number."

I am thinking about short-buying in this game for the exact BB of $0.25 and attempting to win the antes in a showdown enough times to show a profit.
Will this work at all? I realize that the players in this game are far from "typical." I can reasonably expect 4-7 players per hand at least, as this game is extremely loose-passive.

Would employing the concept of the "magic number" work well at various limits of hold 'em? This article has intrigued me and it certainly seems possible to show a profit using this concept in this particular game.
Please let me know what everyone thinks about the feasability of the "magic number" in an online game.

[BarronVangorToth]

You're obviously welcome to try it (and you undoubtedly will) but, intuitively, you should realize that it will not be a winning proposition.

Take any given scenario.

You're the BB "all in" for a quarter.

One dude opens, folded around to you -- you are heads-up for 50-cents ... odds are, the guy who opened has a better hand than you.

Two callers -- odds are, you're less likely than 33% chance to win.

Etc etc.


Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[nef]

Barron is right. This is no good for Hold'em. It only works for stud where everyone antes so you are getting 7:1 on your money.

[Cerril]

Exactly as mentioned, big portions of your money in HE come from both maximizing the value of your winning hands (getting people to bet more when you have the best hand or are getting good odds that you will make the best hand) and minimizing the impact of bad cards (not paying anything to fold seven of nine times and half a bet the eighth).

In a HE game where everyone limps in but a large number fold postflop, then this strategy would be sound (there's another thread on a similar topic - what if you are the ultimate calling station, what will your % of winning hands be), but without people paying money and then folding you can't possibly get good money for a blind investment.

(an interesting question though, do there exist games with players poor enough to make this a winning strategy? I.e. too loose preflop, too tight postflop)

[m2smith2]

Perhaps I misunderstand the question, but if people can play against you AI, someone surely well - either an isolating bet or checked around. Tight opponents wouldn't seem to help here?

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]

Take any given scenario.

You're the BB "all in" for a quarter.

One dude opens, folded around to you -- you are heads-up for 50-cents ... odds are, the guy who opened has a better hand than you.

Two callers -- odds are, you're less likely than 33% chance to win.



[/ QUOTE ]

Another scenario.. You're forced to put up the BB out of position when you sit down. A player raises with AKo. Everyone folds, but you're all in.

Now you're getting 2.5:1 pot odds, and depending on your hand, and you should be better than 2:1 to win the hand. This isn't gonna happen every time though.

Also, I checked after reading this thread and Party won't allow a buy in that low.

Do any sites allow this in games like 7 stud or any other ant games?

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Take any given scenario.

You're the BB "all in" for a quarter.

One dude opens, folded around to you -- you are heads-up for 50-cents ... odds are, the guy who opened has a better hand than you.

Two callers -- odds are, you're less likely than 33% chance to win.



[/ QUOTE ]

Another scenario.. You're forced to put up the BB out of position when you sit down. A player raises with AKo. Everyone folds, but you're all in.

Now you're getting 2.5:1 pot odds, and depending on your hand, and you should be better than 2:1 to win the hand. This isn't gonna happen every time though.

Also, I checked after reading this thread and Party won't allow a buy in that low.

Do any sites allow this in games like 7 stud or any other ant games?

[/ QUOTE ]


True - I believe there could be situations where you will get the best of it ... but do this 1,000 times and I do not believe you're be in the proverbial black. Sure, you could hit it perfectly and pick up a quick quarter....

...but, to be honest, while I endorse NOTHING at the casino other than the poker room, the bathroom, and the random ways they distribute food and air conditioning, I'd rather put a quarter into a slot machine on my way out the door than set up accounts and take the time to go all in at quarter Hold 'em tables.

But that's just me.

As someone noted correctly above, this would probably work much better at a Stud table (say, a $1 / $5 one that has a 50-cent ante and you open for $1 ... sitting down there with $1.50 would work BETTER than this example of sitting down with a quarter ... but I don't think so much better that you should consider this breaking the system wide open to make yourself a scamming millionaire).

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[Q8offsuit]

Just as an update, pokerroom.com offers a $1/$2 stud game with a $0.10 ante. The minimum buy-in just happens to be $0.10.

Utilizing the magic number here should be profitable, unlike HE. thoughts?

I realize noone will ever grow rich doing this. BUT, it should be +EV in this situation- right?

[Leo Bello]

No one will become rich. Uhmmm... is it worth the thinking and time spent?

[Al_Capone_Junior]

So you're going to waste your time trying to make a tiny profit by buying in for a quarter in a miniscule game. Great use of your time. You COULD just PLAY WELL AND BUY IN FOR A REASONABLE AMOUNT, but instead you COMPLETELY MISSED THE POINT OF MASON'S ESSAY and are now trying to "apply" the point that you completely missed.

al

[Q8offsuit]

Did I ever say I was actually going to do this? Have I posted numerous reports gloating about my win rates playing "magic number" stud, multi-tabling with $0.10 buy-ins? No. I have enough intelligence to realize there are better ways to spend my poker time.

I read the essay and thought it raised some good points. I was wondering whether these points were applicable to Hold 'em, and then I was merely confirming that in a certain situation in stud, a certain buy-in would TECHNICALLY be +EV.

please CHILL OUT. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Reef]

Wouldn't one would have more success buying in short stacked at an NL table and choosing which hands to go all in with?