iceman5
03-05-2005, 05:34 PM
I know most people use this forum for hand analysis, but this IS a mid to high stakes question so I hope you guys dont mind.
Lets say you have 2 known consistent winning players. Both have $14k bankrolls and both want to play $5/$10 NL. Their rolls are short for that game, but what if they combined their bankrolls and played a shared roll?
They dont necessarily have to literally combine the rolls, but they are considered combined on paper for risk of ruin purposes.
So they have a combined $28K roll which should be plenty assuming they are winners.
Lets assume that these guys trust each other explicitly so we'll take cheating and mistrust out of the equation.
Both players agree to play and share all winnings. If one of them becomes much better than the other and feels like hes being held back, the arrangement can be disolved at some prearranged points (at the end of any month for example)
Do you feel that this is a viable plan? Ive heard that Doyle and Amarillo Slim and maybe a few others did this back in the day.
Lets say you have 2 known consistent winning players. Both have $14k bankrolls and both want to play $5/$10 NL. Their rolls are short for that game, but what if they combined their bankrolls and played a shared roll?
They dont necessarily have to literally combine the rolls, but they are considered combined on paper for risk of ruin purposes.
So they have a combined $28K roll which should be plenty assuming they are winners.
Lets assume that these guys trust each other explicitly so we'll take cheating and mistrust out of the equation.
Both players agree to play and share all winnings. If one of them becomes much better than the other and feels like hes being held back, the arrangement can be disolved at some prearranged points (at the end of any month for example)
Do you feel that this is a viable plan? Ive heard that Doyle and Amarillo Slim and maybe a few others did this back in the day.