Afterh0urs
06-29-2005, 05:47 AM
Okay, I can't remember where it was from, but somewhere I remember hearing something like "By giving up a 1% edge, even the richest man in the world will go broke."
This, however, must be assuming that "the richest man in the world" and his opponent are playing off identical bankrolls, which by the virtue of the richest man in the world being the richest friggin' man in the world, can't be.
If this were true, then Doyle and Co. would've had no objections to play Andy Beal for whatever stakes he chose. Surely, the pros would have at least a 1% advantage over Beal, but by exposing themselves to limits above their bankroll, they exposed themselves to a higher risk of ruin.
I'm sure all you guys understand this better than I do, but it leads me to my question. At what point does your bankroll become more important than your edge?
For example, lets say two guys are playing a series of heads up matches. However, there are restrictions. Player 1 has 600 in chips. Player 2 has 2400 in chips. Betting is not allowed. Both players have to post the 60 chip ante and then turn over their hands and have it played out face up. The other stipulation is that both players are dealt the same hands every time. Player 1 is always dealt 7c7h (56%)_ Player 2 is always dealt Ac9h (44%).
The players play until one player has all the chips. What percentage of these matches will Player 2 win? What will the standard deviation be per 100 games?
If you can please show the calculation involved in solving this kind of problem, I will be very grateful as I really want to know how to do this.
This, however, must be assuming that "the richest man in the world" and his opponent are playing off identical bankrolls, which by the virtue of the richest man in the world being the richest friggin' man in the world, can't be.
If this were true, then Doyle and Co. would've had no objections to play Andy Beal for whatever stakes he chose. Surely, the pros would have at least a 1% advantage over Beal, but by exposing themselves to limits above their bankroll, they exposed themselves to a higher risk of ruin.
I'm sure all you guys understand this better than I do, but it leads me to my question. At what point does your bankroll become more important than your edge?
For example, lets say two guys are playing a series of heads up matches. However, there are restrictions. Player 1 has 600 in chips. Player 2 has 2400 in chips. Betting is not allowed. Both players have to post the 60 chip ante and then turn over their hands and have it played out face up. The other stipulation is that both players are dealt the same hands every time. Player 1 is always dealt 7c7h (56%)_ Player 2 is always dealt Ac9h (44%).
The players play until one player has all the chips. What percentage of these matches will Player 2 win? What will the standard deviation be per 100 games?
If you can please show the calculation involved in solving this kind of problem, I will be very grateful as I really want to know how to do this.