How much does another good player cost you?

[cero_z]

OK. Let's say you're one of only 2 winning players in a 10-20 poker game (any variety), and as such have achieved an excellent win rate of $40/hr. Further assume that the other winner is exactly as good as you, and wins the same amount. How much could you pay this player to skip the game, and make a profit on that investment? Figure for an 8 hour session. Of course, if he had no other games to play in, it would cost him money, as the number figures to be well below the 320 bucks he'd clear by playing; but how much does he cost you by showing up?

[758219]

Take a seat from the other side of the table, if possible, to avoid him as much as possible. Then he is rarely in the pot when you have a playable hand; 30% x 20% for example, that's 6% preflop. Additionally, even when both of you are on the flop, you rarely are heads up (if you make 2BB/hr) and both having a made hand. Also, you know how he plays in these games, and can probably outplay him.

[cferejohn]

"Also, you know how he plays in these games, and can probably outplay him."

Not to be picky, but in some alternate universe, he's getting the same advice...

Unless he's insanely tricky or aggressive, you probably don't mind him in, since you can probably put him on hands better than the 8 'losers'.

[mr_jmac]

Hey,

Interesting question. I have tinkered around a lot with questions like yours. You know, estimating win rates for various players in a line-up and then extrapolating to figure out how much other players are losing etc.

Here is my take on your question:

I don't think one other player of your caliber would effect your win rate much at all. It is important to realize that the other player really doesn't cost you money. Rather, it is the absence of a bad player who could take his spot that costs you money.

Even if the other player was slightly better than you I'd suspect that the cost to you would still be negligible.

The way I see it, it really depends on what kind of player would be sitting in the other good player's seat if he wasn't playing.

Let's assume it is a player roughly as bad as the average other player at the table:

If you and your pal are making $40/hr the other players must be pretty bad. $100/hr coming off of table in rake and you to clearing $80/hr equates to the remaining 8 players losing $180/8 or $23/hr (pretty expensive hobby???)

Now insert another bad player instead of your pal who is also losing $23/hr. Remember only about half of that is to other players ... the other half is to the rake. Therefore only about $10 an hour is being injected into the game. Divided amongst the remaining 9 players that is only about $1/hr.

So, according to my estimations you only gain $1/hr when you pal is replaced by a player who is on average as bad as the rest of the table.

Anyone have any comments opinions on my logic??

Later,
JM

[Jimbo]

"Anyone have any comments opinions on my logic??" Why yes I do. Using your logic adding enough losing players to the game would make all the losing players who were already at the table winners. Somehow this does not seem correct nor possible if in as your example they were all equally poor players. In addition the rake will not increase at all, or if so an infinitesimal amount.

[mr_jmac]

Hey,

Thanks for replying.

You said:

Why yes I do. Using your logic adding enough losing players to the game would make all the losing players who were already at the table winners.

I don't get what you are saying here. In my example we removed a $40/hr winner and replaced him with a $20 loser. Of course, everyone at the table will benefit. Even the bad players. According to my logic, replacing a player with a worse player would improve the other players at the table's win rates . Where did I say it could turn the losing players into winning players????

[758219]

"Rather, it is the absence of a bad player who could take his spot that costs you money."

That's a good point. However, from my practise I have a feel that if the game has 7-8 players, many loose players, my win rate gets better than if there are 10 players, many loose players. The kind of collusion happening from many loose hands being in, makes it tougher. The game also gets faster when there are less loose players. I think my win rate would not drop even if that one average loose player would be missing; only if he is more calling station than the others, it has a lot positive effect to my EV.

[cero_z]

jmac,
Thanks for your detailed and carefully reasoned replies. Here are my thoughts.
Since all the bad players don't win, they don't have a "win rate", per se. But, I do agree that replacing a good player with a bad one will help them, too. This is due to the fact that they now have another player (equal to them in skill) with whom to "push chips around the table," rather than one who'll take chips from them in the long run. So, they'll all lose less as a result. Notice that if there were only one good (40/hr winner) player in the game, the 9 bad players would gain about $4.50 each from his removal, if we disregard the rake.
But I think a good player benefits even more when the only other winner leaves the game, because it allows him to play a more profitable style. With only inferior opponents, I can get lots of free cards, raise out the best hand when I'm the only one who realizes that a bettor is bluffing, always extract the maximum when my hand is best, and play much more than my typical tight approach allows (if there isn't a lot of early raising). A player who's just as good as me will interfere with this strategy, though, just as I'll keep him in line somewhat. I think the difference between these two styles may be $10/hr or more in the example we're discussing.
If that were true, then it'd be worth $80+ /day to me if the other guy didn't show up.
Incidentally, I brought this up because I've recently seen my win rate go up significantly, since another player who's as good as or better than me has been absent. I've played about 100 hours without him, so the explanation could be a normal upswing, or my increased familiarity with the players (it's a home game), or his seat being filled by a losing player, or any combination of these and other factors.
Anyway, the way he sees it, I owe him some money /forums/images/icons/wink.gif .