Is it possible to elminate downswings? I'm actaully serious.

[OddWorld]

Downswings are a part of poker. And for those of us who understand downswings, the word "patience" is very important to put into practice. But one night I started thinking about positive EV and whatnot, and I thought of a legit way to eliminate downswings, at least in theory.
Before I get into it, keep in mind that nothing like this has been developed to any respectable level, so naturally, an overwhelmingly vast amount of R&D must be done to make this system "work".
OK, so here we go. Let's say that Mr.A plays the 10/20 limit tables online to make his rent and pay his way through college. He has a poker tracker program that says he plays tight agressive/agressive, and he averages 1.5 BB/hr with many many many hands to back it all up, along with thousands of insightful posts on twoplustwo. Sadly, Mr.A does not have rich parents, so he must support himself fully by playing poker. He hates being bossed around by simple minded people with too much power, so a "real" job which requires an application and resume is simply out of the question. Paying off the bills is hard when the cards don't come in Mr.A's favor, so downswings is sometimes a touchy topic. Mr.A wishes that he could play poker and get a normal paycheck that reflects the exact number of hours he playes and his hourly rate (like in a "real" job; 6.75/hr times 5 long hours = jack [censored]).
What if there is a company that fanatically analyzes Mr.A's game, and determines that he is a very consistent poker player that goes through very normal downswings (aka he does NOT go on tilt EVER). And what if this company makes an offer to Mr.A to pay him AROUND 1.1 BB for every hour he plays (1.1BB is just a random number I came up with), but the company pays for Mr.A's buy-ins and keeps whatever he leaves the table with. In this case, the company is making 0.4 BB an hour off of Mr.A when he plays at the 10/20, Mr.A is receiving a desireably consistent income to pay the bills, and the company is slowly but surely profiting off of Mr.A's solid 1.5BB/hr poker play, as predicted from very carefully analyzing his consistant play style.
But like I said, to my knowledge something like this has never been done, at least on a large scale, so A LOT of research and testing would obviously need to be done first.
So am I just thinking way too much, or does this actually seem at least somewhat possible in the near future?

[stigmata]

Great minds think alike? (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2413053&page=&view=&s b=5&o=&vc=1)

[BZ_Zorro]

Interesting post. However, you can achieve the same thing with a big bankroll and a consistent weekly/monthly withdrawal of (X-.4BB)*(number of hours),where X is your long term winrate. And you get to keep the extra profit to grow your bankroll instead of giving it to the company.

[stigmata]

A similar idea I had was bankroll sharing. Get 10 very good players who you trust and all play at the same level and a similar standard. You would need virtually the same bankroll togethor as you would do individually. Essentially you just hit the long run faster as a group than you do individually.

The profits would be divided at the end of the month *based on number of hands played*, with a small surplus (rakeback) kept aside. At the end of the year, this surplus is redistributed according to each players yearly BB/100. This means that the better players (or the ones who ran better this year) get a bigger christmas bonus.

Everybody earns exactly what you would have anyhow, but with two key benifits:

1) Less bankroll required. This means that your existing bankroll could be better invested.

2) Very little monthly variance.

The major problem with this is it is one step away from collusion. This is essentially how Russ Georgiev describes getting into cheating -- a group of players playing from the same bankroll. You then start soft playing each other, and one thing leads to another. One rule would need to be layed down:

You do not know each others online IDs. This obviously impounds strongly on the trust issue, which is the whole basis of this system. A script could be made so that PT DBs do not reveal screen names, so for auditing purposes this would help.

[stigmata]

Wouldnt this be a problem during those months where you ran at X-1 BB/100 (or even X-3)? Which brings us back to the original problem.

The cut the paymaster takes should be far less than your monthly variance, otherwise there would be no point.

[OddWorld]

I like your idea about the bankroll share system. It was actually that system which led me to the idea I posted(I'm sure many of us have already thought of such a thing, lol). I figured that sharing the profits with your friends can lead to a horrible meltdown of money and possibly friendships, so that's why I thought of the less friendly--more business oriented method of having a company "insure" your variance.

[EStreet20]

The bankroll sharing is no new idea. In SS Brunson describes how he, Amarillo Slim, and Saylor Roberts played from the same bankroll way back when. Just as you predicted, it led to them going broke and completely dissolved their friendship.

[stigmata]

I feel that in this day and age - electronic tracking of play, better understanding of the statistics of variance etc. that the risk of the team "going broke" is negligble, unless there is some sort of funny business.

I still think if you have a small group of players who you implicitly trust and know their game very well, this could work.

Call me old school, call me what you want. IMO poker is an individual sport, and should stay that way. If you can't manage your bankroll sufficiently enough to weather the downswings you encounter, then you need to take a good look at your overall situation. Are you playing too big of games for your roll? Are you cashing out too much? Are your skills sufficient to play at your current level (this one requires personal introspection)? I don't think the answer to minimizing your downswings is to enter into an agreement with a group of players. Instead of trying to minimize them, learn how to weather them through proper bankroll management. And succeeding on your own is much more rewarding than succeeding as a group.

[sfer]

In gambling, paying someone for your risk aversion is generally bad.

[Justin A]

I'm curious as to why you used me for your example.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
thousands of insightful posts on twoplustwo

[/ QUOTE ]

Greg Raymer and a few others come to mind. No one in this group needs backing or other arrangements.

[ QUOTE ]
He hates being bossed around by simple minded people with too much power, so a "real" job which requires an application and resume is simply out of the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Our hero appears to be immature and to have an overly inflated regard for himself. He needs some real world experience before attempting self-employment.

[ QUOTE ]
And what if this company makes an offer to Mr.A to pay him AROUND 1.1 BB for every hour he plays (1.1BB is just a random number I came up with), but the company pays for Mr.A's buy-ins and keeps whatever he leaves the table with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is any different from any other employer/employee relationship? If Mr. A slacks off, doesn't put in the hours, doesn't play his "A" game all the time because he is just a wage slave, then he is going to be bossed around by simple minded people with too much power. I.E., the power to terminate the arrangement and quit paying him. Then he is without an income and without a bankroll.

[stigmata]

[ QUOTE ]
Call me old school, call me what you want. IMO poker is an individual sport, and should stay that way. If you can't manage your bankroll sufficiently enough to weather the downswings you encounter, then you need to take a good look at your overall situation. Are you playing too big of games for your roll? Are you cashing out too much? Are your skills sufficient to play at your current level (this one requires personal introspection)? I don't think the answer to minimizing your downswings is to enter into an agreement with a group of players. Instead of trying to minimize them, learn how to weather them through proper bankroll management. And succeeding on your own is much more rewarding than succeeding as a group.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, was just putting it out there as an idea. In theory, it's actually better than everyone having their own bankroll. In practise it probably sucks.

[ellipse_87]

I am confident that several quants on wall street are already independently working on this, and that poker-based derivatives will be traded in the near future. Whether or not the concept will give rise to large aggregations of amateur players "working" for xyz corporation, as opposed to the more probable development of some up-and-coming big-name players issuing shares in their future earnings, is open to debate.

[CORed]

No

[tek]

Set a loss limit per session as (good) BJ players do. On winning sessions, continiue to play while winnin but cash out ahead at some predetermined point. Winning sessions don't last forever. Even though it is one "long poker session" (until you die or quit playing for good), you do need to protect profits ata certain point each session.

You could dream of how much more you will make each session if you continue to play with your "positive expectation", but that is theoretical profit compared to what you have in front of you that you can book.

In other words, balance the greed factor with positive expectation in a good session and cash out while ahead (before giving back due to one or two bad hands after a couple hours of getting ahead...)

[driller]

To steal from some of the other posters, and, perhaps, from blackjack team play:

3 or 4 players each contribute the same amount and set up an account that they all play. They all play different shifts, but of course if they were single tabling, they could even play at the same time. When the bank doubles, or after a set time, they split the money in the bank, or take profits out and play on.

Of course an unscrupulous partner could take all the money, but that's part of the deal.

[Webster]

I have done something like this except with a BJ team. The PROBLEM is trust. No matter how good you are and how many test you have taken to prove yourself - TRUST is always there looking over your shoulder.

Everything is great until one guy has a HUGE downswing and then everybody starts looking.

It's a great idea in theory, in practice it's a lot harder.