View Full Version : Negreanu's Folly?
Vincent Lepore
10-17-2005, 04:59 AM
DN in his blog makes a statement that buying into a NLH game for more than the table has does not in itself give one an advantage. He says that buying in for the minimum makes your strategy decisions simple. He uses the following as an example:
[ QUOTE ]
When you buy in to a game YOU have the choice to decide how difficult you want the game to be. If you buy in for the minimum, it makes the correct strategy very simply. If you buy in for the most, it will force you to make more difficult decisions. An example:
You raise to $30 with AA and get three callers. The flop comes 9c 6d 2s and you bet your last $50. That's a no brainer right? Well, what if you had $20,000 in front of you? You bet the $50 and a player raises you $200 more. Now what do you do? It's more difficult isn't it?
[/ QUOTE ]
Does anyone see a problem with this example? Sure your decision is simple when you have $50 left you move in. He seems to think from his comments that this someghow makes buying in short correct. I don't. I think it's a mistake. Let,s look at his flop and a modified flop (by me) similar to this, say 9c,6d,2d. Suppose in his example the first opponent has a T,9 and calls the $50 now the second player has an 7,8o. Isn't it correct for the second player to call? What if in the second example, the one I modified, everone folds to the $50 bet except the last player that has the Qd,Jd and decides to (correctly) call? In both examples Daniels opponents are getting the right price to call and are correctly calling. Winning Poker is about mistakes. Mistakes you don't make and mistakes your opponent does make. If in these examples Negreanu had a much bigger stack he could now make a bet big enough that it would be a mistake for any of opponents to call. And if he had a huge stack, larger than everyone elses, he could make a call with a draw a huge maistake on his opponents part. This is just a simple example of how being short stacked in live poker can be a disadvantage. It doesn't settle the issue of whether a huge stack in and of itself is an advantage that is true but it does show that being underfunded can be a mistake. Just because you simplify your strategy does not make it a winning strategy.
Opinions?
Vince
You don't think it's a mistake for those players to call a $30 raise trying to crack aces when the guy only has $50 behind?
dauler
10-17-2005, 06:01 AM
You aren't saying anything that Negreanu would disagree with, you're just looking at it from a different perspective. He was making the point that it's easier to make the right decision when you have less money in front of you, there was no other way to play that hand when he had $50 left in front of him. He wasn't saying that that makes it an optimal strategy, simply that if you aren't good at making correct decisions, it's easier to play with less money in front of you because there are fewer factors to consider. He'd agree with you that it's possible to make more money when you have a bigger stack because you have more freedom of choice, but if you don't know what to do with that freedom you're making the game tougher on yourself, short stacked is a simpler strategy to employ correctly.
[ QUOTE ]
He seems to think from his comments that this someghow makes buying in short correct.
[/ QUOTE ]
No he doesn't.
StLouisMike
10-17-2005, 11:57 AM
Correct poker is about making correct decisions. If you play loose when starting out or just do not do well with a larger stack you are making a correct decision when buying in for the minimum. If you read Barry Greenstein's book he will tell you that he also buys in for the minimum and explains the pros and cons of it. No one is saying that buying in for a large stack is wrong for everyone. I believe that we all need to understand what type of player we are and adjust our buyins, game selection, general style, etc to what fits us with the game we are in. Im sure there are times when someone like Greenstein will buy in for the maximum when he feels like it is to his advantage.
Mike
Vincent Lepore
10-17-2005, 11:59 AM
How did these players know that he specifically had Aces? Yes it was a mistake for them to call a raise with the weak hands that I described but on the flop their call is correct. The two decisions are independent.
Vince
michiganlaw
10-17-2005, 12:08 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You aren't saying anything that Negreanu would disagree with, you're just looking at it from a different perspective. He was making the point that it's easier to make the right decision when you have less money in front of you, there was no other way to play that hand when he had $50 left in front of him. He wasn't saying that that makes it an optimal strategy, simply that if you aren't good at making correct decisions, it's easier to play with less money in front of you because there are fewer factors to consider. He'd agree with you that it's possible to make more money when you have a bigger stack because you have more freedom of choice, but if you don't know what to do with that freedom you're making the game tougher on yourself, short stacked is a simpler strategy to employ correctly.
[/ QUOTE ]
I couldn't have said this better myself. Easy distinction between simple strategy and optimal strategy...short buys make for simple strategy, not optimal strategy. I think you're trying to read too much into this one....
Vincent Lepore
10-17-2005, 12:17 PM
[ QUOTE ]
He seems to think from his comments that this somehow makes buying in short correct.
No he doesn't.
[/ QUOTE ]
OK you are correct he doesn't say that. What he does say in defense of his point is:
[ QUOTE ]
The reason a casino puts a max buy in on their tables isn't to help YOU at all. It's in their best interest to have LESS fluctuation so that players don't go broke as quickly. Casinos do that to protect THEIR interests of keeping the games going so that they can keep dropping rake. I mean, do you really need someone to hold your hand and tell you how much you can buy in for? "No sir, you don't want to buy in for that much. That's a lot of money sir, please don't gamble that much, we are worried about you." Yeah right!
[/ QUOTE ]
This is not true. Why is it in the best interest of the Casino's that the players don't go broke quickly? The Casino's do not put max buy-ins on their tables. They put max limits on the amount bet. They do that to keep from going broke or at least losing a huge chunk of money. Imagine if you will a dice table with no max bet. How dangerous would this be for a casino? The cap on betting is the reason that the martingdale system cannot work. If there were a bettor with an infinite bankroll the Casino could not survive without a max bet on their tables. Their is built in advantage of an infinite bankroll over a finite bankroll. If for instance we made a static bet on the results of the tossing of an unbiased coin. You take heads and I take tails. I have an infinite bankroll and you have a finite bankroll. Eventually you will go broke! In fact even if you biased the coin to a point where you had a 1% advantage you would still go broke. I don't know how long it would take. It depends on the size of your bank roll but eventually I would get all of your money. This is an extreme example of the built in advantage of a much greater stack to a small stack.
Vince
Ulysses
10-17-2005, 12:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
And if he had a huge stack, larger than everyone elses, he could make a call with a draw a huge maistake on his opponents part.
[/ QUOTE ]
You are confused w/ much of your reasoning, Vince. This is one example. If he covers someone, it is in fact the very opposite: his opponents are far more likely to be correct making a call w/ a draw due to the implied odds they will be getting. On the other hand, if he has a small stack, it is more likely that his opponents will be making a mistake calling w/ a draw.
Players who keep rebuying to 20 BB stacks are lame and annoying. It doesn't seem to be profitable either, from what I've observed, and I have seen some players using what appears to be proper shortstack strategy. Good hands just don't come around often enough to run with a 20 BB stack. I suppose the lame shortstack strategy could work well in a deepstacked game where 50 BB is a standard reraise.
Ulysses
10-17-2005, 12:39 PM
[ QUOTE ]
This is not true. Why is it in the best interest of the Casino's that the players don't go broke quickly? The Casino's do not put max buy-ins on their tables. They put max limits on the amount bet. They do that to keep from going broke or at least losing a huge chunk of money.
[/ QUOTE ]
Your reasoning is wrong here. Casinos make money in poker from a rake. So, in poker, they do not want players to go broke to other players. This is why rooms put limits on how high they will spread games and have structures like max buy-in NL. It is also why games that allow players to have bigger edges than Texas Hold'em are less common. In poker, the casino wants people to push money back and forth while they take a drop.
In casino games, the casino likes it fine if players go broke, since they are playing against the casino. They do limit max bets for a few reasons, including lowering the casino's variance and preventing things like card-counters having HUGE spreads and getting a significant edge on the casino.
[ QUOTE ]
The cap on betting is the reason that the martingdale system cannot work. If there were a bettor with an infinite bankroll the Casino could not survive without a max bet on their tables.
[/ QUOTE ]
Your understanding of the mathematics behind the Martingale system is off. These topics have been covered in detail in the Other Gambling forum. You should go read them to understand why the Martingale system doesn't work.
limon
10-17-2005, 12:59 PM
while ultimately i like to cover the table my initial buy in is always short. information is the key to winning poker and id rather donk off 200 "learning" than 2000. its like a reverse haircut, you can always add more but you can never take any off.
Vincent Lepore
10-17-2005, 01:11 PM
[ QUOTE ]
They do limit max bets for a few reasons, including lowering the casino's variance and preventing things like card-counters having HUGE spreads and getting a significant edge on the casino.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well on a black jack tables this is somewhat true. Casinos have other measures that deal well with Card Counters though and do not rely on betting limits to counter their expertise. But even so how does it relate to Craps or Roulette? The Casino's usually put a max that equals about 7 double ups. Certainly this reduces their variance but what it really does is prevents them from going broke or taking huge losses. If they allowed no limit on their tables they would risk the effects of large numbers which by the way is why double up systems can't work in casinos regardless of what your other discussions claim. Simply put Casinos would never allow a max bet that allowed a player to infinitely double up his bet. They know that they couldn't win and would eventually go broke. Edge is a nice thing but it needs time to work. The same is true in poker.
Let's say that Daniel put his entire bankroll up and played heads up NLH against a robot with blinds of $.05 - .10 If the robot had an infinite bankroll and blindly moved all -in preflop on everyhand, Daniel without question, even with all of his poker skill, if he continued to play would go broke. There is a built in mathematical advantage that large numbers have over small numbers when it come to probability.
Vince
davmcg
10-17-2005, 01:27 PM
Obviously the infinite bankroll will win no matter what its disadvantage because the probability of an infinite bankroll going broke is zero....
You seem to have a thing for trying to refute things that DN says and you are really reaching here.
It is a fact that the casino caps buy-ins so they can make more money and that short-stacks are easier to play but not necessarily optimal.
It is also a fact that the Martingale system does not work and that it has been discussed to death on these forums.
Ulysses
10-17-2005, 02:03 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Certainly this reduces their variance but what it really does is prevents them from going broke or taking huge losses.
[/ QUOTE ]
Uh, you're agreeing with me, Vince. The Casino is not going to take, say, a 60-40 edge for all of its money. That is too much variance for them.
Vince, you are correct that in this situation:
[Casino has $10 Billion in assets]
I put $10B on BLACK!
I put $20B on BLACK!
I put $40B on BLACK!
....
The Casino would go broke.
However, that really has little to do with the discussion re: short-stack vs. large-stack.
You should really bring these topics up in Other Gambling or Probability forums if you want people to explain the errors in your reasoning.
BTW, I take it that after my explanation you now understand why casinos don't want poker players to go broke quickly?
[ QUOTE ]
The Casino's do not put max buy-ins on their tables. They put max limits on the amount bet.
[/ QUOTE ]
You realize DN is talking about NLHE right? Most NLHE tables (not all) are completely the opposite of what you said. Most do have max buyins and all do not have limits on betting...that's why it's no limit.
Vincent Lepore
10-17-2005, 06:15 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously the infinite bankroll will win no matter what its disadvantage because the probability of an infinite bankroll going broke is zero....
[/ QUOTE ]
Pretty obvious isn't it. I guess not to most though.
Vince
Vincent Lepore
10-17-2005, 06:16 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You realize DN is talking about NLHE right?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah I misunderstood his remarks. I thought he was talking about table games.
Vince
TomCollins
10-17-2005, 06:31 PM
This is not correct. And its quite clear to anyone who has ever studied calculus. But there is no such thing as an infinite bankroll anyway, so most of this talk is in mathematical fantasy land that makes no sense.
Suppose you have a 10,000 unit bankroll, and you are playing against someone who has an infinite bankroll. You roll a fair dice, and he pays you even money every time you don't roll a 6. The odds that you ever go bust in this game are incredibly slim. This is not to say you won't ever go on a 10,000 unit downswing. But the odds that you go on one before you win significantly more than 10,000 additional units is less. It's more or less a limit taken to infinity.
blackaces13
10-17-2005, 06:40 PM
[ QUOTE ]
He seems to think from his comments that this someghow makes buying in short correct.
[/ QUOTE ]
Really? I didn't get that at all. Probably because he doesn't say or even suggest it. Since when does simple = correct?
fuego527
10-17-2005, 07:00 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously the infinite bankroll will win no matter what its disadvantage, given infinite time, because the probability of an infinite bankroll going broke is zero....
[/ QUOTE ]
Pretty obvious isn't it. I guess not to most though.
Vince
[/ QUOTE ]
FYP, but this has nothing to do with this topic...follow El Diablo's advice to learn more on this subject
[ QUOTE ]
You seem to have a thing for trying to refute things that DN says and you are really reaching here.
It is a fact that the casino caps buy-ins so they can make more money and that short-stacks are easier to play but not necessarily optimal.
It is also a fact that the Martingale system does not work and that it has been discussed to death on these forums.
[/ QUOTE ]
9cao's appears to have resolved this argument, why does it continue?
StLouisMike
10-18-2005, 02:02 AM
Waiting for premium pairs is not the only way to play a short stack. In lower limit games it is likely to limp with suited connectors from a late position or blinds, flop a flush or up and down straight draw and be correct in getting all of your money in on the flop. Ed Miller's short stack strategy derives all of its strength in starting hand value but, I believe you can make plays (even though they will be limited) when starting out with a short stack. I think the biggest misconception when playing a short stack is forgetting about making good poker decisions and trying to play like a textbook. Limping with suited connectors when you are getting 7 to 1 odds is a good poker decision right? Moving in on the flop with a strong draw getting 2to1 effective odds or better is a good decision right?
Mike
Greenstein (Ace on the River) and Miller (SSHE) go further than DN. They advocate buying in with a short stack. Miller believes there is a net advantage, Greenstein says little, as I remember, other than it is his preferred strategy.
KaneKungFu123
10-18-2005, 04:33 AM
is this a joke?
kyleb
10-18-2005, 04:48 AM
[ QUOTE ]
This is not true. Why is it in the best interest of the Casino's that the players don't go broke quickly? The Casino's do not put max buy-ins on their tables. They put max limits on the amount bet. They do that to keep from going broke or at least losing a huge chunk of money. Imagine if you will a dice table with no max bet. How dangerous would this be for a casino? The cap on betting is the reason that the martingdale system cannot work. If there were a bettor with an infinite bankroll the Casino could not survive without a max bet on their tables. Their is built in advantage of an infinite bankroll over a finite bankroll. If for instance we made a static bet on the results of the tossing of an unbiased coin. You take heads and I take tails. I have an infinite bankroll and you have a finite bankroll. Eventually you will go broke! In fact even if you biased the coin to a point where you had a 1% advantage you would still go broke. I don't know how long it would take. It depends on the size of your bank roll but eventually I would get all of your money. This is an extreme example of the built in advantage of a much greater stack to a small stack.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is simply incorrect reasoning. To the layperson it seems as though an infinite bankroll and infinite max bet on the table will eventually defeat the casinos using a Martingale system, but there is no such thing as an infinite bankroll and the casino simply set max bet limits for variance purposes.
Taking a negative EV bet repeatedly does not mean you will eventually come out ahead. This should be readily apparent.
Joseph Busti
10-18-2005, 06:02 AM
/images/graemlins/frown.gif
Joseph Busti
10-18-2005, 06:08 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You realize DN is talking about NLHE right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I misunderstood his remarks. I thought he was talking about table games.
Vince
[/ QUOTE ]
Finally a statement that makes sense.
flawless_victory
10-18-2005, 08:27 AM
[ QUOTE ]
is this a joke?
[/ QUOTE ]i think OP really is just extremely stupid. bad beat for him.
Exitonly
10-18-2005, 08:43 AM
[ QUOTE ]
This is not correct. And its quite clear to anyone who has ever studied calculus. But there is no such thing as an infinite bankroll anyway, so most of this talk is in mathematical fantasy land that makes no sense.
Suppose you have a 10,000 unit bankroll, and you are playing against someone who has an infinite bankroll. You roll a fair dice, and he pays you even money every time you don't roll a 6. The odds that you ever go bust in this game are incredibly slim. This is not to say you won't ever go on a 10,000 unit downswing. But the odds that you go on one before you win significantly more than 10,000 additional units is less. It's more or less a limit taken to infinity.
[/ QUOTE ]
Vince's situation was NL.. and his stack always covered DN's..
but it was a stupid scenario, because Inifite can't go broke.. much more interesting would be if robot had like 100m, and DN had 10k etc etc but that's for the probability forum.
dibbs
10-18-2005, 09:42 AM
[ QUOTE ]
And if he had a huge stack, larger than everyone elses, he could make a call with a draw a huge mistake on his opponents part. This is just a simple example of how being short stacked in live poker can be a disadvantage.
[/ QUOTE ]
Other way round. If he has no money, them calling with a draw doesn't give em any implied odds, so they're making a mistake. If he's deep, they gain implied odds, its much less of a mistake.
[ QUOTE ]
Players who keep rebuying to 20 BB stacks are lame and annoying. It doesn't seem to be profitable either, from what I've observed, and I have seen some players using what appears to be proper shortstack strategy. Good hands just don't come around often enough to run with a 20 BB stack. I suppose the lame shortstack strategy could work well in a deepstacked game where 50 BB is a standard reraise.
[/ QUOTE ]
buying in short in party 5/10 games is obviously profitable, otherwise it wouldnt exist to the same extent that it does.
[ QUOTE ]
buying in short in party 5/10 games is obviously profitable, otherwise it wouldnt exist to the same extent that it does.
[/ QUOTE ]
By that logic, playing the lottery must be insanely profitable. Because x is an often-employed stategy does not mean x is net profitable.
MTBlue
10-18-2005, 02:55 PM
Nice post.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
buying in short in party 5/10 games is obviously profitable, otherwise it wouldnt exist to the same extent that it does.
[/ QUOTE ]
By that logic, playing the lottery must be insanely profitable. Because x is an often-employed stategy does not mean x is net profitable.
[/ QUOTE ]
let me see if I get this right: You are comparing playing 5/10 NL with a short stack to playing the lottery? dont compare apples w/ pears.
Vincent Lepore
10-18-2005, 03:21 PM
[ QUOTE ]
but there is no such thing as an infinite bankroll and the casino simply set max bet limits for variance purposes
[/ QUOTE ]
While it is true that there is no one with an infinite bankroll it is also true that there are people with bankrolls large enough to beat a casino with a doubling up system that is given a large number of double ups. Variance is not why the Casino's do not allow infinite max bets. They do it for self protection and that's it. Do you really believe that a Casino wants a Bill Gates and Warren buffet and there fellow rich folk to gang up and place a 20 billion dollar bet and risk going broke?
Vince
[ QUOTE ]
buying in short in party 5/10 games is obviously profitable, otherwise it wouldnt exist to the same extent that it does.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
let me see if I get this right: You are comparing playing 5/10 NL with a short stack to playing the lottery? dont compare apples w/ pears.
[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't mean to say that the lottery and online short-stack poker were the same (although apples and pears are pretty darn comparable). I just meant that inferring the merit of a money-making stategy by how many people employ it is bad reasoning. People do dumb things. Because lots of people do X does not mean X is a smart thing to do. Like arguing about logical minutiae in a subthread with stranger in the middle of the day in an online forum....
I suck.
fuego527
10-18-2005, 03:29 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but there is no such thing as an infinite bankroll and the casino simply set max bet limits for variance purposes
[/ QUOTE ]
While it is true that there is no one with an infinite bankroll it is also true that there are people with bankrolls large enough to beat a casino with a doubling up system that is given a large number of double ups. Variance is not why the Casino's do not allow infinite max bets. They do it for self protection and that's it. Do you really believe that a Casino wants a Bill Gates and Warren buffet and there fellow rich folk to gang up and place a 20 billion dollar bet and risk going broke?
Vince
[/ QUOTE ]
Are you seriously arguing that the reason isn't variance and instead it is risk of ruin (a percentage whose value is a function of 2 variables, one of which IS variance)? I honestly do not understand how you can feel so strongly about this topic and understand it so little at the same time.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
buying in short in party 5/10 games is obviously profitable, otherwise it wouldnt exist to the same extent that it does.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
let me see if I get this right: You are comparing playing 5/10 NL with a short stack to playing the lottery? dont compare apples w/ pears.
[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't mean to say that the lottery and online short-stack poker were the same (although apples and pears are pretty darn comparable). I just meant that inferring the merit of a money-making stategy by how many people employ it is bad reasoning. People do dumb things. Because lots of people do X does not mean X is a smart thing to do. Like arguing about logical minutiae in a subthread with stranger in the middle of the day in an online forum....
I suck.
[/ QUOTE ]
im a journeyman though...wow thats a bad joke.
anyway I guess your logic must apply to the opposite as well i.e. assuming that because lots of people do X does not mean X is a dumb thing to do? Playing w/ a short stack is related to in this thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=3691758&page=1&view=colla psed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=2#Post3706888). "IHateCats" states that [ QUOTE ]
a surprising # of very good short handed specialists will make very, very loose calls against a 20x-40x BB move in after they've been reraised all in for 20x-40x, regardless of how tight I've been
[/ QUOTE ]. From what Ive seen and experienced myself, I found this to be very true in party 5/10.
[ QUOTE ]
anyway I guess your logic must apply to the opposite as well i.e. assuming that because lots of people do X does not mean X is a dumb thing to do?
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course. Saying the statement "when X is Y it is always also Z" is a false statement does not mean that "when X is Y is it sometimes also Z" is false, nor does it imply that "when X is Y it is never also Z" is true. I don't understand how you are debating this simple proposition: Because a lot of people do something does not mean it is a good thing to do. There are good things a lot of people do, bad things a lot of people do, good things few do and bad things few do. The goodness of a thing is best judged by factors other than how many people partake in it. I'm a logic nit. I apologize.
well, I guess our discussion is about 1+1=2 and 1-1=0?
Alex/Mugaaz
10-18-2005, 07:34 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but there is no such thing as an infinite bankroll and the casino simply set max bet limits for variance purposes
[/ QUOTE ]
While it is true that there is no one with an infinite bankroll it is also true that there are people with bankrolls large enough to beat a casino with a doubling up system that is given a large number of double ups. Variance is not why the Casino's do not allow infinite max bets. They do it for self protection and that's it. Do you really believe that a Casino wants a Bill Gates and Warren buffet and there fellow rich folk to gang up and place a 20 billion dollar bet and risk going broke?
Vince
[/ QUOTE ]
Are you seriously this stupid? No bankroll is BIG enough to beat a negative ev game. "Super Huge" is not "close" to infinity. When someone employs this betting system basically what they are doing is selling the casino a lottery ticket for all their money, in the casino's favor.
Do you really think that it's wise to argue that you're right about a subject that you know little about or don't understand well?
Vincent Lepore
10-18-2005, 07:34 PM
You are the one that doesn't understand it. Casino's surely are concerned with variance but to believe that their primary fear is not potential ruin by some whale(s) is to truly not understand what keeps these Casino's in business. Variance is understood, expected and a simple matter for a Casino to deal with. They understand it and even with their limit caps I'm sure they experience periods with big negative swings. But these expected valleys are planned for and dealt with. However they must protect against ruin. A casino's number one defense against a ruiness loss is the bet Cap.
Vince
Vincent Lepore
10-18-2005, 07:36 PM
[ QUOTE ]
No bankroll is BIG enough to beat a negative ev game.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is about the dumbest statement I've seen on this forum to date.
Vince
Vincent Lepore
10-18-2005, 07:38 PM
Excuse me but if you look at the example you will not that even without implied odds the calls are correct.
That's the whole point.
Vince
Vincent Lepore
10-18-2005, 07:46 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If he covers someone, it is in fact the very opposite: his opponents are far more likely to be correct making a call w/ a draw due to the implied odds they will be getting.
[/ QUOTE ]
Excuse me El Diablo but you are a naive person if you believe that the only factor when considering implied odds is the stack size of your opponent. In fact one should first consider the opponents skill level before counting on getting anything at all from future bets. If you make calls based on getting impilied odds from a skilled professional you will find yourself sorely disappointed. Case in point. The most recent TV coverage of last years WSOP has a hand between Sam Fahra and DAniel. Daniel flops the nut straight. Makes a big bet on the turn. The board pairs and a flush gets there. Fahra bets his flush. Daniel correctly mucks his nut straight. So much for implied odds.
Vince
Alex/Mugaaz
10-18-2005, 11:03 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No bankroll is BIG enough to beat a negative ev game.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is about the dumbest statement I've seen on this forum to date.
Vince
[/ QUOTE ]
I will bet $5,000 I can prove any bankroll less than infinity cannot beat a negative ev game.
Yes or no?
TomCollins
10-18-2005, 11:48 PM
If you clearly define "beat", it will be incredibly obvious. But I'm not too sure Vince understands this concept, or anything beyond 2nd grade math.
Big_Jim
10-19-2005, 12:04 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If he covers someone, it is in fact the very opposite: his opponents are far more likely to be correct making a call w/ a draw due to the implied odds they will be getting.
[/ QUOTE ]
Excuse me El Diablo but you are a naive person if you believe that the only factor when considering implied odds is the stack size of your opponent. In fact one should first consider the opponents skill level before counting on getting anything at all from future bets. If you make calls based on getting impilied odds from a skilled professional you will find yourself sorely disappointed. Case in point. The most recent TV coverage of last years WSOP has a hand between Sam Fahra and DAniel. Daniel flops the nut straight. Makes a big bet on the turn. The board pairs and a flush gets there. Fahra bets his flush. Daniel correctly mucks his nut straight. So much for implied odds.
Vince
[/ QUOTE ]
Excuse me Vince, but you are a naive person if you believe that Diablo. or anybody else reading. this doesn't already know that Stack Size is not the only thing to consider when considering implied odds.
[ QUOTE ]
Daniel correctly mucks his nut straight.
[/ QUOTE ]
nh.
Vincent Lepore
10-19-2005, 12:08 AM
If I have a Bankroll of 5 trillion dollars and you are a Casino with a 1 billion dollar bankroll and I bet my bankroll on the pass line of a crap table what is the probability that I will win your bankroll before you win mine? Now 5 trillion is a lot smaller number than infinity. Would you like me to multiply that by 5 trillion, another smaller than infinity number, and do the same exercise and have you do the calculation? Remeber you with your 1 billion only get one shot at my bankroll because if you lose your bankroll you go broke and don't have anymore money to bet. Whatever you might want to believe you will find that the resulting numbers here will not be overcome by some -EV casino game unless the game is a %100 certainty.
Vince
Alex/Mugaaz
10-19-2005, 12:28 AM
[ QUOTE ]
If I have a Bankroll of 5 trillion dollars and you are a Casino with a 1 billion dollar bankroll and I bet my bankroll on the pass line of a crap table what is the probability that I will win your bankroll before you win mine? Now 5 trillion is a lot smaller number than infinity. Would you like me to multiply that by 5 trillion, another smaller than infinity number, and do the same exercise and have you do the calculation? Remeber you with your 1 billion only get one shot at my bankroll because if you lose your bankroll you go broke and don't have anymore money to bet. Whatever you might want to believe you will find that the resulting numbers here will not be overcome by some -EV casino game unless the game is a %100 certainty.
Vince
[/ QUOTE ]
Let's cut the crap. Do you want to bet $5000 or not, otherwise please just shut up. If this is too much for you we can make it $2000.
Vincent Lepore
10-19-2005, 12:42 AM
There's no crap here. The fact is that the only way to clasiify a game as a negative EV game is to do so by using an infiite number of Trials. So any proof that I give you with less than an infinite number of trial you can just say -- Let's cut the crap. Or do you not understand, for example, that when the pass line is evaluated in the Game of craps that to show that it is a -EV bet one must use an infinite number of trials. Atleast I've never seen it done anyother way. But if you can prove something why not just do it?
Vince
Alex/Mugaaz
10-19-2005, 12:51 AM
[ QUOTE ]
There's no crap here. The fact is that the only way to clasiify a game as a negative EV game is to do so by using an infiite number of Trials. So any proof that I give you with less than an infinite number of trial you can just say -- Let's cut the crap. Or do you not understand, for example, that when the pass line is evaluated in the Game of craps that to show that it is a -EV bet one must use an infinite number of trials. Atleast I've never seen it done anyother way. But if you can prove something why not just do it?
Vince
[/ QUOTE ]
I have no altruistic interest in educating you. My only interest is monetary.
Vincent Lepore
10-19-2005, 12:53 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Excuse me Vince, but you are a naive person if you believe that Diablo. or anybody else reading. this doesn't already know that Stack Size is not the only thing to consider when considering implied odds
[/ QUOTE ]
I certainly don't believe a poster like El Diablo would not consider his opponent when considering implied odds. No my comment was more toungue in cheek than anything else. I was just wondering why such a good poster as El Diablo would use such and obvious gufaw when supporting his position. I guess you feel the same way. I mean you read his post. He said that because the bettor had a small stack his opponnent was less likely to call. He tried to make this a strong point to prove something I guess. The fact is that this was a multi way pot with four or five opponents. Plenty of implied odds from the opponents of the raisor but he didn't mention that.
Vince
Vincent Lepore
10-19-2005, 12:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I have no altruistic interest in educating you. My only interest is monetary.
[/ QUOTE ]
O.K But first what do you propose will constitue as proof?
Vince
Alex/Mugaaz
10-19-2005, 03:17 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no altruistic interest in educating you. My only interest is monetary.
[/ QUOTE ]
O.K But first what do you propose will constitue as proof?
Vince
[/ QUOTE ]
Logic and math, what else?
This is the last reply I'm going to make this post. There is no need for me to keep posting garbage in this forum.
Vincent Lepore
10-19-2005, 06:03 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Logic and math, what else?
[/ QUOTE ]
I think you that you are right. Your posting in this thread is a waste of time. Logic tells me that.
vince
Sephus
10-23-2005, 02:17 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The fact is that the only way to clasiify a game as a negative EV game is to do so by using an infiite number of Trials.
[/ QUOTE ]
why are you guys arguing with someone who either
A: is a troll who pretends to be an idiot because it gets him attention
B: is getting into a long debate centering around probability theory yet does not know what EV means?
edit: i now notice that the debate seems to have died down, i apologize for bumping it, somebody sent me to this thread.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.