Stud Proposition; Interesting Questions

Scenario: A Proposition Bet (no scam involved).


Player A says he will start with a pair of deuces. Player B will take Aces. They bet on each street as in normal 7-Card Stud and do this for as many hands as the contest lasts.


Player A claims he is a good enough player to beat Player B out of money this way, even though he is starting as a big underdog. You (or I) ridicule this contention, knowing that while Player A is an expert, Player B is a good solid winning player though not a true expert. Now a supporter of Player A chimes in and says that all player A has to do is outplay Player B on one street for it to nullify the starting advantage.


Let's say the game is $15-30. Could this possibly be a profitable situation for Player A?


My initial reaction was no, of course not, and then I got to thinking about how sometimes the smaller pair gains a playing advantage over the higher pair (like on the River, where the smaller pair will never pay off unimproved). Also if the Aces obviously make two pair before the River, the smaller pair can usually just fold. However if the smaller pair obviously makes two pair, the Aces may have to keep on coming. So it might be possible that a good player not used to these types of specific situations could make some errors.


For instance, who knows on which street (if ever) the Aces should fold on if the deuces makes two obvious pair? What about if it was fourth street (buried deuces hitting their doorcard)? What about on 5th Street, if split deuces caught a running pair on board? Should the Aces keep coming?


So while it seems hard to imagine that this prop bet could somehow be profitable for the deuces, the supporter of the expert player claimed it would indeed be so for the expert--and it did make me consider a few things I hadn't really thought much about before.


All comments welcome.