Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

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

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

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?

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

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.

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

[ QUOTE ]
He seems to think from his comments that this someghow makes buying in short correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

No he doesn't.

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

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

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

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

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

[ 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....

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

[ 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

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

[ 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.

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

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.

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

[ 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.

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

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.

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

[ 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

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

Obviously the infinite bankroll will win no matter what its disadvantage because the probability of an infinite bankroll going broke is zero....

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

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.

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

[ 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?

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

[ 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.

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

[ 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

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

[ QUOTE ]
You realize DN is talking about NLHE right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I misunderstood his remarks. I thought he was talking about table games.

Vince

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

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.

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

[ 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?

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

[ 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?

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

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

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

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.

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

is this a joke?

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

[ 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.

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

[ 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.

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

[ QUOTE ]
is this a joke?

[/ QUOTE ]i think OP really is just extremely stupid. bad beat for him.

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

[ 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.

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

[ 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.

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

[ 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.

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

[ 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.

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

Nice post.

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

[ 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.

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

[ 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

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

[ 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.

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

[ 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.

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

[ 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. "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.

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

[ 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.