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
|