Loose Games -EV?

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you have to rethink the conclusions you have drawn from that article. The reason you need a higher bankroll when you begin to play 15-30 is, THE PLAYERS ARE BETTER!

They will beat you like a drum.

Also take the time to realize that the passage you quote is in reguards to a beginning professional player so it assumes that you have to buy lunch and pay rent so unless you want to be homeless, you need more cash.

[/ QUOTE ]

You guys are making me think i'm going retarted because you're disagreeing with me then you are agreeing with me. YES, YOU NEED A LARGER BANKROLL BECAUSE THE PLAYERS ARE BETTER. Is this not what we have been arguing all along?

If tight-aggressive=good players and loose-passive=bad players. THEN YOU NEED A LARGER BNAKROLL TO PLAY BETTER
PLAYERS!

What do i need to rethink about my conclusions? Please be more substantive in your accusations!

[ QUOTE ]
Also take the time to realize that the passage you quote is in reguards to a beginning professional player so it assumes that you have to buy lunch and pay rent so unless you want to be homeless, you need more cash.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do'nt understand your point relevant to what we're talking about.

[xniNja]

[ QUOTE ]

Even the most mathmactically challenged person on the planet understands that winning a bunch of small pots is less profitable than winning a few giant pots.


[/ QUOTE ]

I always thought I was pretty decent at math, look at a hypothetical example of why I don't think this is necessarily true and why you can have an edge in weak-tight games. This example will be simplified for principle.

You hold AA in a weak-tight game, raise UTG, and on average get 2 callers who will fold the flop with nothing, but pay you off with top pair the whole way and I would contend are generally less likely to have a 2-pair out.

You hold AA in a wildly-loose game, raise UTG, and on average get 6 callers who will call the flop with any draw or any pair.

Lets assume you bet the whole way and are called down regardless of whether or not you got outdrawn.

Now, I admittedly cannot do all of the math, but: Compare the percentage chance that your AA holds up against 2 persons with less potential random outs to AA holding up against 6 people with any holdings.

Your argument will be that when you do win the 2nd scenario you win 3x the bets, but I argue that this happens with less frequency than the first scenario, which can absolutely be more profitable.

Ex: If you win 90% of the time in Scenario 1, and 10% of the time in Scenario 2 and the pot sizes are respectively x and 3x, it doesn't take a mathematician to see that after 100 incidents you win 90x vs. 30x

Perhaps the odds aren't this skewed, but it clearly shows that winning many small pots is not necessarily less profitable than a few large pots.

[Zygote]

From Poker Essays II:

"

Moving up

Concept NO.1: At higher limit, your bankroll should be relatively larger. In my book Gambling theory and Other Topics, i show that your bankroll should be predicated on two parameters: your win rate and the standard deviation. Generally speaking, as you move up in limit your relative win rate will drop and your standard devation will increase since many players will play more aggressively. Both of these factors require a larger bankroll, which can be seen in the following two tables. (i cant show the tables). These tables, by the way, assume first of all that you plan to play a particular limit for life. If you are willing to move down if you lose, and i strongly suggest that you do, then you can make do with about two-thirds as much money. Just drop to a lower limt if you happen to go through half your bankroll. Second, notice the difference between the okay player and the great player. Being able to win at a much higher rate has other advantage besides more money (he is indicating that the great player always needs a lower bankroll)."

[steamboatin]

Okay, I was right, your goal is to win the most pots. I believe that people should play the style of poker that makes them happy. If winning more pots than your opponents makes you happy, go for it!

I won four pots and got 2x my money. 2x4=8 I only won two pots but I got 6 times my money 2x6=12 Math seems to stand up.

[xniNja]

"playing more aggressively" isn't what we're talking about when discussing the difference between weak-tight and wildly-loose games. Again, the assumption is you are beating both of the games, not turning pro, not trying a new or higher limit and not concerned with being outplayed.

[xniNja]

It doesn't stand up though. What you just wrote assumed you win half the amount of times in the 2nd situation as the first (50%), which is clearly false.

Edit: Also, understand that in the previous post I am making, I am not making an argument for the happiness winning many pots brings me, but the mathematical proof that it could in fact be more profitable than winning a few large pots, given the difference in probability of winning in the two scenarios.

Again, this has nothing to do with what makes me happy, but is purely a mathematical proposal.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
"playing more aggressively" isn't what we're talking about when discussing the difference between weak-tight and wildly-loose games. Again, the assumption is you are beating both of the games, not turning pro, not trying a new or higher limit and not concerned with being outplayed.

[/ QUOTE ]

The assumption is always that you're beating the game. If you're a not +EV player, you should stop playing the second you find that out. Neither ed nor mason are making any bnakroll assumptions for a player who has a -EV in a game.

All i've said was that tight-aggressive games will require a far larger bnakroll than one's with loose-calling stations and you seem to disagree with that. You said that better players will give you smaller swings. Well, FYI, playing better means playing more aggressively. Better players play more aggressively and you win less against them since they make less mistakes. You will, therefore, experience much larger swings against better players than versus weak ones. I don't see this how cna be disputed.

[xniNja]

If you go back and re-read the posts and replies I insist that I'm talking about TIGHTER players, and "better" in the sense that they aren't complete gamblers, I also many times included the phrase "weak-tight." How many times do I have to say I'm not talking about playing in a tough game?

[Zygote]

Yes, i noticed this, and i now think i confused you with steamboatin and bodhi because they contested the fact that i said playing loose-calling stations will result in lower swings than playing tight-aggressive players. I think you are probably right that tight-weak games versus loose-passive games would yield smaller swings, but i didn't orginally see this as your view point. Your use of the word "better" was the root of my confusion.

I believe you've already conceded that the loose-passive games are the most profitable and we now agree that tight-weak games are less swingy. All in all, I think most of this debate was just based on our poor understandings of each other's sides. I think we now agree on all the above, though.

[Bodhi]

[ QUOTE ]
Please tell me one twoplustwo book that says that your swings are larger when playing loose-calling-station versus tight-aggressive players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Psychology of Poker dumbass.