|
|
#42
10-18-2005, 07:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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 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? 
|
|
#43
10-18-2005, 07:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
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
|
|
#44
10-18-2005, 07:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
[ 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
|
|
#45
10-18-2005, 07:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
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
|
|
#46
10-18-2005, 07:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
[ 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
|
|
#47
10-18-2005, 11:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
[ 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?
|
|
#48
10-18-2005, 11:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
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.
|
|
#49
10-19-2005, 12:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
[ 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.
|
|
#50
10-19-2005, 12:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
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
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
