|
|
#41
10-20-2005, 03:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Can one overcome a -EV game?
[ QUOTE ]
if a player was to buy-in comparatively small and not quit until he or the massive bankroll played a significant number of all-in hands against each other I believe that the massive buy-in would have an advantage. The concept of getting the best of it is in direct conflict with this way of thinking [/ QUOTE ] Please elaborate on what advantage you see that is more important than getting the best of it. It looks like a common, easily exploitable weakness that I (and other NL players) exploit regularly when a fish gets a big stack, but maybe you mean something else. 
|
|
#42
10-20-2005, 04:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Can one overcome a -EV game?
What's the point of bringing Martingale to the equation anyway? If you have an infinite bankroll and infinite time, you could ruin the casino by flat betting. The series of events needed for that is quite unlikely, but you have enough time and money to wait for the win streak to happen.
|
|
#43
10-20-2005, 04:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Can one overcome a -EV game?
[ QUOTE ]
If you have an infinite bankroll and infinite time, you could ruin the casino by flat betting. [/ QUOTE ] No, the probability would be less than 1. See this post by BruceZ on the risk of ruin of a +EV gambler with a finite bankroll. [ QUOTE ] The series of events needed for that is quite unlikely, but you have enough time and money to wait for the win streak to happen. [/ QUOTE ] It's not just a fixed sequence. If the casino starts with 10 units, it would immediately lose if you hit a sequence of 10 wins. However, by the time that happens, the casino might have 100 units, and the losses would not bankrupt it.
|
|
#44
10-20-2005, 04:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Can one overcome a -EV game?
Alright, I thought you could have an infinite series of wins if you had infinite money and time.
|
|
#45
10-20-2005, 05:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Can one overcome a -EV game?
Pzhon, I used to think you were an arrogant jerk as a result of a disagreement we got into a few months ago. I still think you're a little arrogant, but this quote:
[ QUOTE ] [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]"There is a built in mathematical advantage that large numbers have over small numbers when it come to probability." (I have no idea what you meant, but the same equations apply to large numbers as to small numbers, even if you find the large numbers exciting and powerful.) [/ QUOTE ] has forced me to conclude that you're also hilarious. I think the use of the frown as a bullet has something to do with it.
|
|
#46
10-20-2005, 06:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Can one overcome a -EV game?
[ QUOTE ]
what do you mean when you say that Martingale would work. [/ QUOTE ] I mean the same thing that I've always meant that a player with an infinite bankroll using the Martingale system against a casino with no betting cap would eventually take all of the Casinos Bankroll. I can't believe that this is even being argued. It's understood. I never cliamed it would turn a -EV game into a +EV game. I started this thread to try and determine if the same could be said for a player with a finite bankroll that was massive in relationship to the Casino's if the Casino allowed no limit on betting. Vince
|
|
#47
10-20-2005, 06:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Can one overcome a -EV game?
[ QUOTE ]
Alright, I thought you could have an infinite series of wins if you had infinite money and time. [/ QUOTE ] Yes you can and will. Vince
|
|
#48
10-20-2005, 07:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Can one overcome a -EV game?
Right. And the answer you received was "Yes, the overwhelming amount of time a player with a proportionally gigantic bankroll compared to the casino's will bust the casino time and time again." We all agree on this. I think, however, that the point most people are trying to make at this point is that even if you could get ahold of a trillion dollars to bust the casino's billion-dollar bankroll, it's not a good investment and is -EV even if it works most the time. But you already know that. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
|
|
#49
10-20-2005, 07:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Can one overcome a -EV game?
[ QUOTE ]
"There is a built in mathematical advantage that large numbers have over small numbers when it come to probability." [/ QUOTE ] What I meant by a built in mathematical advantage is that even with finite numbers a relationship can be established between a big vs small number. The relationship can be such that the disparity is so great that if the two sides tossed an unbiased coin the small stack taking tails and the big stack taking heads and bet their bankrolls on each toss the big stack that it is a certainty (close enough) that the big stack breaks the small stack. I believe that if you slightly bias the coin in tails favor say 1% the results will be the same. Vince
|
|
#50
10-20-2005, 07:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Can one overcome a -EV game?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] "There is a built in mathematical advantage that large numbers have over small numbers when it come to probability." [/ QUOTE ] What I meant by a built in mathematical advantage is that even with finite numbers a relationship can be established between a big vs small number. The relationship can be such that the disparity is so great that if the two sides tossed an unbiased coin the small stack taking tails and the big stack taking heads and bet their bankrolls on each toss the big stack that it is a certainty (close enough) that the big stack breaks the small stack. I believe that if you slightly bias the coin in tails favor say 1% the results will be the same. Vince [/ QUOTE ] Very rigorous proof Vince. You should apply for the Nobel Prize and beat Sklansky to it.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
