wealth-utility bets at the table

Many years ago, it occurred to me that $50 is worth way more when you have $50 in chips in front of you than when you have $1000 in front of you. So, if you have $50, what are the chances of winning three in a row net, and getting back in the game?


Off the top of my head, I would say those chances may be as high as 1 in 4. So, it would make sense for someone else at the table to bet you $250 you'd make it to $1000, where if you made it to $1,000 first you'd owe him $250, whereas if you made it to zero first, he'd owe you $50.


Then you could start over again, depending on small-buy restrictions. Does this work out?


eLROY

to win three in a row at even money its 7 to 1. to run 50 into 1000 is 19 to 1. but given say you are a better player than the field it may be less. but hitting the first few double ups is probably much greater than the 7 to 1 as you will mostly be against better hands. so the first couple of doubles, maybe your closer to 15 to 1 to triple up.

but if the game is tight and not alot of pressure you may easily double. so there.

You're right, 50 dollars is pretty dismal.


I think the proper concept was if you had, say, $200, and were hoping to get to $1,000.00.


At that point, you would make a properly-adjusted bet with somebody else at the table that you would make it to zero before $1,000.00, and thereby get yourself one more all-in.


I swear, when I was thinking of it, it made sense. I think the reason it may have made sense is, perhaps, ideally you would rather have two small all-ins over one big all-in, and this scheme somehow moves you toward that.


eLROY