A quick note about "rareness" of bets

[Smasharoo]

So, IMO, I think the worst "bad run of cards" I've had is somewhere between 200-250BB. By that I mean, had I kept my "A game" the whole time, I still would have lost that amount.


I think that's the real basis of the critique of small +EV plays, allthough no one's phrased it as such. Does the long term earn outweigh the short term negative psychological consequences of a down session due to variance for the average SSH player?

[Blarg]

Unanswerable question because there's no such thing as an average person.

Also, the possibly psychologically negative outcome of pushing your edges and not having it pay off ties directly to the financially negative results of that happening. Big games or small, the swings are something that probably most people don't handle well because financial setbacks going hand-in-hand with psychological ones makes for a nasty mix. And people really DO care about their 100 or 200 BB lost at 1/2 or 2/4 as well, and for some people that really is a substantial amount of money. So pushing small +EV edges can result in dramatic psychological and financial outcomes.

However, poker is cruel and doesn't give a damn about you or anyone else. You simply have to suck it up if you want to maximize your profit, and the more thin edges you push, the more you have to suck it up when things go bad. However, that's the price you pay for success. If you want to pay less of a price, you have to give up a lot of potential success too.

You have to pay a definite price for being unsually successful in poker. You can't just play the way you want to play; you have to play well.

[cnfuzzd]

who is this person that allows poker to affect him emotionally, and why is he still playing?

peace

john nickle

[Lawrence Ng]

[ QUOTE ]
My question is then, take 1800gambler who is a good winning player who's had a 400bb loss, or GOT who had one that was over 300, were they making lots of -EV mistakes?

[/ QUOTE ]

In a full size ring game of 10 players, I find 400 bets to be too extreme of an amount to lose. I would even find 300 big bets to be too extreme.

Short handed I know it's a different story.

[Lawrence Ng]

Ed,

I understand fully what you are trying to explain here and I think it makes complete sense. But still, even with a solid big bankroll, let's say a 500 BB bankroll, wouldn't pushing thin edges with sligh +EV be too risky? I tend to think of it as a reward vs. risk factor and the risk factor is too high given the reward.

I can see how this would compare to a casino that houses a game that perhaps only has a slight edge (say 5%). But the house has an almost infinite bankroll and thus can sustain long term risk, or one that is very close. But say some super rich tycoon comes along and decides to gamble in the millions. This is going heavily influence the house's bankroll even though the house has a thin edge on the player.

So if I have 500 BB bankroll, and I keep pushing these thin edges as you describe it's going to effect my bankroll if things run bad in short or medium run. And given the nature of many loose low limit games bordering on lag most of the time, it's not that uncommon I think to to take a dip in the bankroll.

I don't know all the math behind this, but on any given week if I were push such thin edges and drop a good 100 - 150 BB running bad, then would the possible slight +EV gained offset the amount/risk I put forth? I don't think it's worth it so, but I could be wrong.

I've always advocated a style and game based on maximizing the edge and my +EV, not pushing thin ones.

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
I can see how this would compare to a casino that houses a game that perhaps only has a slight edge (say 5%). But the house has an almost infinite bankroll and thus can sustain long term risk, or one that is very close. But say some super rich tycoon comes along and decides to gamble in the millions. This is going heavily influence the house's bankroll even though the house has a thin edge on the player.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a bad analogy. The casino scenarios have wildly different variance due to the difference in betting units. You don't get that choice in limit poker.

EDIT: The casino analogy, taken to limit poker, would be to move down in stakes so that your total variance decreases vis-a-vis your total bankroll.

[turnipmonster]

[ QUOTE ]
has a slight edge (say 5%).


[/ QUOTE ]

isn't 5% a huge edge? is there any casino game where the house has that high an advantage?

--turnipmonster

[Freudian]

That is a good point. If the swings get so wild that a) you have to move down in limit more often or b) have to have a much larger BR (which is the same as being forced to play at a lower limit) how does that impact the situation?

With infinite money and infinite time it is easier to argue that you should take razor thin +EV situations.

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
isn't 5% a huge edge? is there any casino game where the house has that high an advantage?
--turnipmonster

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a bunch, most notably American roulette (with "0" and "00"), sports betting, money-wheel games, some slots and video poker, assorted craps bets, custom table games like Sic Bo, and most egregiously keno, whose house edge is generally in the 20-30% range.

Wizard of Odds is an awesome resource for stuff like this. Here's a page detailing the house advantage of a bunch of games--and this is all assuming perfect play if skill is involved.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
I've always advocated a style and game based on maximizing the edge and my +EV, not pushing thin ones.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are confused. If you're not pushing thin edges, you're not maximizing your EV.