Expectation

[Stork]

Yes, I was assuming that the bad players would play pretty much their same game/style, I think that was sort of a given.

[steveyz]

I believe your BB/hr would decrease slightly but $/hr would increase significantly. Even though bad players now account for only 50% of your opponents pre-flop, since bad players are generally much looser, they will account for significantly more than 50% of your opponents post-flop.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
You would definately make more, there's no question about it. (Assuming nuetral seating.)

[/ QUOTE ]

uh, more $/hr or bb/hr?

-Barron

[Noo Yawk]

Hi Gabe,

Scenario number one. Your opponents are losing 1/8 of a BB to one player(you) in theory. 8x5=40/hr. or $5/hour per player.

Scenario 2: 5 tough players and 4 bad players. The bad players are losing more than 1/8 of a BB/hr for the following reasons:

1)They are not getting as good a price to draw and hit the really big pots on the hands they play due to:

-more Isolation raises.
-less multiway pots.
-more aggressive play.

2) They will bleed their money away faster pre-flop to 5 tough opponents than just one, also due to insufficient odds.

3) They will never gain any value from poor bluff attempts as tougher players know better.

4) They will lose a few more bets as tougher players value bet them more.

They would now have to lose 200/hr combined ($50/hr each) to 5 players for you to net the same amount as the 20-40 game. The question now becomes, are the bad players really going to lose 5/8ths of a BB each in this game? It's pretty hard to quantify these numbers, but if you believe they will lose exactly this much then you would still have to play better than at least one of your other 4 good playing clones to make the 40-80 situation more profitable. If you chnaged one of the good clones to a break even player, you would now make $50/hr as there was $200/hr to split between the 4 good players. So in order to figure this properly, you need to really have a good idea of how much more the bad players are losing in the second scenario.

In real life, this is a good example of why bad players survive for long periods of time in weak games, so long as they can afford the stakes they are playing.

As a side note, it's my opinion that the reason good players hit a wall as they move up in limits is not only due to the fact that there are more good players, but that the definition of "bad player" changes dramatically.

[elysium]

hi gabe

you would make more, IMO, in the 20-40 game as described , for the simple reaswon that the bad players will play better in the higher stakes game. let's assume though that they don't. in that case, it looks like you make the same amount in either game. the main issue, of course, is how dividing up the proceeds between you and the good players, effects your ev. gabe, it's definately zero'ed out amongst the good players; the bads are losing twice as much but you must divide their losses between you and the good players.....hmmmm. you know gabe, you might be doing substantially better in the first game. and that second game....whew. for some reason, my experience is that the second game is more volatile than the first.

i'm going to say that while both games are definately profitable, the first game is at least modestly more profitable even if the bad players do not play better in the higher stakes game. the dividing up of the proceeds has got me in a math knot, but in the higher stakes game, you don't have the whole field to yourself. that just somehow seems less profitable.

[Nate tha' Great]

You'd make more in the 40/80 IMHO, mainly because of the reduced effects of schooling. Certainly, I think schooling effects are overstated, but this question is set up in such a way that it's going to be very close and we're looking for tiebreakers, and that seems like a good one to me.

[hillbilly]

hey gabe, uncle ray has a great article this month in the 2+2 internet magazine concerning this exact topic...said article is likely what inspired your post but just in case you have missed it, check it out...

as to your specific example and question...if a guy is only beating the 20-40 against 8 weakies for ONLY one BB, i think he will struggle to make the same 40 hr.(one small bet/hr.) at twice the limit against with the harder lineup.

[mike l.]

in the long run you make significantly less in the 40 because you have to now divide up what you make from the bad players with the other equally good players. it's a little more complicated (for instance what actually happens is the bad players will lose even more per hour in the tougher game), but the 20 is the clear favorite.

it will take sklansky to answer this sufficiently btw.

[andyfox]

I'd expect to do better in the 40-80 as the bad players' bad plays are less bad in the 20-40 game because of the schooling effect Nate mentions. Subjectively, I think that's why the best games (for me) have a few bad players in them rather than all bad players.

[snakehead]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You would definately make more, there's no question about it. (Assuming nuetral seating.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



uh, more $/hr or bb/hr?

-Barron


[/ QUOTE ]

you're just pulling our legs with all your posts, right?