Expectation

[MMMMMM]

Usually I like your thinking, Nate, but in this case I must disagree.

You wrote: [ QUOTE ]
You'd make more in the 40/80 IMHO, mainly because of the reduced effects of schooling

[/ QUOTE ]

In the 40/80 game you will also have the other good players interfering with your desired strategies against the poorer players, and it seems to me this interference will cost you more than the effects of any schooling in the 20/40 game.

Anyway, the main reason I said the 40/80 game would be less profitable to you is that you will be divvying up the poorer players' losses amongst 5 winning players (instead of only one winning player), but the game is only twice the limit.

Hopefully for the sake of simplicity we can ignore such things as the house time charge and whether the losing players might play significantly better or worse in the higher game.

[MMMMMM]

Do you think the bad players are so bad as to be doing much schooling in the game Gabe describes, Andy?

What about the effect of 4 other players as good as you in the 40/80 game? (when you say you like games with a few bad players and the rest good, I'll bet you are still better than most of the other "good" players you are sitting with. Not so in the 40/80 case Gabe posed, however).

Also, what about the fractions?

[casinogosain]

I guess we have to make some assumptions to proceed with our answer.

I will assume that the bad players play equally as bad in the 40 game (I think they would actually play worse because their plays become less bad, as it were, with more bad players playing with them in the 20).

Further, I will assume that the bad players equally contribute to the good players.

Finally, I will assume that you are playing 9-handed (sounds like it from the question).

So, at present, you are making $40/hr or 1BB/hr. Each of the bad players is contributing 1/8 BB/hr to you (the only good player). In the new game, you have 4 bad players contributing 1/8 BB/hr to the good players - of which there are now 5. So, your share is 1/8 BB/hr * 1/5 * 4 bad players = 1/10 BB/hr = $8hr.

Stay in the 20.

-Ash


[ QUOTE ]
Let’s say you’re at 20/40 table and playing with 8 equally bad players. You make $40/hr at this game.

4 seats open up at the 40/80 table. 4 of the 20/40 players from your table move over and you follow. In the other 4 seats at the 40/80 table there are players who play just as well as you.

Would you make the same, more, or less at the 40/80 table per hour?

[/ QUOTE ]

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

only some...el D doesn't seem to get that either...so dont sweat it

-Barron

[Michael Davis]

I think the fractional analysis and the idea that a bunch of the money you were going to win is now going to other players is wrong. The fractional analysis that assumes that you can halve the amount you are winning from each player is definitely wrong.

There is actually enough PokerTracker data to figure out a close to definitive answer to this question.

-Michael

[Nate tha' Great]

I simulated one million hands under each set of conditions using Turbo Texas Hold 'Em. I have my doubts about TTHE's capacity to do certain things well, but I think it's pretty well suited for this sort of macroscopic experiment.

Assumptions:

- The table is 9-handed.

- The blinds are $10/$20 in the $20/$40 game and $20/$40 in the $40/$80 game.

- There is a 10% rake up to $4. Pots are not raked if there is no flop. The players do not chop the blinds. There is a $1 tip on top of the rake on pots of $50 or more.

- 35 hands are played per hour.

Experiment #1 featured one good player (Bret Maverick) and eight fish, all of which used the same profile, Welcome Waldo. Welcome Waldo tends toward being loose aggressive before the flop and loose passive afterward - basically an ideal opponent, IMHO. The limit was $20/$40.

Bret Maverick made an average of $55.6/hour in this experiment. The Waldos lost an average of $28.4/hour. The house made $171.9/hour.

The good player made slightly more than the $40/hour that Gabe specified. I do not think this should matter all that much. I do think it might matter that all the fish were of the same profile, rather than a mix of various fishy profiles.

Note that I'd expect a 2+2er to do quite a bit better than Bret Maverick did against this lineup. The TTHE profiles are not as good as they could be at extracting the most from bad opponents after the flop.

Experiment #2 featured five good players, all using the Bret Maverick profile, and four fishy players, all using the Welcome Waldo profile. The good players are seated in seats #1, 3, 5, 7 and 9.

The Bret Mavericks made an average of $55.0/hour. The fishy players lost an average of $108.6/hour. The house made an average of $159.4/hour.

Seat position appeared to make some difference. The Bret Maverick profile in seat #7 did the worst, winning $46.9/hour. The profile in seat #9 did the best, winning $62.8/hour.

Some preliminary conclusions:

- At first glance, there appears to be almost no difference in the good player's expectation between the two experiments. That is, the money that you're making from the bad players appears to be commutative. You profit x/hand from each bad player, so if there are 4 bad players, you make 4x/hand, while if there are 8 players, you make 8x/hand. Doubling the betting limits should even this advantage back out. You are neither making nor losing money from the good players, since they have an identical profile to you.

- It's interesting that the house was actually making more per hour with the smaller betting limits (not just in terms of BB/hour, but also in terms of $$/hour). I suspect this is because, with the fishier game texture, more flops were seen, and more hands were played out to the point where the house was dragging the maximum rake.

- One thing that I did not consider is that you are likely to see more hands per hour when there are more good players in the game. For example, if we assume that 35 hands are played per hour at the table with 8 fishy opponents, but 40 hands are played per hour at the table with 4 fish and 4 good opponents, then you make about $7/hour extra in the later case.

- As some have alluded to here, it's worth mentioning that the fish are losing money a *lot* faster when there are several good opponents in the game - in fact, they're losing nearly 4x as much per hand in raw dollars, considering the increase in betting limits. If this induces them to play better, or to leave the table more quickly, whatever advantage you might gain from playing at the higher limits would evaporate quickly.

[mikelow]

I would say 44.4%. Instead of eight seats of "dead" money, there are only four. And you must share a reduced pool with the other good players. That reduces your expectation by 5/9. It be reduced even more if the limits stayed the same, but since they doubled it's just a 56% reduction.

[mike l.]

see gabe i was right. im always right. im like some sort of genius.

[spoohunter]

Interesting point here.

[mike l.]

"since bad players are generally much looser, they will account for significantly more than 50% of your opponents post-flop."

as opposed to in the first case where they make up 100% of your opponents pre and post flop... not a tough problem imo.