I'll make you a bet

(Disclaimer: I'm not really proposing an actual bet here. I mean, not unless you really want to. :-) But I think it'd make for a REAL interesting several sessions.)


Conditions:


1) You lay me 2:1 on $1000. (You will either win $1000 or lose $2000.)


2) I will play for 20 hours of my choosing in the $5-5 blinds PLH game at the Horseshoe during tourny time next year.


And the bet is ...


3) That during those 20 hours, considered as one session, I will never be ahead more than $200 or stuck more than $200.


Let's say you can take either side of the bet, presuming, of course, that I have bet on myself to stay within the range. Or you can bet on yourself to stay in the range. Which action do you like?


Tommy

i think that id bet that you would go outside the range. then again, i think i could stay within the range, so maybe id bet that i would stay within it.

"I will play for 20 hours of my choosing in the $5-5 blinds PLH game".


So this means if the game is wild or juiced up by some dominate players you will opt out? Any 20 hours? 4 on one day, 5 the next etc. or just two 10 hour sessions?


Up $200 or down $200, that's a $400 swing. That is too easy Tommy. You have to straddled at least 2 times per hour. Then I might take you up on it. I've played real tight in a 5-10 pot-limit Hold'em game and was close to a 400 buck standard DEV.


Hope your doing well and enjoying yourself.


-Zeno, Sill alive and still from Greenland.

Tommy-As Zeno hinted, your standard deviation is likely (almost certainly) on the "moderate to high" end, and thus, it would be very unlikely for you to stay within a range of +/-200 for a 20 hour "session" (at ANY game). I think that an "even money" bet of 5 bucks with the under/over of +/-200 is the bet I would choose (ha, LOL - gotta tell that golf story now). If you insisted on laying odds, I would take the 2:1 with you going outside the range. It seems that you would really have to "work" at playing to stay inside the range and that you could lose the 2K bet and still make money if you just play poker. Babe.

"Tommy-As Zeno hinted, your standard deviation is likely (almost certainly) on the "moderate


to high" end,"


this is just coming from one session with the guy but my guess is that he has a very very low SD for a player of his skill level.

I dunno, Tommy, that game is pretty sweet; someone like you ought to be able to beat it handily.


Why +/- 200? You're setting yourself up to be middled pretty badly if you only win $900 in a session.

Obviously if I were trying to beat the game, I would never agree to bet that I would never be more than $200 ahead.


Let's say the bet was for $1,000,000 and you were the player. Now do you think you'd be trying to beat the game? Of course not. I'd make every single betting decision based entirely on what gives me the best chance of winning the million.


For $2000, for 20 hours, I'd do the same thing. That's why I picked those numbers.


Another thing is that if I thought this was nearly an even-money offer,(taking into account the 2:1 odds) I would never offer it. I'd need to be about 80% sure that I could do it, to make this a long range good-enough money winner with a cushion to boot, say, if it were run 1000 times over.


At 80% win rate, I'd win $2000x4 for each time I lost $1000. That's +$7000 every 100 hours, for $70 per hour, more than my modest needs.


So I guess what I'm saying is that the $5-5 blind PLH game plays in such a way, with such predictable steal opportunites in the range of $10 to $30 profit per steal, that a sufficiently motivated player could tread the prescribed $400 range for quite a while. That's all.


Tommy

in 20 hours you will pay about 500 in blinds and 200 in time or so. in this case then you need to win about 500 to stay within. and do it without playing a big pot. i dont think its a good bet. also soon enough the competition will see you never call any bigger bets.

Ray's point is well taken- I wasn't even thinking about the time and blind costs. It's not impossible that you could be ahead on this bet over multiple 20 hour sessions, but that wasn't the bet. The bet was one 20 hour session. Stealing Babe-y pots aside, I think you can't do the +/-200 in that game (even if you choose to destroy your "image" at the table). Babe

"in 20 hours you will pay about 500 in blinds"


Right.


"and 200 in time or so."


Nope. It's a rake game, the first dollar is on $40. I'll win lots of no-rake pots, and the others will be $1 rake. (It's $2 on $70.) Figure one raked pot per hour, we're looking at $20 in rake, not $200.


Let's say three players limp and after fold fold folding I go ahead and raise it from the blind. They all fold and I pick up $20. That's two rounds of blinds, another half hour. And during those two rounds, 20 hands, all I have to do is pick a spot to steal a little, usually it'll be after the flop after a $5 limp, and I stay with the program.


So what if I raise it from the blinds and someone calls? I'm done putting money in, I'm going to check-fold and hope to scratch up some chips in other spots. In the meantime ...


"also soon enough the competition will see you never call any bigger bets."


Good point. That would be a problem. Otherwise, I'd put up my $1000 against someone else's $2000 and give it a shot.


Tommy