Can one overcome a -EV game?

Your talking about doubling up, not just making any bet you want. After you lose 29 bets in a row starting with a $5 bet you will need to wager $2,684,354,560 to win $5 assuming it's a 0 EV gamble. OK, so you have $500 Trillion to crack the casino for $1 Billion. How long do you think it would take to crack the casion of $1 Billion by doing this???

Exactly, the casinos have a BR in respect to the bets they allow the people to wager so there is hardly and ROR, just like us poker players. But Vincent was talking about the Martingale system not just trying to crack them in one shot.

[Vincent Lepore]

Thank you for the post it was very well done. I accept your conclusion especially the one I was looking for:

[ QUOTE ]
If Casinos didn't cap their bets, yes, theoretically a gambler with a giant bankroll could ruin them.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may call my posts silly but anyone reading them should have gotten the point that my comments were based on "theory". But instead I got a rash of insults. You at least understood that theoretically large numbers are very powerful.

I reread Negreanu's comments on massive bankroll. I will agree that there is no inherent mathematical advantage to a massive comparative buy given the conditions he outlines But there are advantages that a skilled player can develop through proper use of his massive bankroll. As long as the skilled player is making good plays a skilled opponent will not gain anything but the massive stack will likely prevent a him from making marginal +EV calls. Mainly because when making a decision the more likely the call is close the less likely a good player will make it. That is an advantage but not really quantifiable.

Another factor that will give the massive stack an advantage is that there are players that rarely, if ever, quit when they double up once or even twice if they havent been playing for a long period. Now the massive stack will always have them covered and be able to turn an earlier loss into a win. Even the greatest players make mistakes and also lose close decision. The massive stack will be able to always be in a position to take all of there chipsvalmost without regard to how much they have built their stack when this happens. Negreanu does not give enough credit to the psychological part of poker and the thought of losing ones buy in in a single swoop. Negreanu claims that poker is a people game yet points to mathematics when it is to his advantage. Yes there is no way to quantify the psychological effect that facing losing everything one has in front of them has on their game but I bet it is a substantial consideration to most solid poker players.

Vince

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
But Vincent was talking about the Martingale system not just trying to crack them in one shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I did mention Martingdale but I also said a double up system. I believe that if you allow an inifinite bankroll then the martingdale system will also work to bust a finite casino bankroll.

Vince

[Vincent Lepore]

The point is not how long it takes. The point is whether or not it will happen.

Vince

Hi Vince:

I understand the point you're trying to make. But you do understand that even if the casino can be busted, it doesn't mean the casino should shy away from the venture because of the .006 margin they have against a stack 1,000 times bigger (I know there's a formula we can make from this but I'm tired and have done enough probability today.)

In the same way, poker players against Daniel are going to be at a disadvantage if they don't have unlimited buyins. However, if we use the old 60 % number I keep dragging out because I'm lazy, a player buying in for $1,000 against Daniel's stack (let's say $128k instead of $146k or whatever as I'm still lazy) would successfully be able to take all of Daniel's money 2.7 percent of the time. This doesn't require players to cash out when they're ahead. It does mean if they keep on getting their money in on 60 % advantages, they will eventually be broken by Daniel 97.3 % of the time, but it's still a money-winning proposition for them in the long run, and illustrates why it's to Daniel's disadvantage to do this in the long term. (It might be entertaining enough to counter the -EV , though [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] )

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
keep on getting their money in on 60 % advantages

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on now, how likely is it that people, even pros, are going to consistently have this type of advantage against Daniel Negreanu or any other skilled pro? You know as well as I do that skilled poker players are not going to just blindly blow off their chips. Oh I get it, maybe Daniel started drinking again... He is not being fair with his comments. In the hands of a skilled NLH poker player a massive stack is a horrible thing to face.

Well thanks for answering anyway.

Vince

Well, I read his blog entry the other day and it seemed to me he was making OK but sometimes reckless plays.

[ QUOTE ]
The first hand I played was the Ac 10c and I made it 50. One player called and the button re-raised to 200. I came to play so I called the raise as did the other player.

The flop came Ah Qc 10h and it was checked to the button who bet 650. He only had about 2000 more so I figured, "Why not, he might have A-K," and made it $47,000 to go!

Nope, it wasn't AK, my opponent had a set of queens and I was stuck $2800 right off the bat.

I continued to raise every pot. At one point, two players limped in for $10 and I said,"10? I'm in for 10," and threw out two $5000 chips with the Q-3 off suit. They all folded naturally.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really like Daniel and think he's a great player. But when he describes his play as such, I think a reasonable player could have 60 % or higher with most decisions - just factor in what two cards he's raising with and play really tight. (This is not an evaluation of his normal play, simply the situation he brought up in the blog, which is what I thought we were discussing.)

[Vincent Lepore]

I thought we were discussing the advantage or disadadvantage of making a massive buy-in. If not I guess this discussion is over with. That in fact was my whole purpose for all of these posts that you found silly. After all the issue is not what DN does or doesn't do. It's the massive buy in that is the issue. At least that's how I see it.

Vince

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
A poster in response, called me an idiot (might be right), and said that no huge bankroll could overcome a -EV game?

[/ QUOTE ]
You are now being told on multiple forums that you don't understand the martingale.

<ul type="square">"Your understanding of the mathematics behind the Martingale system is off. These topics have been covered in detail in the Other Gambling forum. You should go read them to understand why the Martingale system doesn't work."

"Are you seriously this stupid? No bankroll is BIG enough to beat a negative ev game. "Super Huge" is not "close" to infinity. "[/list]The people who are telling you that you are wrong are quite well-respected, and many of your statements have been specifically refuted. Why are you wasting everyone's time with these old fallacies? Do you enjoy being wrong publicly, or can you not believe that you are wrong despite the overwhelming consensus against you?

I'm willing to bet a lot of money, at 10:1 odds, that your statements about being able to overcome a -EV game by having a large bankroll and playing a martingale are wrong. If you think you have 1 chance in 11 of being correct (we can let any 2+2 author referee), please accept this wager.

If you don't think you have 1 chance in 11 of being right, please don't repeat yourself. Retract your statements and apologize. If you don't, I will ask the moderators to change your title from addict to troll.