Negreanu's Folly?

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
This is not true. Why is it in the best interest of the Casino's that the players don't go broke quickly? The Casino's do not put max buy-ins on their tables. They put max limits on the amount bet. They do that to keep from going broke or at least losing a huge chunk of money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your reasoning is wrong here. Casinos make money in poker from a rake. So, in poker, they do not want players to go broke to other players. This is why rooms put limits on how high they will spread games and have structures like max buy-in NL. It is also why games that allow players to have bigger edges than Texas Hold'em are less common. In poker, the casino wants people to push money back and forth while they take a drop.

In casino games, the casino likes it fine if players go broke, since they are playing against the casino. They do limit max bets for a few reasons, including lowering the casino's variance and preventing things like card-counters having HUGE spreads and getting a significant edge on the casino.

[ QUOTE ]
The cap on betting is the reason that the martingdale system cannot work. If there were a bettor with an infinite bankroll the Casino could not survive without a max bet on their tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

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.

[limon]

while ultimately i like to cover the table my initial buy in is always short. information is the key to winning poker and id rather donk off 200 "learning" than 2000. its like a reverse haircut, you can always add more but you can never take any off.

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
They do limit max bets for a few reasons, including lowering the casino's variance and preventing things like card-counters having HUGE spreads and getting a significant edge on the casino.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well on a black jack tables this is somewhat true. Casinos have other measures that deal well with Card Counters though and do not rely on betting limits to counter their expertise. But even so how does it relate to Craps or Roulette? The Casino's usually put a max that equals about 7 double ups. Certainly this reduces their variance but what it really does is prevents them from going broke or taking huge losses. If they allowed no limit on their tables they would risk the effects of large numbers which by the way is why double up systems can't work in casinos regardless of what your other discussions claim. Simply put Casinos would never allow a max bet that allowed a player to infinitely double up his bet. They know that they couldn't win and would eventually go broke. Edge is a nice thing but it needs time to work. The same is true in poker.

Let's say that Daniel put his entire bankroll up and played heads up NLH against a robot with blinds of $.05 - .10 If the robot had an infinite bankroll and blindly moved all -in preflop on everyhand, Daniel without question, even with all of his poker skill, if he continued to play would go broke. There is a built in mathematical advantage that large numbers have over small numbers when it come to probability.

Vince

[davmcg]

Obviously the infinite bankroll will win no matter what its disadvantage because the probability of an infinite bankroll going broke is zero....

[9cao]

You seem to have a thing for trying to refute things that DN says and you are really reaching here.

It is a fact that the casino caps buy-ins so they can make more money and that short-stacks are easier to play but not necessarily optimal.

It is also a fact that the Martingale system does not work and that it has been discussed to death on these forums.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Certainly this reduces their variance but what it really does is prevents them from going broke or taking huge losses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, you're agreeing with me, Vince. The Casino is not going to take, say, a 60-40 edge for all of its money. That is too much variance for them.

Vince, you are correct that in this situation:

[Casino has $10 Billion in assets]

I put $10B on BLACK!
I put $20B on BLACK!
I put $40B on BLACK!
....

The Casino would go broke.

However, that really has little to do with the discussion re: short-stack vs. large-stack.

You should really bring these topics up in Other Gambling or Probability forums if you want people to explain the errors in your reasoning.

BTW, I take it that after my explanation you now understand why casinos don't want poker players to go broke quickly?

[ QUOTE ]
The Casino's do not put max buy-ins on their tables. They put max limits on the amount bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

You realize DN is talking about NLHE right? Most NLHE tables (not all) are completely the opposite of what you said. Most do have max buyins and all do not have limits on betting...that's why it's no limit.

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously the infinite bankroll will win no matter what its disadvantage because the probability of an infinite bankroll going broke is zero....

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty obvious isn't it. I guess not to most though.

Vince

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
You realize DN is talking about NLHE right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I misunderstood his remarks. I thought he was talking about table games.

Vince

[TomCollins]

This is not correct. And its quite clear to anyone who has ever studied calculus. But there is no such thing as an infinite bankroll anyway, so most of this talk is in mathematical fantasy land that makes no sense.

Suppose you have a 10,000 unit bankroll, and you are playing against someone who has an infinite bankroll. You roll a fair dice, and he pays you even money every time you don't roll a 6. The odds that you ever go bust in this game are incredibly slim. This is not to say you won't ever go on a 10,000 unit downswing. But the odds that you go on one before you win significantly more than 10,000 additional units is less. It's more or less a limit taken to infinity.