Negreanu's Folly?

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
He seems to think from his comments that this someghow makes buying in short correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? I didn't get that at all. Probably because he doesn't say or even suggest it. Since when does simple = correct?

[fuego527]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP, but this has nothing to do with this topic...follow El Diablo's advice to learn more on this subject

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

9cao's appears to have resolved this argument, why does it continue?

[StLouisMike]

Waiting for premium pairs is not the only way to play a short stack. In lower limit games it is likely to limp with suited connectors from a late position or blinds, flop a flush or up and down straight draw and be correct in getting all of your money in on the flop. Ed Miller's short stack strategy derives all of its strength in starting hand value but, I believe you can make plays (even though they will be limited) when starting out with a short stack. I think the biggest misconception when playing a short stack is forgetting about making good poker decisions and trying to play like a textbook. Limping with suited connectors when you are getting 7 to 1 odds is a good poker decision right? Moving in on the flop with a strong draw getting 2to1 effective odds or better is a good decision right?


Mike

Greenstein (Ace on the River) and Miller (SSHE) go further than DN. They advocate buying in with a short stack. Miller believes there is a net advantage, Greenstein says little, as I remember, other than it is his preferred strategy.

[KaneKungFu123]

is this a joke?

[kyleb]

[ 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. Imagine if you will a dice table with no max bet. How dangerous would this be for a casino? 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. Their is built in advantage of an infinite bankroll over a finite bankroll. If for instance we made a static bet on the results of the tossing of an unbiased coin. You take heads and I take tails. I have an infinite bankroll and you have a finite bankroll. Eventually you will go broke! In fact even if you biased the coin to a point where you had a 1% advantage you would still go broke. I don't know how long it would take. It depends on the size of your bank roll but eventually I would get all of your money. This is an extreme example of the built in advantage of a much greater stack to a small stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is simply incorrect reasoning. To the layperson it seems as though an infinite bankroll and infinite max bet on the table will eventually defeat the casinos using a Martingale system, but there is no such thing as an infinite bankroll and the casino simply set max bet limits for variance purposes.

Taking a negative EV bet repeatedly does not mean you will eventually come out ahead. This should be readily apparent.

[Joseph Busti]

[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[Joseph Busti]

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

You realize DN is talking about NLHE right?


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



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

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

Finally a statement that makes sense.

[flawless_victory]

[ QUOTE ]
is this a joke?

[/ QUOTE ]i think OP really is just extremely stupid. bad beat for him.

[Exitonly]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Vince's situation was NL.. and his stack always covered DN's..

but it was a stupid scenario, because Inifite can't go broke.. much more interesting would be if robot had like 100m, and DN had 10k etc etc but that's for the probability forum.