Hello,Mathematicians! Is there a mathematical,,,

[Sitting Bull]

proof of the following statement:
In the game of 7-card stud,if a player plays ALL 7 Strs. ALL the time for a very long time,he will certainly be a loser after an extended period of time.

Just wondering.
Sitting Bull

[Mike Haven]

i couldn't give mathematical proof, but here's a quick statement of logic, imo

if all players played all streets then they would all break even in the long run

if one player that wouldn't have won the pot folded before the end then the money needed for everyone to break even in the long run wouldn't be in the pot, and when he won his share in the long run he would win more money than he had put in

vice versa the others would not have won as much as they had put in

[BB King's]

* if all players played all streets then they would all break even in the long run *

That's wrong !

If I win all the big pots and you wins all the small ones - we are NOT breaking even !

[Peter]

If all players play every street then every pot is of the same size, so you can't win big or small pots.
Even if this was possible, in the long run you would win as much big pots as your opponents, so you would still break even.

Peter

[Mike Haven]

yes - you are correct when there are variable multibets possible on all streets

i thought the question was so hypothetical that i did not need to add such a rider - but thank you for mentioning it anyway

however, as Peter added, as long as everyone played a "reasonable" betting game as they all stayed in for every card (!!!???) then you might still be able to say it would even out after an infinite number of games - sometimes i think i must be involved in some players' experiments, i must admit [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

[Mano]

This would depend on number and composition of opponents. For instance, if playing heads up against someone who folds too much, playing this way in limit will almost always guarantee a win.

guess that the statement: A player who NEVER folds a winner can't be a winning poker player" is an unproven theory at this point.
This statement was made in the "Stud" section .
It seems probable,but i'm wondering if it's ALWAYS valid.
Mano brought up an interesting case.
CJ recently made this general statement in the "Stud" post.

Happy pokering,
Sitting Bull