blonde poker forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 11, 2025, 07:06:11 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
2262191 Posts in 66599 Topics by 16765 Members
Latest Member: Jengajenga921
* Home Help Arcade Search Calendar Guidelines Login Register
+  blonde poker forum
|-+  Poker Forums
| |-+  The Rail
| | |-+  Say you have $10k on a nl50 table......
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Say you have $10k on a nl50 table......  (Read 2780 times)
UpTheMariners
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1888


We Only Sing When We're Fishing


View Profile
« on: December 18, 2008, 01:58:32 PM »

Say you have $10k on a nl50 table and a guy joins with $50. You decide to make flips by going all in every hand. is it EV neutral for both players? or will the guy with $10k win in the long run? both players have infinite bankrolls.
Logged

kinboshi
ROMANES EUNT DOMUS
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 44239


We go again.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 18, 2008, 02:04:46 PM »

It's not a zero sum game, as there's the rake to consider.  I think that it'd be -EV for both players, but I'm probably wrong.
Logged

'The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.'
ScottMGee
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 481



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: December 18, 2008, 02:05:13 PM »

Ignoring rake, He ($50 guy) will eventually win your entire roll.

As you win two flips, you win $100
He wins two flips he wins $150.

He only has to win 9 flips to win the whole $10,000.
Assume hes not playing your game and chooses only to call with a hand (60% favourite), then I think he has 1% chance of winning 9 flips in a row. Assume he waits for Aces (80% favourite) then he is 13% chance of winning 9 in a row.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2008, 02:10:50 PM by ScottMGee » Logged
GreekStein
Hero Member
Hero Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 20728



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: December 18, 2008, 02:20:36 PM »

Ignoring rake, He ($50 guy) will eventually win your entire roll.

As you win two flips, you win $100
He wins two flips he wins $150.

He only has to win 9 flips to win the whole $10,000.
Assume hes not playing your game and chooses only to call with a hand (60% favourite), then I think he has 1% chance of winning 9 flips in a row. Assume he waits for Aces (80% favourite) then he is 13% chance of winning 9 in a row.

I think you missed the point. The guy cant get dealt two cards and pick and choose which hands he flips with
Logged

@GreekStein on twitter.

Retired Policeman, Part time troll.
AlexMartin
spewtards r us
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8039


rat+rabbiting society of herts- future champ


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 18, 2008, 02:25:54 PM »

Ignoring rake, He ($50 guy) will eventually win your entire roll.

As you win two flips, you win $100
He wins two flips he wins $150.

He only has to win 9 flips to win the whole $10,000.
Assume hes not playing your game and chooses only to call with a hand (60% favourite), then I think he has 1% chance of winning 9 flips in a row. Assume he waits for Aces (80% favourite) then he is 13% chance of winning 9 in a row.

I think you missed the point. The guy cant get dealt two cards and pick and choose which hands he flips with

lol
Logged
StuartHopkin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8145


Ocho cinco


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: December 18, 2008, 02:31:23 PM »

If whoever loses reloads back to the 50/10000 then its got to be neutral.

Doesnt matter how big they build their stack to at some point the other person will stack them if you play it infinitely?
Logged

Only 23 days to go until the Berlin Marathon! Please sponsor me at www.virginmoneygiving.com/StuartHopkin
GrafhamGrinder
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 35


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: December 18, 2008, 02:48:33 PM »

Here are my thoughts :- Players A is the guy who starts with 10k and Player B is the guy who sits with $50.

You need to remember that they both have infinite bank rolls so they never run out of money

Over infinite time Player B (starting with $50) will build up a roll on the table which will match Player A's roll, he will then win all of Player A's guys money in which case becasue its an nl50 table the roles will now be reversed and Player A will have to start with $50 and player B will have the larger amount on the table. Over infinite time the Player A (who now starts with $50 each time) will build up enough to match Player B's stack and will take all the money he has on the table, in which case we are back to square one where Player A has the larger amount on the table and Player B start again with $50 and this continues until the end of time.

So its Neutral EV for both players.

If you include rakes its negative EV for both players and +EV for the poker site.
Logged
pokerfan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5551



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: December 18, 2008, 05:44:30 PM »

If you have an infinite bankroll why the fuck would you want to sit at a table tossing a coin all day?
Logged

Cf
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8081



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: December 18, 2008, 06:46:43 PM »

I think I understand the question. I'm going to reword it though.

Both players have infinite bankrolls.

Player A sits down with $50. Player B sits down with $infinity.

If Player A wins he's up to $100, which he will now wager in the next hand. If he wins that he's up to $200. etc

To me this is -EV for Player A and +EV for Player B.

Player A slowly risking more and more, but the key point is he will eventually lose a flip, and because he's doubling his wager every time then once he's lost a flip he's lost all of his money, netting Player B another $50.


If however, Player B is only going to risk $10,000 on any one streak then it becomes neutral EV for both players.

50 -> 100 -> 200 -> 400 -> 800 -> 1600 -> 3200 -> 6400 (we'll assume the streak stops here cos the next win is more than $10000)

Player A has a 2^7 = 128 chance of doing this streak. If he wins then he's won $6400. However, he's going to have to risk 128 x $50 which = $6400.
Logged

Blue text
Graham C
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20663


Moo


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: December 18, 2008, 07:12:38 PM »

Didn't Mike Caro write something about this recently?  Sounds familiar but I dunno.
Logged

MANTIS01
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6734


What kind of fuckery is this?


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: December 18, 2008, 07:18:49 PM »

I reckon if the guy with the $50 successfully flips his way to $10k he will close the table quick. No way will he want to risk losing all that cash to someone loser with $50. So it's impossible for the game to be infinite. Even if the guy swears he would stay at the table don't trust him.
Logged

Tikay - "He has a proven track record in business, he is articulate, intelligent, & presents his cases well"

Claw75 - "Mantis is not only a blonde legend he's also very easy on the eye"

Outragous76 - "a really nice certainly intelligent guy"

taximan007 & Girgy85 & Celtic & Laxie - <3 Mantis
bolt pp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10906



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: December 18, 2008, 07:20:00 PM »

I got up to $10k on a nl50 table once, you dont hear me going on about it though.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2008, 07:27:27 PM by bolt pp » Logged
thetank
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 19278



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: December 18, 2008, 07:26:54 PM »

I think there was something like this in Greenstein's book.



He was in the hole with the bookies for a cool mill.

They extended him an infinite line of credit on the condition that he paid them $20k a week towards clearing the debt.

He proceeded to make a series of "-EV" crazy sports bets to try to get even. He went in the hole for about $40 mill before eventually getting even.

At this point 3 weeks had past, and so essentially, he settled a $1,000,000 account for $60,000

Try explaining that to your mum though Roll Eyes
Logged

For super fun to exist, well defined parameters must exist for the super fun to exist within.
AlexMartin
spewtards r us
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8039


rat+rabbiting society of herts- future champ


View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 18, 2008, 08:36:57 PM »

I think there was something like this in Greenstein's book.



He was in the hole with the bookies for a cool mill.

They extended him an infinite line of credit on the condition that he paid them $20k a week towards clearing the debt.

He proceeded to make a series of "-EV" crazy sports bets to try to get even. He went in the hole for about $40 mill before eventually getting even.

At this point 3 weeks had past, and so essentially, he settled a $1,000,000 account for $60,000

Try explaining that to your mum though Roll Eyes

iv now got a reason to buy greensteins book.
Logged
doubleup
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7123


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: December 19, 2008, 11:25:00 AM »

There is a distinction between the likelyhood of ruin (busto) and the +/- ev of the game being played.  Ignoring rake there is no edge for either player and as both players have infinite bankrolls they can't go broke.

Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.099 seconds with 19 queries.