Say you have $10k on a nl50 table......

[UpTheMariners]

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.

[kinboshi]

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.

[ScottMGee]

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.

[GreekStein]

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

[AlexMartin]

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

[StuartHopkin]

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?

[GrafhamGrinder]

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.

[pokerfan]

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

[Cf]

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.

[Graham C]

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

[MANTIS01]

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.

[bolt pp]

I got up to $10k on a nl50 table once, you dont hear me going on about it though.

[thetank]

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

[AlexMartin]

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

iv now got a reason to buy greensteins book.

[doubleup]

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.