Comparison of luck factor in Cash and Tourney Games.

Discuss ring game approaches and strategies here

Re: Comparison of luck factor in Cash and Tourney Games.

Postby ohboy » Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:08 pm

vaevictis wrote:
statix wrote:
vaevictis wrote:Yes, based on Gamblers ruin, some gamblers may bust despite having a 1% edge. However for the casino to place its infinite bankroll aganist the constant stream of incoming gamblers 'X' bankroll, by the law of large numbers, the operation of the casino will show a net loss.


I think you're using the "law of large numbers" incorrectly here by summing up all the bankrolls of the gamblers.

Each gamblers have a limited amount of bankrolls and I'm willing to bet that by having a casino of equal odds (no rake), the casino will still be making money in the long run. Law of large numbers, or simply, probability would say that the casino would break even, but the "gambler's ruin", or simply - the inability for players (due to bankroll size) to cope with variance, would result in the win in the long run to the casino.

"Law of large numbers" and "Gambler's Ruin" are talking about 2 diff things. 1's strictly about probability, the other's about the ability of cope with variance.



In all essence, one has to consider the long term operation of the casino, not the short term gamblers ruin of individual gamblers. You are talking about the long run, which is all about probablity and law of large numbers, but claiming gamblers ruin due to poor BR management, a short term variance process, will help casino to win despite giving equal odds. It appears your claim has logical fallacies issues.

Assume equal edge, casino with infinite bankroll vs a stream of constant gamblers with a much smaller, but summative bankroll, is an independant probability process. Every bet is independant of previous bets, as well as individual persons. It doesnt matter if a gambler blew his roll due to gamblers ruin, someone else out there will be showing positive variance on the other side. Over the course of large numbers, the casino operation will net 0 profit and loss. It has to be understood that the law of large numbers over its course, overrides short term gamblers ruin. I guess a mathematician should be able to prove this with proper statistical analysis.

If based on your argument, if its true, I would simply operate a casino which gives equal edge to the players, just to entice them into knowing they have a better edge in playing in my casino compared to other casinos. This would prove disastrous in all its entirety. My concern is not on the individual players or gamblers ruin of small time players, my concern is getting my casino to operate at full steam, logging the hours, and letting the odds take care of themselves.



Like I said before, the odds are simply a sweetener. I'd liken the favorable odds as a linear advantage and the concept of gambler's ruin as an accelerator. And you are right by the way. Casinos would INDEED still make money on even odds. You're also a little too close minded. Even with odds slightly stacked against them, the casino is still going to win in the long run. One need only write a small program to do random walks to see why. Gambler's ruin is the reason why EV is not the only consideration when gambling.

This is also the reason why big players have a real shot at breaking the casino. When your bankroll is comparable to the casino's gambler's ruin becomes just as real for the casino as the big player.

You seem a big fan of the law of very large numbers, yet are unable to see it's limitations. The law of very large numbers , i repeat, only applies in a long run. The long run is defined as an infinite time. Your lifetime is not even close to being infinite. The law of very large numbers is NEVER used to prove that statistics are accurate for X amount of time. It is in fact used as a tool to remind statisticians that all statistics are merely approximations, because no amount of statistics can reflect the true long run.

Sure the casino cares about the odds. They bring in money. But the real money maker here is gambler's ruin. It's much like the way cinemas operate in US. Sure they care about the ticket sales. They care if you sneak in. But the real money maker is really the snacks they sell. Ticket sales simply add to the bottom line. But they are not the vital component. The casino will not make enough to cover it's costs via pure odds themselves. Just take a pen and do some calculations.

On a lighter note, the law of very large numbers actually say the casino has little chance of breaking even with even odds. Do you see why?

I understand the mental roadblock in accepting this concept. I really do. I've given up trying to explain this to my parents years ago. But let's try a simple experiment. I'll play this game with you. We flip coins for $1 a flip. I start with a bankroll of 2000. You start with a bankroll of 2. We stop when someone busts. We play this only once. You can easily see why I will win this game most of the time. But how about we throw dice, and I give you 1,2,3,4? I'll only win if 5 and 6 comes out. Odds are against me. But who has a higher probability of winning this game?

As you can see, gambler's ruin is kind of a second derivative probability thing. We're not playing throwing dice anymore. We're playing a game of survivability. Individual wins don't matter. The collective ones do.
ohboy
Shark
 
Posts: 465
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:48 pm

Re: Comparison of luck factor in Cash and Tourney Games.

Postby ohboy » Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:11 pm

gooddoggg8 wrote:
Is this purely due to luck then his AK always hit vs QQ?

I beg to differ


If your AK always hit against a smaller pair, it's pure luck(variance). BUT, contrary to popular belief, your downswing doesn't have to come immediately, so relax=)
ohboy
Shark
 
Posts: 465
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:48 pm

Re: Comparison of luck factor in Cash and Tourney Games.

Postby ohboy » Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:15 pm

vaevictis wrote:
ohboy wrote:
vaevictis wrote:

The odds are definitely the central working premise for any casinos. What follows next are the more subtle and unseen theories and such. If I know of a casino who would offer me a player's edge just to encourage me playing, I'd probably be very rich, and it wouldn't take long for the world of literate people to realise how to exploit it.



By the way, giving you the edge is one thing, letting you know you have one is quite another. If you play with a proper bankroll, you would make constant money, yes...because gambler's ruin has little chance of setting in. But unless you have a huge bankroll, you would not really get very rich.

People have exploited blackjack's 1% advantage for years. Few of them are millionaires. In fact, most of them live really terrible lives, drifting from motels to casinos and back day after day.
ohboy
Shark
 
Posts: 465
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:48 pm

Re: Comparison of luck factor in Cash and Tourney Games.

Postby vaevictis » Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:54 pm

I guess we are both defending our arguments in different perspective and thinking about it, lets see if I can clarify both our arguments. I guess I managed to spot a mistake in my train of argument, thanks for the clarification Ohboy.

Ohboy's argument centers on an individual person trying to beat the casino, but do to gambler's ruin and his limited bankroll, the casino will eventually win his money. This is true, no doubt about it. This case occurs when the game ends, in which there is no more money to be won or lost by the individual.

I saw the law of large numbers being applied in the casino's view vs a mass of gamblers. Taking each bet as an independent entity as itself. With this premise, it doesn't have to consider indivdual A with bankroll of X or individual B with bankroll of Y. In an even EV game, even when this is being ran on a finite or infinite course, the EV of casino is still 0. The reason why it is so, is because, there is a constant stream of gamblers with increasing addition of bankroll, appearing to be infinite. In strict independent betting sense, yes it is 0 EV in the long run, but i realise the mistake of not considering the effect of bankroll removal from the masses.

A clearer way to explain Ohboy's reason of why Casinos will still win due to gamblers ruin is that, the bankroll of the masses of gamblers is not static-infinite. When a player busts out his bankroll, a small portion of the masses total bankroll gets channeled into the casino coffers. This portion will be considered locked up EV in the casino. As the constant stream of gamblers come in, the masses bankroll is dynamically increased, and in the process of short term gamblers ruin, some of them continues to get locked up in the casino coffers. This explains why casinos will still win, more appropriately even in the long run.

Likewise the concept of gamblers ruin is based on statistical studies. What it says is that in the long run, the player with the smaller bankroll will lose. Ultimately its all about the long run that casinos make money, via the odds, making use of gambler's ruin, and other methods. However on whether which concept is more pertinent in sustaining a casino operation, I do not think I have the authority to assert them as I'm no expert in these matters. Would be nice if we have much more credible sources of information.


And to gooddoggs posts, yes there a few minority who are crushing the top cash/games/sngs games and these are the very few who are the top of the games. E.g. Phil Hellmuth, as dislikeable as he can be, is actually a very good tourney player. Players like Dario Mineri as well and a bunch of top few circuit players.
vaevictis
Challenge Poker Player
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 4:46 pm

Pokerkaki Ads

Postby Pokerkaki Ads

Pokerkaki Ads
Shameless Advertising to keep this site alive

Re: Comparison of luck factor in Cash and Tourney Games.

Postby vaevictis » Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:56 pm

And if anyone can discuss the implications of gambler's ruin as well as law of large numbers into our poker games, it would be very nice indeed.

One possible direction is definitely in terms of Bankroll management to start things off.
vaevictis
Challenge Poker Player
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 4:46 pm

Re: Comparison of luck factor in Cash and Tourney Games.

Postby felixleong » Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:41 pm

ohboy wrote:
felixleong wrote:Tournament Luck Factor can be very extreme, consider this event.
1000 entry freeroll, 1st place wins a 12.5k WSOP main event package

you got lucky most of the way and end up heads up with a 10 to 1 chip lead, but somehow you suffer a row of bad beats and end up 2nd place with nothing at all !!!!!!!
Imagine this scenario deep down inside your mind, how do you feel? Sad? Frustrated? Tilt? Mad?

But wait... its a freeroll and you didn't even spend a cent, but yet you feel like you lost so much!!!!
While this is an extreme example but it goes to show how sickening tournament swings can be, and how big of a "heart" you'll need to take the unfortunate moments.

Another example
Busting 10th place when your AK flips and loses to JJ, 1 off the WSOP main event final table is probably like 500k payout, but just a few steps ahead is the 1st place live changing 8.5 million~
You whole life might had changed on that single AK vs JJ flip, you might had won the main event instead !!!

Tournaments = very high risk but potential super reward

Cash = Slow and Steady( but still a significant amount of risk of ruin)

But in reality cash games are much much much more profitable then tournaments due to the deeper stacks, the edge between the good player and the fish amplifes greatly with each addition decision points ( more streets more complexity gives the fishes more chance to make major mistakes which we can gain )

Hope this gives you guys a even better view

Cheers to Cash Games ^_^


I hate being the one always correcting you guys, but here goes...

1) just because it's a freeroll does not mean you lose nothing. From the moment the freeroll starts, the game has value to you. at 12.5k prize with 1000 entrants, the value of playing in the tourny for you is $12.5. When you're heads up with a 10 to 1 chiplead, the value of your seat rises to $11.3k. The reason why you feel frustrated and angry is because your conscious has not caught up with your instincts. Your mind already knows you donked off $11.3k, but you are able to rationalise it away by saying the seat was free. I think just about everyone here would require a big heart to lose 11.3k over an hour or two. It's not just the tournies.

2) That is one sick swing to drop 10 to 1 chiplead. As mentioned in an earlier post, simply utilising gambler's ruin would give you a great advantage even if you shoved with every hand.

3) nassim taleb had a great example about winning coinflips. I'm at a restaurant having dinner with you. The bill comes, and we decide to flip for it. You end up winning the flip and I pay the bill. The question here is : did you contribute to the bill? The answer is yes. You paid for half of it, because the value of agreeing to the flip was half the bill. Same thing can be said of your example. Let's really stretch it here and assume that whoever wins the coinflip would win the tourny, a difference between 500k and 8.5 million. You didn't have to play the coinflip, but by choosing to play it, you're really saying you're willing to flip the guy for 4 million. Having made that choice, you can hardly feel frustrated about losing. Too few ppl understand this concept, which is why I see ppl moaning about losing coinflips every single game I attend. You should never feel frustrated or dissappointed about losing coinflips. Remember, your opponent paid the same price to flip it. He's paying for the dinner too.


Totally agreed about more streets = greater potential for skill disparity to manifest.


Thanks for your insights, actually my example was just trying to highlight emotional part of the game when playing tournament and how people feel when they bust out of a tournament. hehehe

Anyway guys, just stick to cash games and slay those fishes ^_^

Once in a while when you are feeling great and lucky, maybe can give the WSOP main event a shot with your extra time or money ba ~
User avatar
felixleong
Great White Shark
 
Posts: 1386
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:02 pm
Medals: 4
Long Jie Participant (1) 1000 posts (1) Article Contributor (1) Helpful Kaki (1)

Re: Comparison of luck factor in Cash and Tourney Games.

Postby ohboy » Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:09 pm

vaevictis wrote:I guess we are both defending our arguments in different perspective and thinking about it, lets see if I can clarify both our arguments. I guess I managed to spot a mistake in my train of argument, thanks for the clarification Ohboy.

Ohboy's argument centers on an individual person trying to beat the casino, but do to gambler's ruin and his limited bankroll, the casino will eventually win his money. This is true, no doubt about it. This case occurs when the game ends, in which there is no more money to be won or lost by the individual.

I saw the law of large numbers being applied in the casino's view vs a mass of gamblers. Taking each bet as an independent entity as itself. With this premise, it doesn't have to consider indivdual A with bankroll of X or individual B with bankroll of Y. In an even EV game, even when this is being ran on a finite or infinite course, the EV of casino is still 0. The reason why it is so, is because, there is a constant stream of gamblers with increasing addition of bankroll, appearing to be infinite. In strict independent betting sense, yes it is 0 EV in the long run, but i realise the mistake of not considering the effect of bankroll removal from the masses.

A clearer way to explain Ohboy's reason of why Casinos will still win due to gamblers ruin is that, the bankroll of the masses of gamblers is not static-infinite. When a player busts out his bankroll, a small portion of the masses total bankroll gets channeled into the casino coffers. This portion will be considered locked up EV in the casino. As the constant stream of gamblers come in, the masses bankroll is dynamically increased, and in the process of short term gamblers ruin, some of them continues to get locked up in the casino coffers. This explains why casinos will still win, more appropriately even in the long run.

Likewise the concept of gamblers ruin is based on statistical studies. What it says is that in the long run, the player with the smaller bankroll will lose. Ultimately its all about the long run that casinos make money, via the odds, making use of gambler's ruin, and other methods. However on whether which concept is more pertinent in sustaining a casino operation, I do not think I have the authority to assert them as I'm no expert in these matters. Would be nice if we have much more credible sources of information.




Not trying to weasel out of this, but writing a program to do random walks to prove this is going to take me some time. But yes, I have written such programs years ago(in lotus 1-2-3 no less) that prove conclusively that gambler's ruin will swing the game in the favor of the player with a significantly larger bankroll, even if the odds were against him. I think if you saw these results as I have, you would be able to get around the idea that favorable odds are simply icing on the cake for the casinos. I personally have a darker theory though. I suspect sometimes that the favorable odds are there for another reason....simply to fool the average player. Everyone knows you lose about 3 cents per bet on roulette. Because you "think" you know what the rake is, you're more willing to play the game if the utility of fun from playing>utility of 3 cents per bet. Am I just sounding crazy now?

perhaps drifting a little off course. I remember about 3 years ago, i was playing alone at a blackjack table on 4 boxes. I was pretty much break-even about halfway through the shoe, and the dealer looked at me and asked why I was playing so many boxes. It seemed obvious to him that my winners pretty much cancelled out my losers, which he attributed to the main reason i wasn't making or losing money. Now let's assume I'm the average, yet savvy blackjack player. I don't count cards because i'm out for a night of fun, but I'm not stupid...I know basic strategy. This basically means my EV of playing every hand is about -1 cent per dollar bet. This may sound as wierd to you guys as it sounded to him, but my optimal play was to be about break even. That would mean I lost only 1 cent for every dollar i bet....so insignificant it seems breakeven.

I could of course play just one box, in which case i'm inviting myself to higher variance, and hence a greater chance of gambler's ruin. This is my attempt at a layman's proof for why the favorable odds are less important than the fact that you have a smaller bankroll.
ohboy
Shark
 
Posts: 465
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:48 pm

Re: Comparison of luck factor in Cash and Tourney Games.

Postby ohboy » Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:43 pm

vaevictis wrote:And if anyone can discuss the implications of gambler's ruin as well as law of large numbers into our poker games, it would be very nice indeed.

One possible direction is definitely in terms of Bankroll management to start things off.


I just wanted to add one thing, and I'm sure we can both agree on this one. You don't play many live cash games, I think, so this is just for the guys who do.

The situation I wanna talk about is something that has irked me everytime I've seen it. You know how it is. Player one shoves and player two calls. The cards are flipped over and against all belief, it takes 5 minutes for the two players to decide the "optimum" number of times to run the deck so that it is advantageous to him. Turns out, it is the guy who is ahead who should be generous in "giving" the guy behind 2 or 3 runs. He's doing the poor guy a favor, giving him a chance to win some of his money back.

I can but look on in disbelief. I shout out "run the deck you morons" and i get shushed. That's why I'm usually sulking in the corner=)

The more astute of you will have figured this is going to involve the law of very large numbers. Ok, what does the law of very large numbers say? For an infinite set of runs, the summation of it will be equal to the true probability of the game played. Any number of runs less than infinity reduces this approximation. By induction, running it once would give the LEAST accurate result in relation to the true probability, which is directly proportional to your EV. Remember EV is probability*returns.

But don't worry, whether you run it once, or run it 20 times, your EV remains the same. Your variance just increases, that's all. The guy who is ahead is doing the loser no favor, really. His EV is not compromised by the fact that the guy with the losing hand may win a part of the pot. As mentioned in a previous post of mine, the smart player will run the deck. He would request more decks to be brought in so he could run it more times, if possible. The smart player wants to avoid gambler's ruin. Remember risk of ruin is related to how much you bet in relation to your bankroll(in this case, your chipstack)?

If you understand what I've just said, then you'll love what I'm about to say next. There is one game where I have encountered players who actually BUY the right to run it more times. That's right. He BUYS the option to run it multiple times. And this happens every all in. The players actually think the guy who is behind is right to BUY the chance to run it more times. Maybe the pot is 800. The guy with the winning hand wants it run only once. The losing hand counter offers the winning hand by saying. "why don't you just take 50 dollars from the pot now, and we run it three times?"

A quiz...
1)who thinks the winning hand should take the $50 and run it 3 times?
2)what if the offer was only 50 cents? Should the winning player take the offer?

If you answered either no to (1) or (2), it's time to re-read this post from the top.

So next time you're all in, don't kill your little grey cells trying to calculate the "optimum" number of times to run it. The answer is "the deck". You don't lose out if you run it 3 times instead of 2, 4 times instead of 1. Your EV is the same. Everytime you choose to run it once, or even twice, and the guy sucks out on you...don't be pissed at him. YOU let it happen. Risk of ruin my friend. You asked for it, and you paid the piper.

on a side note, I'll always say "run the deck" if you tell me "how many times you want? it's up to you". So be prepared to run the deck if you leave it to me. Also, please don't ever back out of an agreement. It's bad karma. Your word is your bond at the poker table. I've had people tell me to decide, and later refuse to run the deck when i request it. I'm looking at you, tim. That was in extreme bad taste. I've never looked at you the same way since. As with the SMU tourny situation, I hate ppl who delibrately try to appear generous when they really aren't up to it.
ohboy
Shark
 
Posts: 465
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:48 pm

Re: Comparison of luck factor in Cash and Tourney Games.

Postby ohboy » Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:52 pm

vaevictis wrote:And if anyone can discuss the implications of gambler's ruin as well as law of large numbers into our poker games, it would be very nice indeed.

One possible direction is definitely in terms of Bankroll management to start things off.


yeah, too many posts...i know. This will be a short one. Just trying to write these thoughts down before I forget. Blame leslie for the inspiration, pls.

Going south. We know it's bad...and a few of us have tried to explain why it's bad

This has to do with risk of ruin. On a poker table, everyone has his own risk of ruin, where ruin refers to being felted. There is ONE case in the calculation of risk of ruin where you can gamble and never fear risk of ruin. It's an easy method, and gambling pros have recommended it for years.

That's right, it's going south. When you pocket your winnings and keep it seperate from the money you risk, you totally thwart the risk of ruin.


yeah on second thought "not allowing the table to win back his chips" sounds pretty good too=)


So next time you decide to play games of chance for money(hopefully not poker when I'm also playing), try this strategy. You'll be pleasantly surprised to find you'll almost never go bust on a single session.
ohboy
Shark
 
Posts: 465
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:48 pm

Re: Comparison of luck factor in Cash and Tourney Games.

Postby vaevictis » Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:26 am

Oh yes, if someone is in a 30/70 situation and wants to pay me to run more cards, I guess its a no brainer decision.


Other considerations not to fall into gamblers ruin and become a statistics are:
1) having proper BR management - proper enough to allow you to reach your long run (some ppl long run may be longer than others, a function of their winrates and skill level)
2) not moving up to chase losses - equates to increasing your ruin's risk.
3) your skill level - winrate/loserate. Yes even if you are a marginal 1PTbb/100 winner in the long term, you can suffer a sick swing enough to stop you from playing.
4) ratholing as ohboy has mentioned - bad form of poker
5) taking better edges. Instead of taking 50/50 flips at common poker situations, think of a way to play them such that you get more folding equity or be in more common situations like 70/30 etc etc. This is basically what cash is all about.


Will be good to expand in these topics if anyone is interested, nice to see all interesting and pertinent posts.
vaevictis
Challenge Poker Player
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 4:46 pm

Re: Comparison of luck factor in Cash and Tourney Games.

Postby newbie » Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:43 am

if people ever go south in our live games, i'm gonna bust their arse man..
newbie
Challenge Poker Player
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 4:37 pm
Medals: 1
Chatterbox - Bigga Mouth~ (1)

Re: Comparison of luck factor in Cash and Tourney Games.

Postby DM101 » Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:30 am

I am very impressed by all these posts.

I am sure that kakis learned and gained alot from this discussion.
User avatar
DM101
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2307
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 11:52 am
Medals: 16
Long Jie Participant (1) Genting Poker Tournament (5) Macau Cup Participant (1) APPT Participant (1) EPT Participant (1) 2nd Place in a poker tourny (1) 1000 posts (1) Article Contributor (1) Reporter - Bringer of news (1)
Chatterbox - Bigga Mouth~ (1) Helpful Kaki (1) Good Seller (1)

Re: Comparison of luck factor in Cash and Tourney Games.

Postby ohboy » Fri Jun 27, 2008 12:41 pm

vaevictis wrote:Oh yes, if someone is in a 30/70 situation and wants to pay me to run more cards, I guess its a no brainer decision.


Other considerations not to fall into gamblers ruin and become a statistics are:
1) having proper BR management - proper enough to allow you to reach your long run (some ppl long run may be longer than others, a function of their winrates and skill level)
2) not moving up to chase losses - equates to increasing your ruin's risk.
3) your skill level - winrate/loserate. Yes even if you are a marginal 1PTbb/100 winner in the long term, you can suffer a sick swing enough to stop you from playing.
4) ratholing as ohboy has mentioned - bad form of poker
5) taking better edges. Instead of taking 50/50 flips at common poker situations, think of a way to play them such that you get more folding equity or be in more common situations like 70/30 etc etc. This is basically what cash is all about.


Will be good to expand in these topics if anyone is interested, nice to see all interesting and pertinent posts.


1) this is exactly the misconception i've been trying to debunk. The truth is, you will never reach your "long run". Proper BR management is important, but that's not it's real purpose. Proper BR management forces you to bet a small enough portion of your entire bankroll that your risk of ruin is small. If you are a profitable player, this allows you to take the swings more readily(but never removes the risk of going bust).

2) risk of ruin is a function of size of bet and size of bankroll. I guess everyone understands this intuitively, so yeah, moving up to chase losses is bad.

5) Actually one thing I like about life cash game poker is the ability to take 50/50 flips. Ironically, the popular wisdom appears to be that 50/50 shoves are good in tournies and not in cash. That's simply not true. In tournies you are FORCED to shove 50/50 hands, but if give a choice, it's always this worst thing to do. Because you are ruined(busted) if you lose the coinflip. In cash, it's different. You are not risking your entire roll on a single shove. You can afford to shove for the 50/50. That's because you gain the extra value of fold equity +money already in the pot(blinds). Remember I mentioned live cash and not online? Live cash has the extra safeguard of running multiple times, reducing your variance even less if you should be called.(If you're not called, you win the pot. If you are, running it multiple times gives you a great chance of a split pot. (It's win-breakeven. Why not?) Perhaps it's easier to understand if I simplify it to a coin flip game analogy. If you had 100 dollars, and I'm asking you to gamble 1 dollar on a coinflip to win $1.2, I think most of you would snap call. Yet, ppl constantly tell me coin flip shoves are useless in cash games. Mathematically, they are perhaps the most profitable, because you get to do them often enough to make a difference.
ohboy
Shark
 
Posts: 465
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:48 pm

Pokerkaki Ads

Postby Pokerkaki Ads

Pokerkaki Ads
Shameless Advertising to keep this site alive

Re: Comparison of luck factor in Cash and Tourney Games.

Postby Lo0o0o0n » Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:10 pm

ohboy wrote:
But don't worry, whether you run it once, or run it 20 times, your EV remains the same. Your variance just increases, that's all. The guy who is ahead is doing the loser no favor, really. His EV is not compromised by the fact that the guy with the losing hand may win a part of the pot. As mentioned in a previous post of mine, the smart player will run the deck. He would request more decks to be brought in so he could run it more times, if possible. The smart player wants to avoid gambler's ruin. Remember risk of ruin is related to how much you bet in relation to your bankroll(in this case, your chipstack)?

......

So next time you're all in, don't kill your little grey cells trying to calculate the "optimum" number of times to run it. The answer is "the deck". You don't lose out if you run it 3 times instead of 2, 4 times instead of 1. Your EV is the same. Everytime you choose to run it once, or even twice, and the guy sucks out on you...don't be pissed at him. YOU let it happen. Risk of ruin my friend. You asked for it, and you paid the piper.


First of all, I thank all that has posted on this very interesting thread. It has kept me very much entertained at work. However there is some stuff that I dont understand and would very much appreciate Ohboy explaining...

With reference to running in a number of times...I dont see how that has anything got to do with risk of ruin. Risk of ruin is about difference in stack sizes/bankrolls and how it affects one's probability of busting out broke. In the case of running it a number of times, both players are all-in and thus their "stack sizes" for that one hand are essentially the same. Therefore, in that light, I do not see how the risk of ruin plays a part in this.

The only way I see gamblers ruin playing a part in this is when they run in a few times and after each run they take back their stack and go all-in again automatically but of course this nv happens, im juz saying only this kinda situation would probably take gambler's ruin into account as now there are difference of stack sizes considered in the equation. I totally agree on the EV part of your argument and how it stays the same no matter how many times u run in...its juz the parts when u start to mention the risk of ruins that has got me confused. Enlighten pls...Thanks in advance


Now for what my little brain has thought of while reading the posts. I feel that gambler's ruin would only be taken into account in Poker when there are super huge differences in stack size. In the case of tourneys, this is more prominent where u can find stack sizes 10 times that of another's players stack. However in cash games, where u normally find the big stack just 3 or 4 times the buy-in, Gambler's ruin is alot less prominent. This is because the probability of a small stack losing everything increases as the gap between he and the big stack increases as well (according to the gambler's ruin formula)

well tts it for me on this for now...

=)

-Alex Loon-
User avatar
Lo0o0o0n
Challenge Poker Player
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:11 am
Medals: 7
Long Jie Participant (1) Genting Poker Tournament (2) Macau Cup Participant (2) APPT Participant (1) Helpful Kaki (1)

PreviousNext

Return to Cash Games

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

 

Recent Posts

Subscribe to RSS headline updates from:
Powered by FeedBurner

Site

Subscribe to RSS headline updates from:
Powered by FeedBurner