|
IowaSkinsFan
|
04-22-2006, 12:07 AM
Post subject: Home Game rule, is there a flaw in it?
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 7,148
|
|
In my home game, it's $10 buy in and 5/10 cent blinds. we usually have 5-9 players.
The host has a interesting rule that the max buy in is as much as the biggest stack. Thus, hypothetically, if someone busts out on the first hand, everyone on the table can now buy in for up to $20.
For some reason, it seems like the players who are more willing to use a lot of money and also players who tend to be more aggressive win a lot more often. Does this have to do with the buy-in system or is it just that the aggressive players are probably better than the non?
Here's my theory: if someone buys in for $10, goes all in in a 40/60 (not in his favor) situation and loses. He can now buy in for $20. He later gets into another situation like this, going all in for $20 in a 40/60 situation. This time he loses again. Now he buys in for $40, doies the same thing, and wins. After all this he now has gained $10, although he lost 2 all ins.
So i'm wondering if in the long run, he'd then win money, although he is always putting himself in a bad situation?
|
|
|
Play for FREE and practice your game at...
Join the FTR Poker Forum to disable these banners and start posting!
|
|
Pelion
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,206
|
|
thats similar to the win roulette by the
triple your bet every time you lose method.
It only really works if you have an inifinite bankroll.
Otherwise he is going to lose more often than not and the guy who wins more is going to leave the table with his money before he has the chance to win it back.
|
|
gabe: Ive dropped almost 100k in the past 35 days.
bigspenda73: But how much did you win?
|
|
finky
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London
Posts: 270
|
|
Each hand should be taken in isolation, if they are making -EV decisions they will lose in the long run. Its the same false logic that makes people double their money on the (almost) even money in roulette, risking a lot to win a little and the 0's always get them in the end.
|
|
|
|
dev
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: swonging and swonging
Posts: 1,550
|
|
The math is a bit more complex than that, but there is a serious stack advantage in NL games.
In some of the $1/$2 bar side games I play there's no max buy in. I buy in $100 or whatever the max stack is. If someone takes a big pot off of me I buy in over their stack. These games don't have a lot of people with actual bankrolls, so when they lose their $60 or whatever, they're gone. By the end of the night it's me, a couple other good players, and a lucky drunk guy or two cashing out 10-15 people's money.
Buy in heavy, whenever you can. Only do it when you lose a pot or something, because if you do it constantly, everyone else will do it and have the same advantage. Or worse, people will stop showing up because they can't win with just $10.
|
|
|
|
IowaSkinsFan
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 7,148
|
|
K, lets say you have an infinite bankroll (all hypothetical). Also everyone who knows they are up 60/40 in their favor will go all in everytime. If this is the case, will the person win in the long run?
|
|
|
|
dev
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: swonging and swonging
Posts: 1,550
|
|
If I have a finite bankroll, and you have an infinite bankroll, it can be 99% to 1% AI, and eventually I lose.
|
Check out my self-deprecation here!
|
|
Pelion
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,206
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dev
If I have a finite bankroll, and you have an infinite bankroll, it can be 99% to 1% AI, and eventually I lose.
|
yup. All you need to to is win it once and hes out and you win all of your money back in one go.
|
|
gabe: Ive dropped almost 100k in the past 35 days.
bigspenda73: But how much did you win?
|
|
finky
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London
Posts: 270
|
|
Just remember that they could be risking huge amounts to win their money back, but you are only risking your original $10.
Quit when your ahead or buy in over them again.
|
|
|
|
Pelion
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,206
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by finky
Just remember that they could be risking huge amounts to win their money back, but you are only risking your original $10.
Quit when your ahead or buy in over them again.
|
once you get up to $50 or so claim you have to go to the bathroom and you dont trust them to leave your money there. Cash out and buy back in for $10 when you come back downstairs. Problem solved 
|
|
gabe: Ive dropped almost 100k in the past 35 days.
bigspenda73: But how much did you win?
|
|
samsonite2100
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Your loosing, lolololololololololol
Posts: 858
|
|
The "if I lose this bet, I'll double my next bet method" is known as the Martingale system. If anyone's interested there's a ton written about it out there. It does take an infinite BR for it to really work, although I believe over a normal sample size what it does is break up the bell curve found in most -EV games. That is, using the "bet $1 every time method" at a Roulette table, you expect the bell curve to peak at maybe minus ten bucks a session. Using the Martingale, you find two bell curves--one where, say, you break even, and one where way further down the scale, where you lose your ass. In aggregate, you lose more per session with the Martingale than flat betting.
|
|
|
|
dev
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: swonging and swonging
Posts: 1,550
|
|
cashing out then back in for less is VERY bad etiquette. Do that in any of the games and we'll see you out back. This game probably isn't like that, but still, watch yourself.
|
Check out my self-deprecation here!
|
|
bigslikk
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 445
|
|
There is kind of a flaw the house games we play we max off the buy-in at about average chip stack b/c guys who have more money could buy-in large stack and dominate (really, unfair advantage).
I mean- the restrict the original buy-in to 10 dollars, in fairness. If you can buy back big stack, then the agressive players (who either win big or lose big early) will get a large stack one way or the other- and the advantage of having one.
|
|
|
|
dannyd267
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 64
|
|
We have home game on Fridays that is a 50 dollar buy-in 1/2 NL. For the guys that come in late, they can only buy-in for HALF the big stack. I think this is more fair than letting them buy in the same amount as the big stack. On a side note, the guys that have been playing since the game started can also reload for 1/2 the big stack. So if the big stack is $150 and I'm sitting there with 40 bucks. I can buy in for $35 more chips.
|
|
|
|
Lukie
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: back with a vengeance
Posts: 3,307
|
|
Quote:
|
Home Game rule, is there a flaw in it?
|
yes, the max buyin should be predetermined (ie 50bb, 100bb, 200bb, uncapped, etc.). The biggest stack at the table should have exactly zero influence on what the max buyin of a game should be.
|
|
|
|
xX zorrito Xx
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Wellington, FL
Posts: 300
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dev
cashing out then back in for less is VERY bad etiquette. Do that in any of the games and we'll see you out back. This game probably isn't like that, but still, watch yourself.
|
last time at one of our home games someone tried to do that and he was suspended from attending for a couple weeks
|
|
|
|
gabe
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: trying to live
Posts: 7,964
|
|
i did something like this at a $25 omaha table the other night.
through some debauchery i got my stack up to $200, then i just kept getting allin against people. since i was never that much of a dog, i would eventually bust people after getting allin 2 or 3 times, and eventually my stack peaked at $450
|
|
|
|
Laeelin
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,137
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pelion
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dev
If I have a finite bankroll, and you have an infinite bankroll, it can be 99% to 1% AI, and eventually I lose.
|
yup. All you need to to is win it once and hes out and you win all of your money back in one go. |
Thats not true...
If you and I have infinite bankrolls, and instead of a "99% to 1%" situation it's a "100% to 0% "situation (i'm betting the sky is pink or that water isnt wet or whatever) ... after a million years, we still both have the exact same amount of money we started with...
Infinite Money.
|
|
|
|
joshuadzl
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 287
|
|
That was deep like the ocean Laeelin.
|
|
|
|
Laeelin
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,137
|
|
BTW: What i think he was trying to say with " If I have a finite bankroll, and you have an infinite bankroll, it can be 99% to 1% AI, and eventually I lose." is that if I have an infinite bankroll, and you DONT, then even if it's 99% to 1% ... unless you stop playing, I will end up with all your money (though it's a shame that I will not gain anything by taking your money.)
|
|
|
|
BankItDrew
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Losing Prop Bets
Posts: 2,789
|
|
sounds like roulette
|
Girlfriend: Why are the werewolves more important than living life?!
Girlfriend: Are you on the forums doing the werewolves again?
Girlfriend: Soo... you forgot to run that errand, but you had time to werewolf? Wtf?
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Pусский
Svenska
05-26-2012, 03:08 PM Australia Legalized Online Poker coming up in next 6 to 12 Months
Linear Mode
