347 reputation
110
bio website
location
age
visits member for 1 year, 4 months
seen Apr 27 '13 at 21:43

Apr
13
comment Systematic all-in
I think we have to assume that. Otherwise as soon as villain wins a hand, he would have to get up and leave the table, because the only way he can ever play another hand is if he calls all in with his now 10x buy in. (Since hero with more chips is all in every hand.)
Apr
13
comment Systematic all-in
cont... if they lose some hands to a 100bbs player they only lose 100bbs. The chances of any one player winning 3 in a row is just 1/100 (since anyone can win the first one to reset the count). Of course, hero's stack can grow well beyond 10000bbs every time he clears the table, and every else is reset, so the stars may need to align a bit in the beginning for hero to start worrying.
Apr
13
comment Systematic all-in
Here's what I'm thinking: suppose a 10 person table and everyone goes all in every hand, and a villian wins 3 in a row. After the first hand they have 1000bbs, hero has 9900, and everyone else rebuys for 100. After hand 2, villian has 2800, here has 8900, and everyone else rebuys for 100. After hand 3, villian has 6400, hero has 6100, and everyone else buys in for another 100. So someone has to win 3 hands in a row to but hero into second place. The chances of the villain winning 3 in a row are 1/1000, but, the reality is that it doesn't have to be in a row,
Apr
13
comment Systematic all-in
Intuitively to me I thought the table could devise a strategy to win, and you seem to feel the opposite. But your thought might be based on a guess of 40% win probability. Suppose 9 other players all agreed to call every hand and split up hero's winnings later if they break him. Might that tip the scales in their favor? Hmmmm.... maybe not- even if hero wins 1/50 hands instead of 1/10, he might still clear the table each time it happens.
Apr
13
comment Systematic all-in
@TobyBooth - yep- you're correct!
Apr
13
comment Who has the higher hand: 44 vs. A2 on a JJKK2 board?
The popular term for this situation is called "counterfeited": something which has value suddenly has no value due to the board making a better hand.
Apr
12
comment Systematic all-in
Agreed this would be identical as long as he rebuys for the same as the largest stack at the table. Then the question is how many hands before he burns through 10000 BBs.
Apr
12
comment Quantifying the amount of luck required to win a tournament
Great answer. You pose a lot of questions and provide a lot of scenarios which make my original suggestion for how to quantify luck less useful. I will edit the question with my reasoning behind the original question.
Apr
12
comment Quantifying the amount of luck required to win a tournament
@IharS, your update to the answer makes a lot of sense. This is exactly the kind of idea I was aiming for.
Apr
10
comment Heads Up NL Holdem: Best strategy against all in every hand
Ahah! You're definitely on to something with the counter strategy to sklansky's system with AA, KK, AKs. You didn't actually say it but I'm going to put words in your mouth and revise the question. Great point!
Apr
10
comment Heads Up NL Holdem: Best strategy against all in every hand
(Comment length is limited so I'm using multiple comments.) I think your on to something with 22+, AJ+. I think the numbers you are quoting though, are the precentages for winning the hands you play, but doesn't necessarily correlate to your chances of winning that particular tournament, since you're also losing all of the hands you don't play at all, and your stack is dwindling in the process. Your comment of "until he figures out your strategy" doesn't apply since he doesn't care- he never even looks at his cards.
Apr
10
comment Heads Up NL Holdem: Best strategy against all in every hand
I believe your first sentence is not true. I don't think you'll win very often if you only play KK and AA. Of course it depends on the blinds to stack size, but let's say it's 100 to 1. ($1000 buyin starting with $5-10 blinds.) Against scenario 1, you'll be out $15 every two hands you don't play, or $7.50 on average per hand. So you can last 133 hands before you bust out. If you don't see KK or AA in 133 hands, you'll bust out without ever seeing a hand. Furthermore, if you finally play a hand say after blinding off half your stack, even if you win, you're still only back to where you started.
Apr
9
comment Outs counting correction
I rarely downvote but I had to here because I believe the conclusion of your answer is wrong- and misleading. You wrote: "if you take it into consideration, then it can drastically affect the size of the hypothetical bet you're willing to call with your hand." That is not true. If you calculate the remaining outs the way you described, the probability of hitting the flush or straight does not change at all. One thing I do agree with in your answer is maybe the possible assumption that your opponent has a King because of the way he is playing his hand.
Apr
7
comment Quantifying the amount of luck required to win a tournament
@IharS - yes, the player that consistently wins more than the expected number of tournaments is obviously displaying skill. Perhaps an alternate way of thinking about the original question is to quantify how much luck is involved for winning tournament players. But the more I think about it, the more I'm starting to think that the usefulness of my original question is lessened, in that the "answer" isn't sufficient unless it assumes a skillful player to begin with.
Apr
6
comment Effect of number of players in the probability distribution of poker hands
@gonvaled: Although this statement is false: "Depending on how many players are on the table, the chances of being dealt a certain hand will vary.", the following statement is true: "Depending on how many players are on the table, the chances of SOMEONE being dealt a certain hand will vary." But this can never change the probability of making a particular hand.
Apr
6
comment Effect of number of players in the probability distribution of poker hands
Your last paragraph may not be relevant to the original question, however that is an interesting point you bring up, and I'd like to expand on it: A 10 handed Omaha game is kind of like being dealt 60 hold'em hands. (6 ways to make 2 card combos when you are dealt 4). And what you described pretty much falls in line with the approach for Omaha starting hand strategy, exactly for the reason you described.
Apr
5
comment Joining an offline poker league - can being new be used to my advantage?
Try wearing a bright pink shirt and flirting with everyone at the table, occasionally calling certain guys "hun". They'll be so rattled that you'll have a huge advantage.
Apr
5
comment Quantifying the amount of luck required to win a tournament
Your comment regarding other player's data possibly not being relevant is a good one. I think this calculation would also need to include the probability of winning based on the playing style. For example, if you play 100 10 person tourneys, you might expect to win 10 on average. If you win 30/100, the probabilities above would likely be drastically different (and more relevant) than if you won 3/100, which would be less significant. I originally intended this question to be based on data from statistically solid and winning players.
Mar
30
comment Quantifying the amount of luck required to win a tournament
Your suggestions are for limiting the amount of luck in a tournament. However, my question is not about how to limit it, but how to quantify how much luck you can expect to have had when you win a tournament.
Mar
25
comment When to fold AA pre-flop?
@gonvaled If that last part was what you were thinking about, then that's a different question and has nothing to do with AA. In that case you fold any hand where the $1000/hand player is not in, since you'll never have a better chance to win other than AA. And it's easy to come up with those type of hypotheticals- you always fold AA against the guy who you happen to know is an assasin who offs people that beat him with AA, etc. Though admittedly Cory's scenario is at least plausible.