NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
 

The other day I sat down to play a $200 Headsup SNG on Full Tilt Poker. To my dislike, my opponent moved ALL IN every hand (there is no way to break off a game if your opponent is a lunatic). I want to ask you what you would do in this situation after I give out some important information. I want your opinion both about this situation (SNG) as well as a headsup FTP cash game...

Important info: (please correct me if im wrong)

1) In a SNG @ Full Tilt, you are given 3000 chips. Blinds begin at 15/30 and make their way up.

2) In a cash game at full tilt, you can only bring 100 times the BB to the game.

So what do you do in HEADSUP play? What cards do you call an all-in with?

Alot of people have said to wait for pocket aces. However, given the starting chip counts and blinds wouldnt this be a losing strategy. On both games you are likely to blind out before you get AA.

That game on Full Tilt ended in me calling with AK suited and losing to small cards. Really wasnt cool but I suppose it taught me something about the game. I suppose the best way to tackle this type game is to avoid it. Even Aces can lose if you happen to pick them up...

Any input?

Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
 

What's his username?

Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
That game on Full Tilt ended in me calling with AK suited and losing to small cards. Really wasnt cool but I suppose it taught me something about the game. I suppose the best way to tackle this type game is to avoid it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, clearly the best option is to avoid a highly profitable situation, where your opponent is utilizing a highly exploitable strategy. Yes, i too hate money.

I haven't done the math so i'm not sure if optimal strategy is to call with the top 10%, top 20% or top 35%, but I KNOW that doing any of these is far better than not playing and will make money.

Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
 

how many hands did he all in with?

Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That game on Full Tilt ended in me calling with AK suited and losing to small cards. Really wasnt cool but I suppose it taught me something about the game. I suppose the best way to tackle this type game is to avoid it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, clearly the best option is to avoid a highly profitable situation, where your opponent is utilizing a highly exploitable strategy. Yes, i too hate money.

I haven't done the math so i'm not sure if optimal strategy is to call with the top 10%, top 20% or top 35%, but I KNOW that doing any of these is far better than not playing and will make money.

[/ QUOTE ]

He didnt offer to keep playing indefinetly. And I just realized another thing that differs about a cash game and its very very important. You can ALWAYS REBUY so that you can always match his entire stack. Therefore you would just wait for Aces. So that entire part of the question is now out. This only applies to SNGs.

Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
You can ALWAYS REBUY so that you can always match his entire stack. Therefore you would just wait for Aces. So that entire part of the question is now out.

[/ QUOTE ]

umm... no the fact that you can always rebuy means that you should be willing to gamble more!

Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
 

in fact if you wait for aces in a 100bb cash game you lose alot of money (dunno why that didn't come into my head first). DUCY?

Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can ALWAYS REBUY so that you can always match his entire stack. Therefore you would just wait for Aces. So that entire part of the question is now out.

[/ QUOTE ]

umm... no the fact that you can always rebuy means that you should be willing to gamble more!

[/ QUOTE ]

the fact that you can always rebuy means that it doesnt matter at all what you do cause you will end up having his money either way.

Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That game on Full Tilt ended in me calling with AK suited and losing to small cards. Really wasnt cool but I suppose it taught me something about the game. I suppose the best way to tackle this type game is to avoid it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, clearly the best option is to avoid a highly profitable situation, where your opponent is utilizing a highly exploitable strategy. Yes, i too hate money.

I haven't done the math so i'm not sure if optimal strategy is to call with the top 10%, top 20% or top 35%, but I KNOW that doing any of these is far better than not playing and will make money.

[/ QUOTE ]

He didnt offer to keep playing indefinetly.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your point being... what? What I said is true for a single SNG where your opponent is moving in every hand. It's just as true (but no less true) of a series of SNGs where your opponent is moving in every hand. The optimal strategy against this opponent is optimal regardless of the number of games to be played.

Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can ALWAYS REBUY so that you can always match his entire stack. Therefore you would just wait for Aces. So that entire part of the question is now out.

[/ QUOTE ]

umm... no the fact that you can always rebuy means that you should be willing to gamble more!

[/ QUOTE ]

the fact that you can always rebuy means that it doesnt matter at all what you do cause you will end up having his money either way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, this being said, i admit i tagged on Headsup cash games without thinking (oopsy daisy)... How about the SNG situation I was in?

If the guy was going all in every time, would you have called him with AKs? of course, right? (answer wanted)

I suppose this situation isnt a predicament if you will get to keep playing this same opponent over and over even after going broke yourself... Eventually you will catch him as an overdog and your hand will hold up. The math would play out in the long run...

However, in a SNG format you really cant wait for aces, agreed? -or KK or QQ or JJ. If you get a bad run of cards for a while, the blinds you folded will add up...

I guess this post is semi-retarded because of course, you cant expect to win except in the long run.

I guess ALL I WANT TO KNOW ARE WHAT ARE THIS GUYS AVERAGE CHANCES OF WINNING SNGS if he plays this way over and over?

Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose this situation isnt a predicament at all ever, unless you're playing over your bankroll

[/ QUOTE ]
FYP.

Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
 

lol. i think anyone here would be happy to play either the all-in happy villain or the clueless original poster.

Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
lol. i think anyone here would be happy to play either the all-in happy villain or the clueless original poster.

[/ QUOTE ]

i guess i need to work on my posting skills. i knew everything you people responded with. i just need to keep on one point and one point only.

Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
The optimal strategy against this opponent is optimal regardless of the number of games to be played.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. In the case where you only get to play 1 game, I would narrow my calling range. In the case where you get to play many games, I would broaden the calling range.

Theoretically, if you got to play an infinite # of games, and time wasn't a consideration, then you would call with the slightest of margins (~ Q7+). With only 1 game, you want to maximize your chance of winning *that hand*, so you should try to call with much better cards (~ KQ+; 77+).

Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
 

Calling on the narrowest of margins, has an opportunity cost. That of waiting for a slightly bigger margin over his basket of hands in each individual SnG.

The best strategy, is going to be adaptive to the blind:stack ratios, and start tighter and then loosen.

Remember each SnG has an Admin Fee, so just as in a cash game with rake, you need a bigger edge than 51:49 to make a profit.

If you do "flipping" you'll be a loser in the long run.

Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The optimal strategy against this opponent is optimal regardless of the number of games to be played.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then you're wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
In the case where you only get to play 1 game, I would narrow my calling range. In the case where you get to play many games, I would broaden the calling range.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then you don't understand fundamental poker theory. The number of games to be played is irrelevant, and the optimal calling range (at each blind level and stack size) is set and immobile mathematically. If you deviate from it then your expectation is less than it would be if you don't, and this is true of 1 game; it's true of 100 games; it's true of 1,000,000 games.

[ QUOTE ]

Theoretically, if you got to play an infinite # of games, and time wasn't a consideration, then you would call with the slightest of margins (~ Q7+).

[/ QUOTE ]
Um, false. Calling with say the top 48% of hands will yield a +EV result, but it won't yield optimal results.

Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
 

[ QUOTE ]

Theoretically, if you got to play an infinite # of games, and time wasn't a consideration, then you would call with the slightest of margins (~ Q7+).

[/ QUOTE ]
Um, false. Calling with say the top 48% of hands will yield a +EV result, but it won't yield optimal results.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would folding hands that are +EV in this scenario yield a better result? Playing those hands does not prevent you from playing the ones where you have a greater edge.

Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The optimal strategy against this opponent is optimal regardless of the number of games to be played.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then you're wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. Your game theory understanding is confused. It's a different game if you only play 1 hand as opposed to an infinite # of hands.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the case where you only get to play 1 game, I would narrow my calling range. In the case where you get to play many games, I would broaden the calling range.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then you don't understand fundamental poker theory. The number of games to be played is irrelevant, and the optimal calling range (at each blind level and stack size) is set and immobile mathematically. If you deviate from it then your expectation is less than it would be if you don't, and this is true of 1 game; it's true of 100 games; it's true of 1,000,000 games.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Theoretically, if you got to play an infinite # of games, and time wasn't a consideration, then you would call with the slightest of margins (~ Q7+).

[/ QUOTE ]
Um, false. Calling with say the top 48% of hands will yield a +EV result, but it won't yield optimal results.

[/ QUOTE ]

So calling with +EV hands over an infinite # of games (w/o consideration of rake/time/etc.) is -EV long-term? I don't think so. What exactly do you mean by "optimal" (in this case) if not +EV?

Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
 

[ QUOTE ]

Nope. Your game theory understanding is confused. It's a different game if you only play 1 hand as opposed to an infinite # of hands.

[/ QUOTE ]
False. The game is identical. The number of trials has no effect on the expectation of each individual trial. You flip a coin and it's it's coming up heads half the time. If you get laid 1:1 on the flip then it's a breakeven proposition, and would be if it were done once or done 1,000,000 times.

Also, i don't know what you mean by '1 hand'. It's 1 game/SNG consisting of multiple hands, not 1 hand.



[ QUOTE ]

You're wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nope

[ QUOTE ]
So calling with +EV hands over an infinite # of games (w/o consideration of rake/time/etc.) is -EV long-term?

[/ QUOTE ]
Um.. WTF? Who suggested such a thing? No, it's not -EV, it's just not optimal. Calling with top 48% is +EV and a winning strategy; it's just not optimal. That is; calling with a certain tighter percentages at the earlier levels is also +EV but more +EV than calling with the top 48%.

Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
 

[ QUOTE ]

False. The game is identical. The number of trials has no effect on the expectation of each individual trial. You flip a coin and it's it's coming up heads half the time. If you get laid 1:1 on the flip then it's a breakeven proposition, and would be if it were done once or done 1,000,000 times.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're ignoring the opportunity cost of waiting. If calling is +EV but getting to play another random hand against the idiot has a higher +EV, then you fold. For the same reason, you'd play tighter against idiots in a tournament than, but looser in a cash game (even to the point of making slightly -EV plays).

Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
 

You're not getting it. Do you see why? [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] I'll let someone with more patience explain it.

Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
 

Kip,

If you have a very very slight edge against this opponent (in an SnG), it is correct to wait, because the likelyhood of having a very large edge in the coming hands is nearly 100%. you are forgetting the opportunity cost. You should pass up a slight +EV for this SnG to get a much greater one. Your chances of winning this particular SnG are maximized this way.

Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
If the guy was going all in every time, would you have called him with AKs? of course, right? (answer wanted)

I suppose this situation isnt a predicament if you will get to keep playing this same opponent over and over even after going broke yourself... Eventually you will catch him as an overdog and your hand will hold up. The math would play out in the long run...

However, in a SNG format you really cant wait for aces, agreed? -or KK or QQ or JJ. If you get a bad run of cards for a while, the blinds you folded will add up...


[/ QUOTE ]

Against this type of player, I call with J's or better, and any AK. If you want more risk, Play AQ and 10's. Here's some PokerStove #'s regarding this situation:

83,902,896,000 games 0.157 secs 534,413,350,318 games/sec

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 1: 75.050% 74.54% 00.51% 62539462740 429316098.00 { JJ+, AKs, AKo }
Hand 2: 24.950% 24.44% 00.51% 20504801064 429316098.00 { random }

130,049,488,800 games 0.282 secs 461,168,399,999 games/sec
equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 1: 72.421% 71.82% 00.60% 93401503408 781002838.00 { TT+, AQs+, AQo+ }
Hand 2: 27.579% 26.98% 00.60% 35085979716 781002838.00 { random }

Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
 

The ppl saying, that the number of trials doesn't matter, your expectation is the same, may be should think about "Kelly Criterion" ideas.

There, if you have a limited bankroll, the optimal way to grow it, is not to risk so much, and reduce variance.

Isn't the single shot at this player, analagous in a way? You have a one off opportunity, and theoretically a 60:40 edge, therefore by same reasonibg as Sklansky Advanced Tourney book, your call should be made with a hand that has at least a 60:40 edge over a random hand.

Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you have a very very slight edge against this opponent (in an SnG), it is correct to wait, because the likelyhood of having a very large edge in the coming hands is nearly 100%. you are forgetting the opportunity cost. You should pass up a slight +EV for this SnG to get a much greater one. Your chances of winning this particular SnG are maximized this way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. As the # of games you get to play decreases, the more edge you should wait for. If you only play 1 game, you should wait for a significant edge. If you get to play an infinite #, then the slightest of edges is good.

This isn't considering blinds, time, or bankroll, though. It was theoretical (see my first reply).

Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
 

The optimal way to play 1 sng against the guy is the optimal way to play against him in any, so long as you're within your bankroll. All that changes is if you know you can play him many times, you want to beat him faster.

Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
The optimal way to play 1 sng against the guy is the optimal way to play against him in any, so long as you're within your bankroll. All that changes is if you know you can play him many times, you want to beat him faster.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not quite true. Apart from admin fee arguments...

You have 1 lifetime opportunity to score against a crazy player.

Instead of say a 55:45 edge over a normal opponent, this dude offers you 60:40.

Therefore, there's an opportunity cost if you are not slightly more cautious, because it's a one off event. If you can repeat indefinitely, then you know you take his bankroll in long run, you can rely on long run.

Hope that is clearer now.

Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
 

No. If you know his strategy, the blinds determine an optimal way to play. That doesn't change however long a run. The cards you call with changes depending on the stacks, but you've worked that out in advance. In practice, with rematches you may trade some edge for an improved hourly rate.

Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
 

On single trial vs. multiple trials:

When you are able to play multiple trials (or allowed multiple buy ins, ie. he/you will rebuy if he/you lose the hand) the proper strategy for maximizing EV is to play every hand that is better than an average hand. This is because your total expectation for the session is equal to the sum of all the expectations of the individual hands that you play. Therefore, any hand that has positive expectation (ie. any hand better than a random hand) should be played as it adds to your total expectation. You never have to worry about giving up future expectation because when one of the two of you goes broke, you or he simply rebuys and you get a new hand.

When you are only allowed one game or buy in (ie. as soon as you play a hand, barring a split pot, he will leave) the proper strategy for maximizing EV is to fold some hands that are slightly better than random hands even though calling with them would be +EV. This is because playing those hands prevents you from taking advantage of hands that would be more profitable against a random hand in the future due to the game ending as soon as you play one.

Clearly, it is correct to change the range of hands with which you call based on how many games you get to play. I hope this has cleared some things up.

Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
No. If you know his strategy, the blinds determine an optimal way to play. That doesn't change however long a run. The cards you call with changes depending on the stacks, but you've worked that out in advance. In practice, with rematches you may trade some edge for an improved hourly rate.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. There is a set % of calling hands for each blind level that will maximize your return for the SNG, and it's not "any hand with an edge" that yeilds max EV for the particular SNG.

In addition, though you might widen your calling range to a still-+EV range, though not optimal, in order to increase your hourly rate (against an opponent you know will continue to play against you the same way), you STILL might not widen it to 'any hand with an edge' because what you gain in time might not be made up for by what you sacrifice in EV for the SNG.

[ QUOTE ]
On single trial vs. multiple trials:

When you are able to play multiple trials (or allowed multiple buy ins, ie. he/you will rebuy if he/you lose the hand) the proper strategy for maximizing EV is to play every hand that is better than an average hand. This is because your total expectation for the session is equal to the sum of all the expectations of the individual hands that you play. Therefore, any hand that has positive expectation (ie. any hand better than a random hand) should be played as it adds to your total expectation. You never have to worry about giving up future expectation because when one of the two of you goes broke, you or he simply rebuys and you get a new hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
False. The number of trials is irrelevant. Your expectation is maximized by calling with a particular range (that is tighter than any-hand-with-an-egdge). Your expectation is maximized by doing this regardless of the number of trials. The only affect the number of trails has, as fraac said, is that you might decide to sacrifice maximum expectation per SNG in order to increase $/hour rate. But if you're attempting to merely optimize expectation per each SNG, then calling with "any hand with an edge" regardless of the number of trails, will not yield optimal results per each SNG. It will yield slightly +EV results, which is a lot different than optimal.

What is so difficult about this concept? Against an opponent using a highly exploitable, bad strategy your solution is to use a strategy that just BARELY beats him, rather than one that clobbers him? WTF? If you call with 'any hand with an edge' you're doing him a huge favor.

Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
False. The number of trials is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it is not. If you only get a fixed amount of trials, you prevent all future scenarios in which you are a larger favorite from happening because the game ends as soon as those trials end (easiest example is if you only get one trial - as soon as you call, the game is over). If you get multiple trials, you do not prevent these situations from occuring by calling, because you/opponent will rebuy. In other words, when you get multiple trials, you still get to call him with AA the same amount of times whether or not you play Q7 when he pushes. You are not giving up the situations in which you have him clobbered. You simply add situations in which you are not as much of a favorite, but are still a favorite nonetheless.

[ QUOTE ]
But if you're attempting to merely optimize expectation per each SNG, then calling with "any hand with an edge" regardless of the number of trails, will not yield optimal results per each SNG.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are not trying to optimize your expectation per SNG, you are trying to maximize your total expectation. Since taking edges that are smaller than others does not prevent you from taking the larger edges as well, you maximize your total expectation by taking all of the edges. I think where you are getting confused is that you are still thinking of this in terms of limited trials. If you were only allowed ten trials, then yes you should wait for a larger edge than just playing any hand that is +EV, as you would want to maximize your expectation for each SNG, because your total expectation would be (average expectation)*(10 trials). But in this scenario, we are not limited to the amount of SNGs we get to play, so our expectation would be (average expectation)*(10 trials) + (average expectation of all other +EV hands)*(however many other trials we get).

An analogy: You are standing on the side of a conveyor belt. The conveyor belt starts, and on the belt are random bills: $1 bills, $2 bills, $5 bills, $10 bills, $20 bills, $50 bills, and $100 bills (each bill representing a hand dealt, where the denomination of the bill represents your expectation for that hand). The conveyor belt will operate for X hours (X hours representing the time you play HU). During that time, you may pick up any of the bills from the belt and toss them in a box at your feet. Once a bill has passed you, you may no longer pick it up. At the end of X, you get to keep all the money in the box. Would you only take the $100 bills because it maximized the amount that you earned per bill pick up (each time you pick up a bill representing each hand you play, and each bill passing you representing each hand you fold)? Of course not, you would pick up every bill. Of course, I did not take into account hands that are not profitable to you, because we agree that we should never play those. If you want to add those into the analogy, pretend there are also post-it notes with numbers written on them on the conveyor belt which if you pick them up, you have to pay however much the note says. Of course, you would not pick up any of the notes.

[ QUOTE ]
Against an opponent using a highly exploitable, bad strategy your solution is to use a strategy that just BARELY beats him, rather than one that clobbers him?

[/ QUOTE ]

We are not only playing the hands that are barely +EV. We are also playing the hands that clobber him. You still get the same amount of money you would by playing only the hands that have him clobbered, but in addition to that money, you also get money from the hands that just barely beat his range.

Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
 

In infinite trials, any fixed edge is equivalent.

Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
False. The number of trials is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it is not. If you only get a fixed amount of trials, you prevent all future scenarios in which you are a larger favorite from happening because the game ends as soon as those trials end (easiest example is if you only get one trial - as soon as you call, the game is over). If you get multiple trials, you do not prevent these situations from occuring by calling, because you/opponent will rebuy. In other words, when you get multiple trials, you still get to call him with AA the same amount of times whether or not you play Q7 when he pushes. You are not giving up the situations in which you have him clobbered. You simply add situations in which you are not as much of a favorite, but are still a favorite nonetheless.

[/ QUOTE ]
All you're doing is describing the fact that you will beat him over time by calling with any hand with an edge. Which is true, but irrelevant. The question is what is the BEST way to beat him, not what is the minimum way to beat him. There are many ways to beat him, only 1 that optimizes your expectation.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if you're attempting to merely optimize expectation per each SNG, then calling with "any hand with an edge" regardless of the number of trails, will not yield optimal results per each SNG.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are not trying to optimize your expectation per SNG

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, you are. That's what the OP asked. How do i deal with the opponent's particular strategy. And the answer is by calling with a range that maximizes your expectation.

Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
 

I like the analogy. It makes it obvious that the question needs some assumptions.

A) If you have an unlimited # of hands to play, call with all +EV hands.

B) If you have a set # of hands to play (unaffected by the results of any hand), call with all +EV hands.

C) If the # of hands to play is triggered by the loss of a hand, call with a significant +EV margin, and pass on small +EV margins.(*)

(*) Relative sizes of Stacks:Blinds & the resulting # of hands you can play after a loss should be used to figure how significant of a +EV margin you can wait for.

In the OP scenario, it's debatable which option should be applied. I'm leaning toward C, assuming this is a "one shot" game where if you lose you don't get to play again. In that case, select a range that gives you a 2:1 advantage (or so).

IF you were allowed to match his stack every hand, and this was a one-shot game with no time limit, then it would be best to wait for AA. Otherwise, the blinds will most likely destroy your chances of winning. You can (usually) wait several hands to get a 2:1 favorite hand to call with without the blinds taking very much of your stack.

Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
All you're doing is describing the fact that you will beat him over time by calling with any hand with an edge. Which is true, but irrelevant. The question is what is the BEST way to beat him, not what is the minimum way to beat him. There are many ways to beat him, only 1 that optimizes your expectation.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by those things I bolded?

Beat him over time? Do you mean take as much money from him after numerous games... or just the 1 SnG game?

Best way to beat him? Can you maybe give examples of how you can beat him "worse" (or "minimum") as opposed to "best"?

Only 1 optimizes expectation? What would the optimum expectation be? What measure are you using for this?

Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
 

If you're 60:40 favourite, expectation is 60% of the prize times however many games you play, if you play optimally. It's never more than that for any fixed number of games (a priori). Your methods B and C are wrong.

Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you're 60:40 favourite, expectation is 60% of the prize times however many games you play, if you play optimally.

[/ QUOTE ]

Closer to 20% (60% of win - 40% of cost). Whether you play optimally or not. Whatever that means in the case where you either call the all-in, or fold.

[ QUOTE ]
It's never more than that for any fixed number of games (a priori).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, not if you're a 60:40 favorite every time. Of course, you won't be, so that's irrelevant.

[ QUOTE ]
Your methods B and C are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

They aren't methods. They're scenarios. And they haven't been shown to be wrong. Feel free to elaborate.