Would this player ever be a winning player.
 

Theoretically speaking.

Your playing at Binions 1/2 NL UNCAPPED

You buy in for 100 dollars.

Everyone at the table has 20 grand sitting in front of them.

You get dealt AA every single hand and go all in every single time.

Due to variance would'nt you always get sucked out on. Just enough to ensure that you would never be able to beat this game.

It's not bad luck. It's not bad skill.

It's just the fact that with your minimum buy in and the nature of the uncapped game that you would prob never be able to beat this game.

It's kind of like a martengale.

Ok you win 4 times in a row you have 1600 you win again you have 3200 you win again 7400 you win again you have 14800.

I guess AA winning 7 times in a row is not hard to accomplish and in the long run you should have periods where it wins 50 times in a row.

So once in a while it seems this 100 dollar player would hit it big time.

But more often than now would eventually keep losing his 100 dollar buy in over and over and over.

I'm not whining or anything I never buy in short stacked. I'm just trying to understand why ppl buy in shortstacked in uncapped games.

Is there a real strategy to it.

My example kinda sucks because no one is going to get dealt AA every single hand.

Which it seems would make it EVEN HARDER for someone to come out a long term winner in these games.

I'm not talking about buying in for 5 bucks in a 25 dollar max game.

I'm talking about buying in for 5 bucks in an uncapped game.

It just seems like coming out a long term winner would be hard if not impossible.

Re: Would this player ever be a winning player.
 

Congrats on stating the obvious / This is why we practice bankroll management?

Re: Would this player ever be a winning player.
 

Unlike the player in your example, shortstackers don't keep risking the money they just won. Part of their strategy is to leave the table when their stack reaches a certain point.

The comparison would be more apt if the player in your example cashed out every time he hit some goal such as $200 or $400 and then sat back down with his original $100. In that case, he is of course going to make a huge profit.

Re: Would this player ever be a winning player.
 

WhiteKnight
*


Reged: 02/24/07
Posts: 137
Loc: omotive

Did my post say anything about bankroll management.

Nice *

Re: Would this player ever be a winning player.
 

It's pretty safe to say to anyone who thinks poker is a game of luck and constantly say whoever get's the best cards wins is wrong.

I think it's a pretty good argument for the skill vs luck argument that you can get dealt AA EVERY SINGLE hand and never be a winning player.

Re: Would this player ever be a winning player.
 

Sorry if I was out of line in not taking your post seriously, although I don't see how illuminating my post count is really relevant to, well, anything at all.

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's a pretty good argument for the skill vs luck argument that you can get dealt AA EVERY SINGLE hand and never be a winning player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I see this. First, the hypothetical example you're working with is pretty obscure and doesn't really resemble "poker" as we see it played in the vast majority of circumstances.

Second, what side of the skill/luck debate does it provide ammunition for? Poker is all luck (because I get good cards but inevitably go busto), or poker is all skill (because part of the game is managing bankroll and making bets we can "afford" in the long run)?

Re: Would this player ever be a winning player.
 

Pushing all in every single hand is not poker. Aces are only the best preflop hand, but they will lose. However if you had a person that got them dealt every single hand, and this player played well after seeing a flop, he'd turn a substantial profit for a time (until the other players figured out he was getting aces every hand and stopped playing back at him unless they had the nuts.)

Re: Would this player ever be a winning player.
 

Yea I agree with mmbossman. Why would he go all in every time with aces? If he goes all in every time, you're eliminating the skill component right there. Skill exists where one can make a choice. Here the choice is made for him; that he is going to all in. After that, it's just a matter of luck if someone else calls. He might win, he might lose. Chances are that he's not gonna be making a lot of profit seeing as 100 ain't much in a game where everyone's on 20 grand; he's gonna get called pretty often.

Re: Would this player ever be a winning player.
 

If this were realistic, once they realized you are getting AA every single hand, all of the $20k players would move to a different table.

But let's say a player with suited connectors (the best anti-AA hand) goes in every hand, and resets to $20k afterwards.

Your pocket aces will hold up around 77% of the time. So how many times in a row do you have to double up to beat this game?

200
400
800
1600
3200
6400
12800
25600
45600

You'd have to hit 9 wins in a row. The odds of doing this are 1 in 10.5. Upon winning, you get 456 times your buyin.

Are you saying you don't want to play a game with a 1 in 11 chance to get 456 your buyin back?

[ QUOTE ]
you win again you have 3200 you win again 7400

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I guess that explains part of it...

Re: Would this player ever be a winning player.
 

Gamb00l puts it best.