Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?

[MDMA]

What is DeathDonkey doing here commenting about variance and downswings - he's never suffered one to my knowledge (and according to his track record for his entire poker career [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img])

[DonButtons]

Once you get over 6pt, you barely have losing days if you play enough hands per day.

[Paul Levy]

I wonder if there's something I'm missing here, because the answer seems trivial to me: if any such thing as a "guaranteed win" existed, its price (intended as how much in terms of winnings one would be willing to pay for it) would be equal to all the winnings, minus the rake (or any other cost associated with taking part in the game) and minus an arbitrarily small quantity.

The reason being that all that matters is securing even the tiniest bit of sure profit, then by playing infinitely often on infinitely many tables one would be able to make infinitely much money, regardless of one's playing ability. By this logic no other choice (ie 50%) is rational unless some assumptions on game time and number of tables are made.

Maybe this should be crossposted to the probability forum...

[RoundTower]

[ QUOTE ]

The reason being that all that matters is securing even the tiniest bit of sure profit, then by playing infinitely often on infinitely many tables one would be able to make infinitely much money, regardless of one's playing ability. By this logic no other choice (ie 50%) is rational unless some assumptions on game time and number of tables are made.


[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think Party allows you to play an infinite number of tables.

[RikaKazak]

I'm being staked right now (for higher games). I give up 1/3 of what I win, and I keep 100% of all bonuses etc.

Makes the game way easier to play and way less stressful.

[LegallyBlind]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The reason being that all that matters is securing even the tiniest bit of sure profit, then by playing infinitely often on infinitely many tables one would be able to make infinitely much money, regardless of one's playing ability. By this logic no other choice (ie 50%) is rational unless some assumptions on game time and number of tables are made.


[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think Party allows you to play an infinite number of tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

yet..

also this is probably getting away from the point of this thread. but variance is what keeps bad players coming back for more. in that respect, its pretty awesome.

[Ansky]

[ QUOTE ]
i wouldnt pay anything I dont think. I'd definitely take more money for more variance though

[/ QUOTE ]

[franchise99]

I'd give up 5% of my hourly rate to eliminate variance. Figure if I had my bankroll invested instead of on the ready this would be a good trade off.

[fsuplayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Yea, you guys are a bunch of pussies

[/ QUOTE ]

[captZEEbo]

this wouldn't work out in reality, b/c you'd play worse knowing you were getting an hourly rate