Chau/Barry G. Gossip

[krille]

[ QUOTE ]
barry is smart for never running it twice assuming the variance doesnt bother him. not running it twice is +ev.

[/ QUOTE ]

ehm.. wrong..

[thebeebster]

he doesn't mean the ev in the hand. he means the longterm effect it has on the decision making of his competitors.

[Rootabager]

I thought not running it twice just made people more scared of you. It reduces variance and is neutral EV.

[TStoneMBD]

by barry having the policy that he will never run it twice, it may cause other players to pass up on slightly +ev coin flips whereas if they knew barry would run it twice they may then decide to take the slightly +ev coin flip. by them folding the slightly +ev coin flips it increases barry's ev. this is especially likely to happen to those who are playing on shorter bankrolls then necessary. even with an appropriate bankroll for a particular nl blind structure, they might not be adaquetely bankrolled to accept a coin flip over a slight equity gain. another example of how this might influence barry's ev would be that players might opt not to play their flush draws aggressively in fear of getting all of their money in on the flop on a coin flip. instead, they play their flush draw passively.

likewise, by not running it twice, it encourages people to buy insurance from barry which is naturally +ev, as we saw hellmuth do on season 1 although he bought insurance in a hand in which barry was not a participant.

i assume this is barry's foremost reason for having a not running it twice policy, among other reasons that may be out of the scope of my understanding.

[Atropos]

In addition to what TStoneMDB mentioned, if you are the best player at the table, you shouldnt allow insurance, because having no insurance probably puts more money on the table and creates big stacks. Do you think Farha would have just left if he lost that KK against AA hand? Probably not, he would have rebought instantly, another 100k that Greenstein could win.

[Yuv]

I already posted this in the Bellagio gossip thread. The numbers i've heard was over 10 million down swing for Barry.

[Xellos]

[ QUOTE ]
I already posted this in the Bellagio gossip thread. The numbers i've heard was over 10 million down swing for Barry.

[/ QUOTE ]

To lose 1250 bets in live poker you'd have to basically play every hand without looking at your cards and even then it would be pretty hard. This is also assuming they never played lower than 4k/8k which they probably did quite a bit.

[Yuv]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I already posted this in the Bellagio gossip thread. The numbers i've heard was over 10 million down swing for Barry.

[/ QUOTE ]

To lose 1250 bets in live poker you'd have to basically play every hand without looking at your cards and even then it would be pretty hard. This is also assuming they never played lower than 4k/8k which they probably did quite a bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

DN was stuck over a million in one session. So, hmm, it's possible.

[Fly]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I already posted this in the Bellagio gossip thread. The numbers i've heard was over 10 million down swing for Barry.

[/ QUOTE ]

To lose 1250 bets in live poker you'd have to basically play every hand without looking at your cards and even then it would be pretty hard. This is also assuming they never played lower than 4k/8k which they probably did quite a bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

DN was stuck over a million in one session. So, hmm, it's possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah but you'd think a guy as smart as Barry would get a hold of himself way before he reached the 10m mark.

[mosta]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I already posted this in the Bellagio gossip thread. The numbers i've heard was over 10 million down swing for Barry.

[/ QUOTE ]

To lose 1250 bets in live poker you'd have to basically play every hand without looking at your cards and even then it would be pretty hard. This is also assuming they never played lower than 4k/8k which they probably did quite a bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

how many BB/100 do you assume his win rate should be? (it's not 3...)