Omaha8 Article

[Gotmilk]

[ QUOTE ]

In simulations, winning half the pot two times in ten and losing the other eight times is exactly the same as scooping the pot one time in ten and losing the other nine times. Thus it may seem as though two cards that win half the pot for Hero are equivalent to one card that would scoop the pot for Hero. However, that is not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

What simulation are you running? Should check that bad boy.

[7n7]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In simulations, winning half the pot two times in ten and losing the other eight times is exactly the same as scooping the pot one time in ten and losing the other nine times. Thus it may seem as though two cards that win half the pot for Hero are equivalent to one card that would scoop the pot for Hero. However, that is not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

What simulation are you running? Should check that bad boy.

[/ QUOTE ]

More O8 articles please!!! The literature for these games is sorely lacking when it comes to the math. Mr. Zee's book is great but is geared toward the advanced player that presumably understands the math already.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
What simulation are you running? Should check that bad boy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Turbo Omaha High-Low Split for Windows
Version 2.0
Copyright 1997-1999
by Wilson Software

But the particular simulator is not the issue.

Let's assume all the pots we're talking about are of the same size.

When you win half the pot you are awarded half the chips in the pot.

If a whole pot counts as a whole win, shouldn't a half pot count as a half win whatever simulator you are using?

I think it should, and to the best of my knowledge it does.

But if you're not very careful you can leap to the incorrect conclusion that winning two half pots is the same as winning one whole pot. It's not.

How can that be, since you're awarded the same amount of money when you win two half pots as when you win one whole pot?

The answer is, you have to put your own chips at risk twice to win two half pots and only once to win one whole pot. Think about it.

Buzz

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In simulations, winning half the pot two times in ten and losing the other eight times is exactly the same as scooping the pot one time in ten and losing the other nine times. Thus it may seem as though two cards that win half the pot for Hero are equivalent to one card that would scoop the pot for Hero. However, that is not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

What simulation are you running? Should check that bad boy.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the difference between "revenue" and "profit".

-g

[MeetUrTwin]

This has been explained to Buzz before.

Without success, evidently.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
This has been explained to Buzz before.

Without success, evidently.

[/ QUOTE ] MeetUrTwin - Somewhere in that thread I made a mis-statement. And I acknowledged my mistake. That's as good as I can do. It was not my first mistake and, alas, probably will not be my last. When I have made a mistake and recognized it in these 2+2 threads, I have posted a correction.

Let it go.

The fact remains that I recognized then, as I do now, that winning half a pot twice is not the same as scooping a pot once, except seemingly in a simulation. I admit I botched the explanation back then. I hope it is clearer now.

But for that to happen, you need to keep an open mind. Digging through botched explanations may not help you in that regard.

Buzz

[MeetUrTwin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This has been explained to Buzz before.

Without success, evidently.

[/ QUOTE ] MeetUrTwin - Somewhere in that thread I made a mis-statement. And I acknowledged my mistake. That's as good as I can do. It was not my first mistake and, alas, probably will not be my last. When I have made a mistake and recognized it in these 2+2 threads, I have posted a correction.

Let it go.

The fact remains that I recognized then, as I do now, that winning half a pot twice is not the same as scooping a pot once, except seemingly in a simulation. I admit I botched the explanation back then. I hope it is clearer now.

But for that to happen, you need to keep an open mind. Digging through botched explanations may not help you in that regard.

Buzz

[/ QUOTE ]
Buzz, I'm sorry, but the mistake you were making in that old thread is exactly the same mistake you are making here. There is a difference between the two scenarios you mentioned only when you tailor a case study in a way that is "unfair" to the scooping scenario. It's been explained thoroughly, I'd suggest you need to reread things with an open mind.

edit: Ergodicity's new thread in this forum does a nice job summarizing everything that went on in that old thread I linked to. His thread is less contentious and therefore might stand a better chance at being absorbed since it shouldn't incur as much anger/defensiveness.

[Buzz]

Wintermute? FatBallz? I wondered what happened to you.

Buzz