All players equal in ability (theoretical question)

[O Doyle Rules]

Let's assume the only game available to play in is one where all the players are of equal playing ability and no one holds an edge over anyone else. Given this scenario, the only winner in the long run would be the house with the rake.

In a game as described, would a player be able to use money management techniques, that is, stop loss amounts when losing and quitting the game when ahead to preserve wins, to extract enough profit from the game to overcome the rake?
(assuming a 5% rake, $ 3 dollar max)

This would also assume the other players in the game knows this player practices such a technique and continue to play with him.

I envision this kind of like Barry Greenstein's short stack buy-in theory.

If so, how low of limits could one practice this and still beat the rake?

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's assume the only game available to play in is one where all the players are of equal playing ability and no one holds an edge over anyone else. Given this scenario, the only winner in the long run would be the house with the rake.

In a game as described, would a player be able to use money management techniques, that is, stop loss amounts when losing and quitting the game when ahead to preserve wins, to extract enough profit from the game to overcome the rake?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Assuming the hands are separate trials (which is almost completely true in poker)then when you choose to start and stop will have no impact on your expected value.

In reality, of course, it has a big impact because a) your play is not 100% consistent and b) the quality of your opponents varies greatly. But your problem statement rules both of those things out, so there is no reason to start or stop at any particular time (unless they let you come in without paying a blind or something silly).

Basically, you're -EV the whole way through, and the way to win is not to play.

[Rollos]

Theoretically, the only way to win would be to buy in as a short stack.
In reality, you could beat them if you play when they are tired or tilting (i.e. sub-optimally).

[Megenoita]

It doesn't matter if you stop when you're ahead or quit when you're behind. It's all -EV, it will all even out eventually, you all lose.

[Alex/Mugaaz]

Short stacking is poker strategy, not money management. You are getting the best of it because of the unfair situation. So the players aren't of equal ev even if they have equal ability. The only thing money management is going to do is allow you some miniscule control over what types of sessions you book, (lots of small wins and occasioal huge loss, lots of tiny losses and occasional big win, etc)

[smbruin22]

money management would only matter if change their game when you lose............so it goes back to your definition at start of equal ability and however you want to handle it definitionally.....