X-Post: Settle this Poker Theory debate

[jono]

[ QUOTE ]
i suppose u think when aba loses 200k hes running worse than an msnler who loses 20k. BBs are all that matter, dollars tell u nothing since limits change but number of BBs is a constant, perioddd

[/ QUOTE ]

So in your mind, a micro nler who loses 2,000 BBs to bad beats is owed more sklansky bucks than when Aba loses 100 BBs at nosebleed to the same type of beat? Sorry but this is fundamentally flawed.

[mythrilfox]

The fact that Player B got KK all-in against AA at $1000NL is 10 times as significant as when Player A gets all-in with KK against Player B at $100NL.

[BobboFitos]

[ QUOTE ]
Ummmm, I think if there is ever a situation to fold KK pf HU, this is it.

[/ QUOTE ]
lol, nice 1

[cowpig]

let's argue about semantics yaaay

[jono]

equity win
Hand 0: 18.745% { KdKh }
Hand 1: 81.255% { AcAs }

[ QUOTE ]
NL 100: Player A gets KK 10x in a row, while player B gets AA 10x in a row. They go all in every hand and player A (KK) wins them all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Player A has 18.745% equity in each of the 10 pots. Each pot is $200 so player A has $200 x .18745 = $37.49 equity. Therefore player B has $200 x .81255= $162.51 equity. This is played out ten times.

equity part 1 of 2:
player A = $37.49 x 10 = $374.90
player B = $162.51 x 10 = $1625.10

amount won part 1 of 2:
player A = $2000.00
player B = $0


now for the second part

[ QUOTE ]
They agree to go to NL 1,000: Player A gets AA and player B gets KK. They go all in and Player B wins.

[/ QUOTE ]

Player A now has 81.255% equity. The pot is $2000 so player A has $2000 x .81255 = $1625.10 equity. Player B has $2000 x .18745 = $374.90 equity.

Total equity part 2 of 2:
Player A = $1625.10
Player B = $374.90

amount won part 2 of 2:
Player A = $0
Player B = $2000

Now we have to total it up

Total equity:
Player A = $374.90 + $1625.10 = $2000
Player B = $1625.10 + $374.90 = $2000

Total amount won:
Player A = $2000 + $0 = $2000
Player B = $0 + $2000 = $2000



CONCLUSION
The equity = amount won for both players. Therefore both players are running exactly at EV. No player has greater or less EV than the other player. The same case can be worked out for the follow up question. BBs are inconsequential NoTurns.

[tozzy]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that Player B got KK all-in against AA at $1000NL is 10 times as significant as when Player A gets all-in with KK against Player B at $100NL.

[/ QUOTE ]
yeah, if hes playing for his living.

[kamana]

[ QUOTE ]
Player A is running waaayyy above his expectation.

[/ QUOTE ]

thank you for the sarcasm, but trust me: if this gets enough serious replies and is decisive, the benefit will be well worth it to everyone on the forums. Think of notorious BBVer and being able to change their buddy icon to almost anything for a month.

[Jay Riall]

Lol at you doing all that maths when anyone with half a brain could have told you that instinctually in seconds. Pretty obvious the answer lies in whether you interpret the question being predominatly to do with BBs or simply $ won.

[m3dude]

so someone running 1 buyin below expectation at nl 10k is running just as bad as someone running 100 buyins below expectation at nl 100? money is irrelevant, bbs are what count