all-in as one-off game or repeated game

[httassadar]

Not sure if this topic suits here.

In Harrington's book, he emphasized on calculating odds when facing all kinds of betting, especially all-in.

I do think that when facing all-in from a larger stack or stacks that can harm you severely, mathematics shouldn't take a major role. This should be treated as a one-off game rather than repeated game so probability is meaningless. In my view (very conservative maybe), I would fold if my hand cannot win over 80% of the time no matter what pot odds shows.

For example, if you are not a millionare and someone offers you this game. You flip a fair coin and if it is head, you win 100 billion, but if it is a tail, you pay 10 million. How many of us would actually try this game?

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
For example, if you are not a millionare and someone offers you this game. You flip a fair coin and if it is head, you win 100 billion, but if it is a tail, you pay 10 million. How many of us would actually try this game?

[/ QUOTE ]
If this person actually had the 100 billion -- I'd do it in a heartbeat.

I think that if you need an 80% threshold, you're keeping way too much of your bankroll on the table.

[pzhon]

First, probability makes sense even when describing events that take place once. Talking about arbitrarily repeatable events is primarily a pedagogical crutch to help people to understand probability.

Second, you are talking about events which are repeatable. Failing to take advantage of large edges in tournaments will hurt you again and again.

Third, you are going against the advice of every poker theorist and just about every good poker player. Being overly concerned with surviving the current hand is a common mistake by weak players. In fact, many professional players exploit this weakness often, vaccuuming up chips from players who are only confident gambling on a lock.

Greg Raymer: "If you knowingly pass up a 60:40 opportunity, you're not a top player."

Amir Vahedi: "In order to live, you must be willing to die."

It is well known that the best players may be able to pass up small advantages that come with a lot of variance. For some reason, many poor players misinterpret this to mean that they should pass up large advantages to become good.

[jay_shark]

You are clearly confused here . I don't think you understand the difference between positive EV and your risk of going broke .

In the example you gave , you have to pass up a positive EV situation because 50% of the time , your bankroll will be close to depleted . (ie , you have 11 million but now you're left with 1 million)

You have to ask yourself what risk are you willing to accept to play this game . So in some unusual circumstances , it is correct to pass up some positive EV (ie , in a cash game) if you think the gamble will take a big hit to your bankroll .