A player of my acquaintence* (who did not, I'm pleased to say, play here), had quite a few results on his Live Poker Tourney Database, & was notorious for getting his money in bad, time after time.
He held the view that if he got his money in as a 40/60 dog enough times, he'd bink enough to be a profitable player. Nothing anyone could say would convince him otherwise. "I just have to win my 40-60 shots" he insisted.
* He no longer plays Poker, as he went busto, big time.
But if he's getting it in as a 6/4 underdog......but is getting 3/1 on his money, he's going to win alot of money??? This was a serious qestion by the way, for cash games, not tournaments.... Posted by DOHHHHHHH
Very true, & he did win a lot of money before he went skinto.
In fact, it took him a goodly while to go skinto, as he borrowed money to keep playing, stole money, & even got himself staked to play cash poker. All these things just mean't it took him longer to go skinto than would otherwise be the case.
My example was a Tourney player though, & not, as per your example, a cash player. Your point is very simple, but much misunderstood. It is fine to get it in as a 40/60 dog if you are getting 3/1, the maths never lie. But 90% of poker players don't recognize what a 40/60 is, or how to calculate the price they are getting. It's just basic maths, but unless they can do mental arithmetic quickly & reasonably accurately, they are going to find themselves glued to a yak.
if you're getting 60/1 by the turn then you must have already put in quite a lot of money into the pot, so binking your 1 out every 46 times still won't put you in profit for the hand.
obv calling on the turn will be +ev but the whole hand will be -ev.
Here's a simplified (and unrealistic) example. Say you play 100,000 hands of Hold'em where you're all-in pre-flop for £1 as 6/4 underdog (assume we're against a single opponent with no dead money in the pot).
You should win 40% of the time, so you stand to lose £60,000 and win £40,000. That's a net loss of £20,000.
However, if some lunatic actually offered you odds of 3/1, you would still lose £60,000 but win £120,000. A net profit of £60,000!
You're not missing anything... Here's a simplified (and unrealistic) example. Say you play 100,000 hands of Hold'em where you're all-in pre-flop for £1 as 6/4 underdog (assume we're against a single opponent with no dead money in the pot). You should win 40% of the time, so you stand to lose £60,000 and win £40,000. That's a net loss of £20,000. However, if some lunatic actually offered you odds of 3/1, you would still lose £60,000 but win £120,000. A net profit of £60,000! Posted by J-Hartigan
This was exactly my line of thinking. However you'd have to find a never ending line of people offering you not stop equity at 60/40, with the 40% equity binking in the larger pots, and the 60% taking the loss in the smaller pots. Just would never seem like good poker, plus much of the time where said individual put themselves on 40% they could easily be far lower.
I guess I get where the guy was coming from partially, you could have alot of success with it in the short term, if you hit the right side of the 40% for awhile. But when it evens out it'd just be a money pit.
In terms of 'possible,' of course it is. It's possible to always get your money in as a 100 to 1 dog being offered even pot odds and yet still be ahead. Possible, but highly improbable.
To go on a tangent, there's the old saying that if you had an infinite amount of monkeys with an infinite amount typewriters hammering at the keys for an infinite amount of time they would at some point write out all of the works of Shakespeare. In fact it's only highly probable that they will. It's possible but highly improbable they will just infinitely type 'why am I typing this when I just want a banana' on a loop.
People misread probability. As a sample gets bigger the trend is more likely to move towards a representation of the true odds, however it never has to.
In terms of 'possible,' of course it is. It's possible to always get your money in as a 100 to 1 dog being offered even pot odds and yet still be ahead. Possible, but highly improbable. To go on a tangent, there's the old saying that if you had an infinite amount of monkeys with an infinite amount typewriters hammering at the keys for an infinite amount of time they would at some point write out all of the works of Shakespeare. In fact it's only highly probable that they will. It's possible but highly improbable they will just infinitely type 'why am I typing this when I just want a banana' on a loop. People misread probability. As a sample gets bigger the trend is more likely to move towards a representation of the true odds, however it never has to. Posted by TommyD
thats 1 monkey, 1 typewriter and an infinite amount of time,and the monkey would write the entire works of skakespeare in order, word for word...its the infinite amount of time that makes it so.if u play at skypoker for an infinite amount of time u will eventually win with AA.
In Response to Re: Is it possible..... : thats 1 monkey, 1 typewriter and an infinite amount of time,and the monkey would write the entire works of skakespeare in order, word for word...its the infinite amount of time that makes it so.if u play at skypoker for an infinite amount of time u will eventually win with AA. Posted by philmenow
The phrase has been mixed by a lot of people over the years. Some use the 1 monkey and infinite amount of time, others use infinite monkeys with no mention of time and the one I have used is also common practice for the premise.
All this talk of monkeys is just a relation tool of the heart of the matter, which is if you have (either 1 or an infinite amount, your choice) of letters being randomly generated over an infinite amount of time, every combination of letters would eventually appear. My point is over an infinite time period this is highly likely, but it is possible (but incredibly unlikely) of it just to be the letter G over and over again infinitum.
So is the answer to my question in my OP "yes" then? I'm really confsed, I don't know the answer, I'm not trying to be smart or tricky or whatever..... Just thinking too much I think Getting yourself into bad situations where you have to call off when behind could actually be a winning strategy??? I must be missing something. Posted by DOHHHHHHH
Think science have drawn the limit at 100 over 50, anything that runs to this is deemed impossible.
Just tying into the opening post if I ever felt I was getting 60/1 I dont see me folding. Practical application being: Board at the turn reads 8s10sAc4c, you hold ducks. Could be drawing dead, Worst case scenario your drawing dead to a set, otherwise your likely to have 4.4% Say pot stands at 6k, forgetting implied odds if your simply calling on pot odds you can only call 5% of the pot, being 300. Your likely to be a 20/1 shot. Guy bets 100 into the 6k. your pretty much getting your 60/1.
I've played with people that ignore odds and probability, many of which simply arent math players, simply feel players. I see them get their money in bad alot, and quickly amass stacks. But 5 hours later when I get up to leave with the same 1 or 2 other guys who are coming away in real profit most nights, these feel players have gone, having gone broke hours before. Their style has its advantage. They know I wont race off £500 60/40 pre flop, probably not even 70/30. But there is no finesse in their game, so they are lost post flop.
But if he's getting it in as a 6/4 underdog......but is getting 3/1 on his money, he's going to win alot of money??? This was a serious qestion by the way, for cash games, not tournaments.... Posted by DOHHHHHHH
In Response to Re: Is it possible..... : The phrase has been mixed by a lot of people over the years. Some use the 1 monkey and infinite amount of time, others use infinite monkeys with no mention of time and the one I have used is also common practice for the premise. All this talk of monkeys is just a relation tool of the heart of the matter, which is if you have (either 1 or an infinite amount, your choice) of letters being randomly generated over an infinite amount of time, every combination of letters would eventually appear. My point is over an infinite time period this is highly likely, but it is possible (but incredibly unlikely) of it just to be the letter G over and over again infinitum. Posted by TommyD
Comments
A player of my acquaintence* (who did not, I'm pleased to say, play here), had quite a few results on his Live Poker Tourney Database, & was notorious for getting his money in bad, time after time.
He held the view that if he got his money in as a 40/60 dog enough times, he'd bink enough to be a profitable player. Nothing anyone could say would convince him otherwise. "I just have to win my 40-60 shots" he insisted.
* He no longer plays Poker, as he went busto, big time.
In fact, it took him a goodly while to go skinto, as he borrowed money to keep playing, stole money, & even got himself staked to play cash poker. All these things just mean't it took him longer to go skinto than would otherwise be the case.
My example was a Tourney player though, & not, as per your example, a cash player. Your point is very simple, but much misunderstood. It is fine to get it in as a 40/60 dog if you are getting 3/1, the maths never lie. But 90% of poker players don't recognize what a 40/60 is, or how to calculate the price they are getting. It's just basic maths, but unless they can do mental arithmetic quickly & reasonably accurately, they are going to find themselves glued to a yak.
obv calling on the turn will be +ev but the whole hand will be -ev.
This was exactly my line of thinking. However you'd have to find a never ending line of people offering you not stop equity at 60/40, with the 40% equity binking in the larger pots, and the 60% taking the loss in the smaller pots. Just would never seem like good poker, plus much of the time where said individual put themselves on 40% they could easily be far lower.
I guess I get where the guy was coming from partially, you could have alot of success with it in the short term, if you hit the right side of the 40% for awhile. But when it evens out it'd just be a money pit.
All this talk of monkeys is just a relation tool of the heart of the matter, which is if you have (either 1 or an infinite amount, your choice) of letters being randomly generated over an infinite amount of time, every combination of letters would eventually appear. My point is over an infinite time period this is highly likely, but it is possible (but incredibly unlikely) of it just to be the letter G over and over again infinitum.
Just tying into the opening post if I ever felt I was getting 60/1 I dont see me folding. Practical application being: Board at the turn reads 8s10sAc4c, you hold ducks. Could be drawing dead, Worst case scenario your drawing dead to a set, otherwise your likely to have 4.4% Say pot stands at 6k, forgetting implied odds if your simply calling on pot odds you can only call 5% of the pot, being 300. Your likely to be a 20/1 shot. Guy bets 100 into the 6k. your pretty much getting your 60/1.
I've played with people that ignore odds and probability, many of which simply arent math players, simply feel players. I see them get their money in bad alot, and quickly amass stacks. But 5 hours later when I get up to leave with the same 1 or 2 other guys who are coming away in real profit most nights, these feel players have gone, having gone broke hours before. Their style has its advantage. They know I wont race off £500 60/40 pre flop, probably not even 70/30. But there is no finesse in their game, so they are lost post flop.