Advantage of a large chip stack in NL ring?

[Crazy]

"paddy o connor" <treemore@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:wwVUa.24964$pK2.39095@news.indigo.ie...
> so what if they do [have more chips]
> is it that much of an advantage?

"Stephen Jacobs" (jacosa@comcast.net) replied
> Yeah it is a huge advantage.

"CSI Minneapolis" (pokerace@comcast.net) snided
> omg....read a book.

My NL book hasn't talked about this. I searched the archives for
discussion. The only interesting I found is that the best player will
want to be able to cover any bet and therefore should have the largest
stack.

If we are talking a non-tournament ring where buy-in is significantly
larger than the blinds how could a large stack be at any advantage?

[wamplerr]

I've noticed that no-limit ring games play a lot like tournaments.
Players will buy-in, and if they lose chips early, they will play their
short stack, instead of adding on. So if 5 people start with $100, and
after an hour, the stacks are $150, $110, $110, $100, $30, the player
with $150 might have more of an advantage than his chips indicate. The
$110 players might play overly tight and try not to "tangle" with the
big stack, even though there is no prize money implication. The small
stack might be playing a mostly all-in or fold strategy, which is
probably not optimal given the non-tournament situation.
Mathematically, it shouldn't matter. If it were a 6 person game, and
everyone put a dollar into the pot and rolled a die and whoever's number
came up won the pot, it wouldn't matter. It depends on the other
player's frames of mind.

It might be optimal to start a no-limit game, buy in for the max, have a
friend sit with you heads up at the start and lose his stack to you, and
then wait for others to join. Doesn't seem ethical to me though, if
there's a max buy-in, it is there for a reason.

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RGP ACCESS at http://www.LiveActionPoker.com

[Crazy]

garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu (Gary Carson) wrote in message news:<3f255db6.58827226@news.mindspring.com>...
>
> ...
>
> I don't even have to use my stack to have an advantage. If I'm the
> biggest stack in the valley, then nobody can play in a pot with me
> without putting their whole stack at risk.

I don't accept that. Why don't they want to risk their whole stack? We
aren't talking about a tournament where you want to knock people out.

I might accept your argument if you assume your opponets are
risk-averse or bought in for more than they can afford to lose.

> This doesn't matter much to small stacks, but it matters a lot to
> other big stacks. If I've got 300 chips, and you have 150 chips and
> the max buyin is 100, then you can't bust me, but I can bust you.

Why do I care if you bust me?

> And, if you double up with me I can get my chips back in one hand. If
> I bust you, you can't get your chips back in one hand (you can only
> rebuy 100)

Why do I care if I can only rebuy for 100?

> The big stack at the table has an advantage anyway, but if you add in
> the limit on rebuys the edge gets pretty large.

By "limit on rebuy" I assume you mean the same $ limit as the buy in.
Or are you implying that ring games only let you rebuy a few times
before they say, "I'm sorry... we've taken enough of your money. Go
home."

The limit on rebuys only grants an advantage if you already accept
that having a big stack is an advntage. It doesn't proove that having
a big stack is an advantage.

> What no limit book doesn't talk about the benefits of having the big
> stack?

I just reread parts of "Pot Limit & No Limit Poker" (Stewart Reuben,
Bob Ciaffone). They go into great detail about how to handle
situations where you have a larger or smaller stack but I could not
find anywhere that said it was an advantage to have a larger stack.

[A. Prock]

According to Crazy <bigbignutsnuts@yahoo.com>:
>"paddy o connor" <treemore@eircom.net> wrote in message
>news:wwVUa.24964$pK2.39095@news.indigo.ie...
>> so what if they do [have more chips]
>> is it that much of an advantage?
>
>"Stephen Jacobs" (jacosa@comcast.net) replied
>> Yeah it is a huge advantage.
>
>"CSI Minneapolis" (pokerace@comcast.net) snided
>> omg....read a book.
>
>My NL book hasn't talked about this. I searched the archives for
>discussion. The only interesting I found is that the best player will
>want to be able to cover any bet and therefore should have the largest
>stack.
>
>If we are talking a non-tournament ring where buy-in is significantly
>larger than the blinds how could a large stack be at any advantage?

Think of it this way.

You are playing with your short stack, and your opponent
has an infinite stack. He bets and raises you all-in at
every opportunity.

How long will your money last?

You can't call without the nuts because eventually you will
loose to chance. And you have to call eventually, otherwise
you will be blinded to death.

Of course, if your opponent has a finite stack, this doesn't
apply. But sufficiently large stacks can employ similar
strategys versus sufficiently small stacks, and be virtually
guaranteed to win.

- Andrew

--
http://www.pokerstove.com

[Mark Rafn]

>According to Crazy <bigbignutsnuts@yahoo.com>:
>>If we are talking a non-tournament ring where buy-in is significantly
>>larger than the blinds how could a large stack be at any advantage?

A. Prock <prock_rgp@pokerstove.com> wrote:
>Think of it this way.
>
>You are playing with your short stack, and your opponent
>has an infinite stack. He bets and raises you all-in at
>every opportunity.

>How long will your money last?

Depends on how long I'm willing to play. I think my EV is very high in this
situation, but I'll have to stop at some point because I'll have too much of
my bankroll on the table.

Wanna try it? $0.25-$0.50 blinds, you start with any amount you like, I'll
start with $20. You go all in every chance, I'll play how I like. Either
of us can leave at any point, and either can rebuy (you for any amount, me
for $20). You can find me easily at Binion's all this weekend.

Remember, this is a ring game. We have the same amount of actual money, but
he has more on the table. He busts me, I rebuy. When I've won enough of his
money, I go home.

>You can't call without the nuts because eventually you will
>loose to chance.

I can call anytime I figure to be the favorite. I rebuy when I get unlucky,
and leave if my stack gets to be high enough compared to my total bankroll
that I'm unwilling to risk it all on +ev wagers.

>Of course, if your opponent has a finite stack, this doesn't
>apply. But sufficiently large stacks can employ similar
>strategys versus sufficiently small stacks, and be virtually
>guaranteed to win.

In a tourney, sure. Stack size matters a lot. In a ring game, as long as
you're not playing with scared money, it's not much (if any) disadvantage to
have less on the table.
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/>

[Gary Carson]

On 29 Jul 2003 11:55:20 -0700, bigbignutsnuts@yahoo.com (Crazy) wrote:

>garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu (Gary Carson) wrote in message
news:<3f255db6.58827226@news.mindspring.com>...
>>
>> ...
>>
>> I don't even have to use my stack to have an advantage. If I'm the
>> biggest stack in the valley, then nobody can play in a pot with me
>> without putting their whole stack at risk.
>
>I don't accept that. Why don't they want to risk their whole stack?
We
>aren't talking about a tournament where you want to knock people out.

This particular thread popped up in the context of games where rebuys
had to be less than a certain amount.


>
>I might accept your argument if you assume your opponets are
>risk-averse or bought in for more than they can afford to lose.
>
>> This doesn't matter much to small stacks, but it matters a lot to
>> other big stacks. If I've got 300 chips, and you have 150 chips
and
>> the max buyin is 100, then you can't bust me, but I can bust you.
>
>Why do I care if you bust me?
>
>> And, if you double up with me I can get my chips back in one hand.
If
>> I bust you, you can't get your chips back in one hand (you can only
>> rebuy 100)
>
>Why do I care if I can only rebuy for 100?

If you don't understand that, then I don't think I can help you.



>
>> What no limit book doesn't talk about the benefits of having the
big
>> stack?
>
>I just reread parts of "Pot Limit & No Limit Poker" (Stewart Reuben,
>Bob Ciaffone). They go into great detail about how to handle
>situations where you have a larger or smaller stack but I could not
>find anywhere that said it was an advantage to have a larger stack.

Well, I'm saying it.

[Mark Rafn]

>>garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu (Gary Carson) wrote:
>>> I don't even have to use my stack to have an advantage. If I'm the
>>> biggest stack in the valley, then nobody can play in a pot with me
>>> without putting their whole stack at risk.

So what? In a ring game, my stack isn't my bankroll. I rebuy if I go bust,
and take another shot at you.

>On 29 Jul 2003 11:55:20 -0700, bigbignutsnuts@yahoo.com (Crazy) wrote:
>>I don't accept that. Why don't they want to risk their whole stack? We
>>aren't talking about a tournament where you want to knock people out.

Gary Carson <garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>This particular thread popped up in the context of games where rebuys
>had to be less than a certain amount.

Sure, but plenty large for the blind structure ($400 max with $2/$4 blinds).
Even if it were a silly limitation - say $40 max buyin for those blinds, it's
not clear at all that someone with a giant stack of chips on the table has any
innate advantage over someone who can rebuy as needed.

>>> This doesn't matter much to small stacks, but it matters a lot to
>>> other big stacks. If I've got 300 chips, and you have 150 chips and
>>> the max buyin is 100, then you can't bust me, but I can bust you.

Who cares about busting folks? In a ring game, money has linear value. It's
just money.

>>> And, if you double up with me I can get my chips back in one hand.

Sure, with the chance of quadrupling me up. Put the other way, I can double
through you, but you can only marginally increase your stack by busting me.

More importantly, think in terms of dollars. This is a ring game. We
both risk and can win the same amount of dollars (the amount I have on
the table). I have money not in play in my bank account. You have money
not in play on the table. In both cases: so what?

>If you don't understand that, then I don't think I can help you.

Back at ya. Or maybe we can give examples and illustrations, and perhaps
explain our various positions a bit more.

>>> What no limit book doesn't talk about the benefits of having the big
>>> stack?

There are psychological advantages. It will be intimidating to some. In a
tourney (which is still most NL games people say), there's a very clear
advantage.

In a ring game with rational players, there's just no innate advantage
to a large stack compared to having the same amount of cash in the
pocket and a small amount on the table.

>>They go into great detail about how to handle situations where
>>you have a larger or smaller stack but I could not find anywhere
>>that said it was an advantage to have a larger stack.

>Well, I'm saying it.

Just saying it doesn't actually help. Say why. I say there's no advantage
because neither person can win or lose any more money than the small stack
has. Why do you say the big stack has an advantage monetarily?
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/>

[cheech]

The point is most players do not know how to
play a large stack and will lose it eventually to
the player who does, that is the advantage of
the big stack, Reuben and Ciaffone go into
great detail on this subject, Russ has written
at length about it and Tex dolly talks about it in
Super System.

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RGP ACCESS at http://www.LiveActionPoker.com

[A. Prock]

According to Mark Rafn <dagon@dagon.net>:
>>According to Crazy <bigbignutsnuts@yahoo.com>:
>>>If we are talking a non-tournament ring where buy-in is significantly
>>>larger than the blinds how could a large stack be at any advantage?
>
>A. Prock <prock_rgp@pokerstove.com> wrote:
>>Think of it this way.
>>
>>You are playing with your short stack, and your opponent
>>has an infinite stack. He bets and raises you all-in at
>>every opportunity.
>
>>How long will your money last?
>
>Depends on how long I'm willing to play. I think my EV is very high in this
>situation, but I'll have to stop at some point because I'll have too much of
>my bankroll on the table.

Your EV is zero, you have your entire bankroll on the table.

>Wanna try it?

I'd love to, but I don't have an infinite bankroll.

But thanks for the offer.

- Andrew

--
http://www.pokerstove.com

[JD]

Here's a much simpler example of Gary's first point.

You have JJ and you're heads-up against AA pre-flop. Flop comes AJJ.
The guy with the AA has 200 in front of him. Is your ev higher if you
have a stack of 300 or a stack of 100? Or do people really think it
makes no difference?

JD

garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu (Gary Carson) wrote in message news:<3f255db6.58827226@news.mindspring.com>...
> I don't even have to use my stack to have an advantage. If I'm the
> biggest stack in the valley, then nobody can play in a pot with me
> without putting their whole stack at risk.
>
> This doesn't matter much to small stacks, but it matters a lot to
> other big stacks. If I've got 300 chips, and you have 150 chips and
> the max buyin is 100, then you can't bust me, but I can bust you.
> And, if you double up with me I can get my chips back in one hand. If
> I bust you, you can't get your chips back in one hand (you can only
> rebuy 100)
>
> The big stack at the table has an advantage anyway, but if you add in
> the limit on rebuys the edge gets pretty large.
>
> What no limit book doesn't talk about the benefits of having the big
> stack?

[Gary Carson]

On 30 Jul 2003 11:28:49 GMT, asha34@aol.com (Asha34) wrote:



> But my experience changed my mind. I began to realize that,
unlikely limit
>poker -- which was what I was "raised" on -- there was a risk of a
>psychologically catastrophic loss in one hand.

That comes from playing a stack that's too large for your personal
utility. It doesn't happen from having the largest stack on the
talbe.


Even if I played a hand
>perfectly -- forcing an opponent or opponents to get in all their
money when I
>had the best of it -- I could still lose a very large sum -- a fairly
large
>percentage of my bankroll. Not having limitless or nearly limitless
funds,
>this put considerable pressure on me and I became risk averse in a
way that
>clearly hampered my game. I was unwilling to risk everything just
because I
>had the best of it. And so I sacrificed optimum play in the interest
of
>reducing risk.

Having a larger stack does increase risk, of course. If you can't
comfortably play with a large stack then the game's too big for you.



Hold'em for Advanced Players is 2nd on the current gambling bestseller list
I have no idea why
http://garycarson.rediffblogs.com/

[John T. Kennedy]

On 30 Jul 2003 09:28:04 -0700, jasond@eskimo.com (JD) wrote:

>You have JJ and you're heads-up against AA pre-flop. Flop comes AJJ.
>The guy with the AA has 200 in front of him. Is your ev higher if you
>have a stack of 300 or a stack of 100? Or do people really think it
>makes no difference?

If we're heads up and one guy has 300 and the other 100 then the most
anyone is going to win on this hand is 100, regardless of which stack
they have.

If you mean the other guy has 1000 and I have a choice between a stack
of 100 and 300 here, obviously I'd have higher EVwith the 300. But
then again if he has the JJ and I have the AA I'd have higher EV with
the 100 stack.

I'll grant that if you have a positive EV at a table then a big stack
is better than a small stack. But I don't always know if I have a
positive EV at a give table, hell at this stage I rarely know. And
even Gary, in his book, you may want to play *sometimes* in a game
that isn't good for you at the moment, by which I take it you have
negative EV. In those cases where you're EV at the table is currently
negative isn't the shorter stack preferable?

Heads up is the worst case, multiway pots leverage a positive EV and
can even help a player with negative EV.

[Gary Carson]

Andrew, there are some people who just aren't going to understand
concepts. They can count marbles, but will insist that the bowl
doesn't have N marbles, it has some number of marbles and all we have
to do is count them and if we want a black marble we just pick out a
black marble.

On 30 Jul 2003 16:17:56 GMT, prock_rgp@pokerstove.com (A. Prock)
wrote:

>According to Mark Rafn <dagon@dagon.net>:
>>>According to Crazy <bigbignutsnuts@yahoo.com>:
>>>>If we are talking a non-tournament ring where buy-in is
significantly
>>>>larger than the blinds how could a large stack be at any
advantage?
>>
>>A. Prock <prock_rgp@pokerstove.com> wrote:
>>>Think of it this way.
>>>
>>>You are playing with your short stack, and your opponent
>>>has an infinite stack. He bets and raises you all-in at
>>>every opportunity.
>>
>>>How long will your money last?
>>
>>Depends on how long I'm willing to play. I think my EV is very high
in this
>>situation, but I'll have to stop at some point because I'll have too
much of
>>my bankroll on the table.
>
>Your EV is zero, you have your entire bankroll on the table.
>
>>Wanna try it?
>
>I'd love to, but I don't have an infinite bankroll.
>
>But thanks for the offer.
>
>- Andrew
>
>--
>http://www.pokerstove.com

Hellmuth's book is #4 on the bestseller list
Bestseller list
http://garycarson.rediffblogs.com/

[A. Prock]

According to Mark Rafn <dagon@dagon.net>:
>>>>You are playing with your short stack, and your opponent
>>>>has an infinite stack. He bets and raises you all-in at
>>>>every opportunity.
>
>>>Depends on how long I'm willing to play. I think my EV is very high in this
>>>situation, but I'll have to stop at some point because I'll have too much of
>>>my bankroll on the table.
>
>A. Prock <prock_rgp@pokerstove.com> wrote:
>>Your EV is zero, you have your entire bankroll on the table.
>
>I don't understand. This isn't a tournament - my bankroll much larger than
>my stack.

Ok, in the abstract how you parcel out your bankroll is
moot. If you have a finite bankroll, and your opponent
has an infinte bankroll, then you are screwed. It doesn't
really matter how you cut up the bankrolls and buy-ins.

The effect of course is much less if both bankrolls are finite.
That is, if my bankroll is 50 times your bankroll, you can
bust me if you have sufficient skill.

But in the limit, you are still screwed.

Let me point you here:

http://www.jimgeary.com/poker/DOYLEBIL.HTM

- Andrew


--
http://www.pokerstove.com

[Caleb LaVergne]

> I don't understand. This isn't a tournament - my bankroll much larger than
> my stack. I can rebuy as often as I like. My EV is very high if I have an
> opponent who covers my current stack and is pushing all-in every hand.

First off, let me say two things:

1) I totally understand where you're coming from, Mark. If I can
outplay a guy, and it's a ring game, why does it matter at all how big
our stacks are. At the end of the night, they should all be mine,
right?

2) I'm somewhat of a novice here, so don't be surprised if I'm
totally off-base here.

However, as the previous poster noted, let's set up the following
situation:

You come into a heads-up NLHE game with the biggest chip stack at
$400, and you buy in for $10. Let's even say that you're playing
micro-blind online (UB's $0.01-0.02 NLHE game, for instance) so that
you can wait and wait and wait for your perfect hit. BUT... your
opponent has this one annoying tendency: he will raise you all-in
pre-flop anytime you decide to stay in. So you've got your $10, and
you wait until you hit your AA, KK-type hands, call his all-in bet,
and double up two or three times. Now you're at $80, and he has $320.
Still four times your stack. But he doesn't change strategy at
all... he just keeps pushing. Well, depending a lot on the starting
ratios, if he has you so overstacked (not sure what the right # is),
he'll hit his 277 flop to his 27o before you get the chance to take
all his money. And when he does, you have to start all over again.
And every time he catches lucky (and even AA is only I think 93%
heads-up), he'll make you start all over again, which only increases
his stack size, which only increases the ratio you have to overcome.
Now like I said, I'm a bit of a novice, and don't like to do odds, but
I know I've had my big hands sucked out on often enough that I think
I'd give up quickly in this scenario (or get him to let me buy in for
equal or greater amounts).

That said, I'm not sure that a heads-up example like this can
realistically be used in a multiway ring game setting. I'm fairly
sure a big stack couldn't run over a whole table in the same manner
(but I could be wrong). If your opponent gives you the chance to use
your better poker skill to make SURE you win every time, then it may
be that your skill will overcome his stack advantage and crush him.

Thoughts?

Caleb

[tom]

There is an issue with stack size and blinds. If you
are in a limit game, you want to have enough
chips to play out the hand. In no limit there is
some issue with stack size and blinds.

I havent thought it through yet though.

"Mark Rafn" <dagon@dagon.net> wrote in message
news:bg71gn$mkt$0@216.39.155.144...
> >According to Crazy <bigbignutsnuts@yahoo.com>:
> >>If we are talking a non-tournament ring where buy-in is significantly
> >>larger than the blinds how could a large stack be at any advantage?
>
> A. Prock <prock_rgp@pokerstove.com> wrote:
> >Think of it this way.
> >
> >You are playing with your short stack, and your opponent
> >has an infinite stack. He bets and raises you all-in at
> >every opportunity.
>
> >How long will your money last?
>
> Depends on how long I'm willing to play. I think my EV is very high in
this
> situation, but I'll have to stop at some point because I'll have too much
of
> my bankroll on the table.
>
> Wanna try it? $0.25-$0.50 blinds, you start with any amount you like,
I'll
> start with $20. You go all in every chance, I'll play how I like. Either
> of us can leave at any point, and either can rebuy (you for any amount, me
> for $20). You can find me easily at Binion's all this weekend.
>
> Remember, this is a ring game. We have the same amount of actual money,
but
> he has more on the table. He busts me, I rebuy. When I've won enough of
his
> money, I go home.
>
> >You can't call without the nuts because eventually you will
> >loose to chance.
>
> I can call anytime I figure to be the favorite. I rebuy when I get
unlucky,
> and leave if my stack gets to be high enough compared to my total bankroll
> that I'm unwilling to risk it all on +ev wagers.
>
> >Of course, if your opponent has a finite stack, this doesn't
> >apply. But sufficiently large stacks can employ similar
> >strategys versus sufficiently small stacks, and be virtually
> >guaranteed to win.
>
> In a tourney, sure. Stack size matters a lot. In a ring game, as long as
> you're not playing with scared money, it's not much (if any) disadvantage
to
> have less on the table.
> --
> Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/>

[Crazy]

"Paul L. Schwartz" <see-text@aaa.aaa> wrote in message news:<vii8hh2ioovh47@corp.supernews.com>...
> In NL there will be situations where a big stack will win you a pot that you
> otherwise could not have won, and there will be situations where a small
> stack will win you a pot you could not have won. For a strong player, the
> money won by virtue of having a large stack will in the long far exceed the
> money that could have been won by virtue of having a small stack.

I agree with all of that.

You say a strong player gains EV from having a large stack. (I agree).
Does a weak player therefore lose EV from having a large stack? Would
a weak player have a better EV if he bought in for a smaller stack?

And back to the original question, does an average player gain an EV
from having a large stack or do you have to be strong to gain any
advantage?

[Gary Carson]

On 31 Jul 2003 10:05:16 -0700, bigbignutsnuts@yahoo.com (Crazy) wrote:

>"Paul L. Schwartz" <see-text@aaa.aaa> wrote in message
news:<vii8hh2ioovh47@corp.supernews.com>...
>> In NL there will be situations where a big stack will win you a pot
that you
>> otherwise could not have won, and there will be situations where a
small
>> stack will win you a pot you could not have won. For a strong
player, the
>> money won by virtue of having a large stack will in the long far
exceed the
>> money that could have been won by virtue of having a small stack.
>
>I agree with all of that.
>
>You say a strong player gains EV from having a large stack. (I
agree).
>Does a weak player therefore lose EV from having a large stack? Would
>a weak player have a better EV if he bought in for a smaller stack?

Of course. He maximizes EV with a stack of zero.



Positively 5th Street is 7th on the list this week
Bestseller list
http://garycarson.rediffblogs.com/

[JonCooke]

> But in the limit, you are still screwed.
Andrew, you're being ridiculous. So long as Mark doesn't overplay his
bankroll, he's going to win a lot of money off the infinite stack.

Let's consider the analogy of a winning blackjack player playing
against the house who is to all intents and purposes infinitely
bankrolled. He has +EV on every hand, so will usually be a long run
winner, so long as his risk of going broke is properly managed.

The limit does not approach 0. All winning blackjack players know
that.

As far as I can make out Gary is suggesting a Martingale can be
successful. If the small stack doubles up, just make sure you cover
him and as soon as you get him you'll win his stack. Well, yes you
usually will, but the nights you don't, you'll lose much more than he
will. If he's +EV hand by hand, then he's +EV in the long run. If
someone claimed that you could overcome a 3% edge at roulette by using
a Martingale, you'd laugh at them. Well, I'm laughing at you for
claiming a big stack can overcome a better player's edge merely by
weight of money.

As far as stack size goes, I like to buy in with a decent sized stack
for many reasons. I feel my EV is hihger if I cover the weaker players
stacks. Also, my variance is lower, because all the key pots that come
up have a chance to be the same size. If you buy in short, and build
up, your results are going to depend on winning critical hands at the
end of your session when your stack is biggest. You'll tend to win
very big or go broke unless you pick up early.

[Gary Carson]

On 4 Aug 2003 07:25:02 GMT, dagon@dagon.net (Mark Rafn) wrote:

>A. Prock <prock_rgp@pokerstove.com> wrote:
>>Ok, in the abstract how you parcel out your bankroll is
>>moot. If you have a finite bankroll, and your opponent
>>has an infinte bankroll, then you are screwed.
>
>Not at all. I'm in the land of milk and honey (presuming I have an
edge
>over him in the actual play of the game, which I certainly do if he
pushes
>all-in every hand).
>
>>It doesn't really matter how you cut up the bankrolls and buy-ins.
>
>Sure it does. I can rebuy using a Kelly calculation, and my bankroll
is very
>likely to keep increasing as I play, with almost zero chance of ever
busting.

Not unless ratholeing is allowed.




Gary Carson
The Complete Book of Hold'em Poker is #9 on the bestseller list
List of Top Ten Gambling Books
http://garycarson.rediffblogs.com/
Amercian Casino Guide is #13 last week

[Mark Rafn]

Caleb LaVergne <caleb_l@yahoo.com> wrote:
>1) I totally understand where you're coming from, Mark. If I can
>outplay a guy, and it's a ring game, why does it matter at all how big
>our stacks are. At the end of the night, they should all be mine,
>right?

Nope. My whole point is that at the end of the night in a ring game, there
will still be money on the table at all positions. The chips will NOT all
be mine, nor will they all the the big stack's.

>You come into a heads-up NLHE game with the biggest chip stack at
>$400, and you buy in for $10. Let's even say that you're playing
>micro-blind online (UB's $0.01-0.02 NLHE game, for instance) so that
>you can wait and wait and wait for your perfect hit.

Note: you shouldn't wait for a perfect hit here any more than you would if
your opponent has only $10 as well. It's just a game, he can't win any more
than $10 from you regardless of his stack. Play your best game as normal.

>opponent has this one annoying tendency: he will raise you all-in
>pre-flop anytime you decide to stay in.

Ok, after identifying this tendency, then you go rock. Boring but profitable.

>So you've got your $10, and
>you wait until you hit your AA, KK-type hands, call his all-in bet,
>and double up two or three times. Now you're at $80, and he has $320.
> Still four times your stack. But he doesn't change strategy at
>all... he just keeps pushing. Well, depending a lot on the starting
>ratios, if he has you so overstacked (not sure what the right # is),
>he'll hit his 277 flop to his 27o before you get the chance to take
>all his money. And when he does, you have to start all over again.

Happily. But there's some chance I'll have to leave for some reason
(including "I think I've won enough for now") when I'm up 32x my buyin.
This is actually pretty likely. I'd love to play a game where I have a fair
chance to cash out many times my buyin.

Note that cashing out is key. Against an infinite bankroll if I'm forced to
play for infinite time, I can't win. But that's not what we're talking about
here.

>And every time he catches lucky (and even AA is only I think 93%
>heads-up), he'll make you start all over again, which only increases
>his stack size, which only increases the ratio you have to overcome.

Except it's a ring game. I'll start over again voluntarily sometimes, and put
a bunch of money in my pocket when it happens.
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/>

[Mark Rafn]

Gary Carson <garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>>Sure it does. I can rebuy using a Kelly calculation, and my bankroll
>>is very likely to keep increasing as I play, with almost zero chance of
>>ever busting.

>Not unless ratholeing is allowed.

Of course it's allowed. Every time you go home for the night, break for
a meal, or change tables.

In the game that started this thread ($2-4 NL, max $400 buyin), ratholing
anything over $400 is REQUIRED when you change seats or leave the game for
a bit.
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/>

[A. Prock]

According to Mark Rafn <dagon@dagon.net>:
>Gary Carson <garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>>>Sure it does. I can rebuy using a Kelly calculation, and my bankroll
>>>is very likely to keep increasing as I play, with almost zero chance of
>>>ever busting.
>
>>Not unless ratholeing is allowed.
>
>Of course it's allowed. Every time you go home for the night, break for
>a meal, or change tables.

I would love to see a game where you can change tables, and
still play with the infinite stack.

Actually, I'd love to see a game where you can play with an
infinite stack.

I agree that there are some practical limitations on the toy
example I used to illustrate the point.

Did you read Jim's page? At the bottom of it there's even
a closed form solution to the problem.

Maybe you don't think stack size gives a player and edge.

That's fine too.

- Andrew


--
http://www.pokerstove.com

[Crazy]

garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu (Gary Carson) wrote in message news:<3f2e1031.31323894@news.mindspring.com>...
> On 4 Aug 2003 07:25:02 GMT, dagon@dagon.net (Mark Rafn) wrote:
>
> >A. Prock <prock_rgp@pokerstove.com> wrote:
> >>If you have a finite bankroll, and your opponent
> >>has an infinte bankroll, then you are screwed.
> >
> >Not at all. I'm in the land of milk and honey (presuming I have an
> edge
> >over him in the actual play of the game, which I certainly do if he
> pushes
> >all-in every hand).
> >
> >>It doesn't really matter how you cut up the bankrolls and buy-ins.
> >
> >Sure it does. I can rebuy using a Kelly calculation, and my bankroll
> is very
> >likely to keep increasing as I play, with almost zero chance of ever
> busting.
>
> Not unless ratholeing is allowed.

Forget ratholing. I can get up and leave whenever I want. I can play
this strategy:

I buy in for $1000. I only play AA and then go all in. If I lose I go
home. If I double up 4 times I go home.

If the blinds are small then I have over a 50% chance to turn my
$1,000 into over $15,000. Since I have such a huge +EV I would be
foolish to leave here.

If you want to be clever you can try to figure out when your utility
of money is small enough that the +EV doesn't overcome it. For me it's
probably in the $1,000,000 range. On any given $1,000 buyin I have a
3.9% chance to hit $1,000,000 so I'd better be able to rebuy enough
times to hit my 3.9%. If I want to be 95% certain to walk away a
millionaire I need 76 buyins, or $76,000

You want to be a billionaire? 0.7% chance on any given $1000 buyin. If
you start with $392,000 you have over a 95% chance to walk away a
billionaire. To be a trillionaire you'd need $3,819,000 to have a 95%
chance.

Crazy

[Gary Carson]

On 4 Aug 2003 16:25:02 GMT, dagon@dagon.net (Mark Rafn) wrote:

>Gary Carson <garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>>>Sure it does. I can rebuy using a Kelly calculation, and my
bankroll
>>>is very likely to keep increasing as I play, with almost zero
chance of
>>>ever busting.
>
>>Not unless ratholeing is allowed.
>
>Of course it's allowed. Every time you go home for the night, break
for
>a meal, or change tables.
>

To do Kelly betting you'd have to rathole everytime you won a pot.

Not playing does tend to negate the edge the big stack has.


Gary Carson
The Complete Book of Hold'em Poker is #9 on the bestseller list
List of Top Ten Gambling Books
http://garycarson.rediffblogs.com/
Amercian Casino Guide is #13 last week

[Mark Rafn]

A. Prock <prock_rgp@pokerstove.com> wrote:
>I would love to see a game where you can change tables, and
>still play with the infinite stack.

Every live non-online game I've seen allows this. An infinite stack is
exactly equal to having more money on the table than anyone else along with
the willingness (and ability) to addon between hands if you ever stop being
the biggest stack.

Happens all the time.

>Actually, I'd love to see a game where you can play with an
>infinite stack.

See above. Happens all the time, as long as you have the infinite bankroll to
start with. There are a lot of players who approximate this individually,
and the sum of all opponents is even closer to infinite.

>Maybe you don't think stack size gives a player and edge.

In many cases, it'll give a psychological edge, which could be huge, or could
be zero, depending on the players. I don't think it gives an edge beyond
that, and in some cases can be a detriment.
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/>

[Mark Rafn]

>>>>Sure it does. I can rebuy using a Kelly calculation, and my bankroll
>>>>is very likely to keep increasing as I play, with almost zero
>>>>>chance of ever busting.

>>>Not unless ratholeing is allowed.

>>Of course it's allowed. Every time you go home for the night, break for
>>a meal, or change tables.

Gary Carson <garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>To do Kelly betting you'd have to rathole everytime you won a pot.

To do it perfectly, sure. You can approximate it pretty well by leaving
for a bit everytime you're up a certain amount.

>Not playing does tend to negate the edge the big stack has.

YM "the edge the better player has", which in this scenario is the small
stack. Yes, sitting out costs you EV, but once you've won enough for that
session, that's ok. It's a ring game - there will always be another session.
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/>

[Caleb LaVergne]

> Nope. My whole point is that at the end of the night in a ring game, there
> will still be money on the table at all positions. The chips will NOT all
> be mine, nor will they all the the big stack's.

Agreed. Once you assume that you can (and will) cash out when you're
up a few times your buyin, I think your EV goes hugely positive.
However, if you try to stay and take ALL his chips, I think your EV
CAN swing negative.

> Happily. But there's some chance I'll have to leave for some reason
> (including "I think I've won enough for now") when I'm up 32x my buyin.
> This is actually pretty likely. I'd love to play a game where I have a fair
> chance to cash out many times my buyin.
> Note that cashing out is key. Against an infinite bankroll if I'm forced to
> play for infinite time, I can't win. But that's not what we're talking about
> here.

I agree... I should have thought of this, but didn't, due to a
prevailing "Don't let a sucker walk away with his money" philosophy.
However, if you can go rock and make sure you walk away at 8x your
buyin, then the ability to stand up and walk away makes all the
difference.

In addition, if the play goes past pre-flop, a superior poker player
should be able to reduce his downside even more with better post-flop
play and reads.

In conclusion, I'm not sure I see any actual advantage of a big stack
in NL. However, the fact that so many players hold this belief DOES
mean that the big stack most likely holds a psychological edge.

Caleb

[Gary Carson]

On 4 Aug 2003 13:28:26 -0700, caleb_l@yahoo.com (Caleb LaVergne)
wrote:

>> Nope. My whole point is that at the end of the night in a ring
game, there
>> will still be money on the table at all positions. The chips will
NOT all
>> be mine, nor will they all the the big stack's.
>
>Agreed. Once you assume that you can (and will) cash out when you're
>up a few times your buyin, I think your EV goes hugely positive.

If you're going to play kelly bets you have to cashout whenever you
get ahead by any amount.



Gary Carson
The Complete Book of Hold'em Poker is #9 on the bestseller list
List of Top Ten Gambling Books
http://garycarson.rediffblogs.com/
Amercian Casino Guide is #13 last week

[Mark Rafn]

Gary Carson <garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>I did a little markov chain to calculate the result of the following.
>You buy in for $10. I have infinte stack. $1 ante. I go all in
>every time. You call if you have AA. When you get over $10 you
>cashout.
>98% of the time you go busted. .4% each for ending up with 12, 14,
>16, 18, 20

That wasn't the scenario. It was $.01-$.02 blinds. With $1 ante and a $10
buyin, you need to play a lot more hands. Something like any pair, any ace,
any king perhaps.

>But, I hope this is illustrative of how bad an idea it is to wait for
>AA with a short stack against an aggresive big stack.

Absolutely. I only said to go rock after the blinds were made so small
relative to my buyin that it wasn't worth risking anything else. If the antes
are bigger, play looser.
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/>

[A. Prock]

I love the part where you snip what I wrote:

>>Did you read Jim's page? At the bottom of it there's even
>>a closed form solution to the problem.

And then go on to say the following about large stack sizes:

According to Mark Rafn <dagon@dagon.net>:
>In many cases, it'll give a psychological edge, which could be huge, or could
>be zero, depending on the players. I don't think it gives an edge beyond
>that, and in some cases can be a detriment.

So while you didn't answer my question explicitly,
you certainly did implicitly.

- Andrew

--
http://www.pokerstove.com

[Mike McClain]

Andrew...

How does showing that an infinite stack is going to beat a
non-infinite stack in a freezeout prove that there is an inherent
advantage to having a larger stack of chips on the table?

The question was not whether or not it is better to have more
wealth, but whether or not an increased stack size at the table
provides a benefit. If you are trying to show that, then you need
to be prepared to take two individuals with an equal-sized bankroll,
and have one person put more on the table than the other person,
and have that other person do rebuys as necessary, and show that
one has an edge over the other.

Why do you get the infinite bankroll? Why can't rebuy-guy have
the infinite bankroll? Would you then be proving that a small stack
krushes big stacks?



Mike.

[Dumb Ol Floyd]

On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 21:04:37 GMT, garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu
(Gary Carson) wrote:

>I did a little markov chain to calculate the result of the following.
>
>You buy in for $10. I have infinte stack. $1 ante. I go all in
>every time. You call if you have AA. When you get over $10 you
>cashout.
>
>98% of the time you go busted. .4% each for ending up with 12, 14,
>16, 18, 20
>
>I did the matrix inversion with excel, so I didn't want to do a bigger
>state space that starting you with 1000 chips would require.
>
>But, I hope this is illustrative of how bad an idea it is to wait for
>AA with a short stack against an aggresive big stack.

I wish I had enough book learnin to know what the fuck this means.

[Gary Carson]

On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 20:08:23 -0700, Dumb Ol Floyd <> wrote:

>On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 21:04:37 GMT, garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu
>(Gary Carson) wrote:
>
>>I did a little markov chain to calculate the result of the
following.
>>
>>You buy in for $10. I have infinte stack. $1 ante. I go all in
>>every time. You call if you have AA. When you get over $10 you
>>cashout.
>>
>>98% of the time you go busted. .4% each for ending up with 12, 14,
>>16, 18, 20
>>
>>I did the matrix inversion with excel, so I didn't want to do a
bigger
>>state space that starting you with 1000 chips would require.
>>
>>But, I hope this is illustrative of how bad an idea it is to wait
for
>>AA with a short stack against an aggresive big stack.
>
>I wish I had enough book learnin to know what the fuck this means.


It means I can calculate the probabilities of going home broke or
going home with money if you play according to the stratagies above.
Calculating that requires me to form a matrix of size NxN where N is
the number of antes in your starting stack. So, if you start with $10
and the ante is $1 I need 100 numbers to calculate the probability
you'll go busted. That probabability is .98.

But, if you want to start with $1,000 I'd have to have a matrix of
1,000,000 million numbers to do the caluclation. If I wanted to write
a computer program I could generate those million numbers easily
enough, but it's just too large for me to do it with Excel.
Gary Carson
The Complete Book of Hold'em Poker is #9 on the bestseller list
List of Top Ten Gambling Books
http://garycarson.rediffblogs.com/
Amercian Casino Guide is #13 last week

[Mike McClain]

"A. Prock" <prock_rgp@pokerstove.com> wrote:
> According to Mike McClain <mmcclain_hatefnspam@omsoft.com>:
> >Andrew...
> >
> >How does showing that an infinite stack is going to beat a
> >non-infinite stack in a freezeout prove that there is an inherent
> >advantage to having a larger stack of chips on the table?
>
> If by show, you mean prove, then it doesn't. It was just
> an illustration to show that stack size does matter, at
> least in the limit.
>
> I'll concede that the illustration is certainly nothing
> like real NL ring game conditions.
>

I don't have a problem with that at all. However, I don't think
that you've shown that stack size does matter. You've changed
the stack sizes, but you've also changed another variable:
bankroll.

To figure out which of these changed variables is causing this
effect, you'd need to examine a second example. Try changing
the stack sizes without changing the bankrolls, or make it so that
the smaller stack has the greater bankroll. Do you still get the
same results? If not, then perhaps you need to presume that
changing the bankroll was critical, not changing the stack size.

>
> Did you want me to actually try and come up with a proof of
> this for live NL ring poker? I'm not sure that it's possible
> without abstracting fundamental details out of the game.
>

I'm quite comfortable with 'abstracting fundamental details' in an effort
to try to understand a problem. What I am saying is that your efforts
to do so in this particular case have not fulfilled that goal at all. This is
not because it has not simplified the problem, and it is not because the
people you are trying to explain it to are not bright enough to understand;
it is because this particular abstraction was not in any way related
to the original problem.

If the original problem was: "Are the chances of winning a freezeout
related to the relative stack sizes of the two players?", then I would
say, hurrah!, showing that an infinite stack size is going to always win
would be a good step in showing that stack sizes are almost certainly
relevant.

But that was not the original problem, and doing the infinite stack
thing while changing the bankroll as well did not help this particular
problem.



Mike.

[Mark Rafn]

A. Prock <prock_rgp@pokerstove.com> wrote:
>I love the part where you snip what I wrote:
>>>Did you read Jim's page? At the bottom of it there's even
>>>a closed form solution to the problem.

It didn't (and still doesn't) seem relevant to the question. It's a solution
to an unrelated problem, whereby the goal is to bust someone, not to maximize
your own EV.

>And then go on to say the following about large stack sizes:

>According to Mark Rafn <dagon@dagon.net>:
>>In many cases, it'll give a psychological edge, which could be huge, or could
>>be zero, depending on the players. I don't think it gives an edge beyond
>>that, and in some cases can be a detriment.

>So while you didn't answer my question explicitly,
>you certainly did implicitly.

I don't understand. Is my post unclear? I don't think there's any inherent
advantage to a big stack over a short stack in a NL ring game where both have
sufficient bankrolls and are able to play well. Further, if the big stack
plays badly by pushing all-in every hand, the short stack has a huge
advantage.

Some people think that the big stack gives a large edge somehow, which I
can only assume they learned from tourneys, where it is true. It's not true,
modulo psychological effects, in ring games.
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/>

[A. Prock]

According to Mike McClain <mmcclain_hatefnspam@omsoft.com>:
>"A. Prock" <prock_rgp@pokerstove.com> wrote:
>>
>> If by show, you mean prove, then it doesn't. It was just
>> an illustration to show that stack size does matter, at
>> least in the limit.
>>
>> I'll concede that the illustration is certainly nothing
>> like real NL ring game conditions.
>
>I don't have a problem with that at all. However, I don't think
>that you've shown that stack size does matter. You've changed
>the stack sizes, but you've also changed another variable:
>bankroll.

Ok,

I see where you and Mark are coming from. I've got a
test to finish grading, so I'll have to come up with a
clever and witless response later.

However, as a practical matter, I think it's clear that
you maximize your ev versus a single player (over whom
you have an edge) if you have at least as many chips
as they do.

This is probably the reason why players are dumping chips
in the online games. They feel they have an edge and want
to have the chips to battle the other fishes.

I'll try and come up with some kind of insight into the
general stack size/edge while zooming across the east bay
on BART.

- Andrew



--
http://www.pokerstove.com