******OFFICIAL STARS REGULARS THREAD******

[kutty]

cool thanks

[wazz]

Originally Posted by krmont22

I'm not really sure what you mean, but if you define good as getting it in with avg equity over 50pct and bad as below that, the good player is very insignficantly more likely to run below ev and the bad player above ev.

You've got this wrong; if you're a favourite in a pot, you're more likely to run above ev than below.

[Pg9]

Originally Posted by krmont22

Best of luck to everyone this year!

Gonna follow your blog - good luck to you too.

[Recon20k]

Originally Posted by wazz

You've got this wrong; if you're a favourite in a pot, you're more likely to run above ev than below.

lol, never considered this.

[sauce123]

im systematically playing a style to optimize running below ev in HEM, gogogogo 2010

[krmont22]

Originally Posted by wazz

You've got this wrong; if you're a favourite in a pot, you're more likely to run above ev than below.

I'm not an expert, but I remember a thread specifically about this and it was something to do with the binomial something or other and the fact that the hand that is behind has more opportunity to run hot like in an 80/20. The 20 side could win all 100 and run 80 buyins over expectation, but the the 80 can only run 20 over at its maximum. Maybe you are right in the fact that the favorite is more likely to run a little bit over, but the favorite is also more likely to run very far below while the person getting it in bad usually runs a little bad, but can run insanely good.

The binomial distribution is asymmetrical, which leads to unintuitive properties like this one.

In 100 trials with a 80% chance of winning each one, a player will win:
81% with probability 0.098074286
79% with probability 0.094571633
and
70% with probability 0.005189643
90% with probability 0.00336282

[KingDan]

if one of yall can hook me up some stars gold id really appreciate it

[wazz]

Yeah, you're right, if your expectation in a pot is high, it has the capability for further movement down than up, and vice-versa. But that's completely aside the point. If we get it in and I have 80% equity and you have 20%, 80% of the time I win the whole pot and therefore run above equity. If we get it in twice and I have an average of 80% equity each time, I run above equity 64% of the time, exactly at equity 32% of the time, and below equity 4%. Change it to 60% equity: we run above 36% of the time, at equity 48% of the time, and below 16%.

It's sorta like the arguments about buyin size that often comes up live. If I sit with £2k and you sit with £100, I could argue that my upside is only £100 and yours is £2k, so it's massively unfair. Well, that's stupid. You can reload; I am free to stop playing; and even if we completely disregard those two facts, if it were in fact the case the guy buying in shorter has an edge, then every tournament would always be +EV for everyone who entered it, as 1st place is always much more than your buyin.

[kisada]

what you're saying makes a whole lot of sense, wazz. i never thought about it like that.

but i wonder: is that effect greater than the effect of the times when you do get it in as a 65/35 and lose and you get a massive change in EV? getting it in good repeatedly will slowly add to your being over EV but the game's volatility shows itself more than often enough to correct that EV, right? like i'm not saying it should go one way or the other, but isn't it supposed to correct itself?

when we're on the losing side of those 80/20 pots, because the effect is so great we only need it to happen a couple times to mess up all those times we won instead of lost, right?

[krmont22]

so a fish called me down and lost and then spammed chat asking why he lost claiming he had the winner..then he does it again and explains what hand he thought he had, and it's clearly that he thinks you can play 2, 3, or 4 cards out of your hand.

Which option is unethical in your opinion:

A: Ignoring him
B: Telling him the rules

Does your opinion change if its HU instead of a full 6 Max?

[donkey_king]

If he's that dumb it's better to tell him the rules and make him feel like he's not being cheated rather than have him quit on you.

[m_reed05]

Don't think either are unethical, but I'd probably just tell him the rules.

[krmont22]

I felt bad and told him the rules, but I wasn't sure how the other people at the table would feel about it. It's obviously not berating the fish, but it can certainly hack into their profit margins if he starts realizing he doesn't have straight flushes/full houses when in reality he has 2 pair or something.

[kutty]

l0l ignore him 100%

[lwrunner103]

Originally Posted by gordo16

I am going to make a legitimate effort to not play above 10/20 for the entire year of 2010. Let there be grind!

terrible goal.