Quote:
Originally Posted by Monteroy
Where is the bias? I proposed a math experiment within your model of how you believe the room works. I quoted you to show your perspective as well. If you want to make anything more clear there then post whatever you like in that thread you believe is appropriate. I in fact strongly encourage you to post your beliefs about your 30 hand sample or how you believe that the extreme long term does not offset a short term tiny little streak. Of course you will not do that, but if you did it would be good for a chuckle short term.
As usual, you made statements that are completely false in the post.
Monteroy, the problem is that you are just not smart enough to understand statistical modelling. Therefore, you are setting up incorrect statistical modeling as it relates to what your are trying to prove. Jay gave us statistical analysis on your model, but he edited his post when he realized it did not apply to the situation you are supporting. That is the core issue. You do not have the correct model to support your position, but you think you do (just like you thought you wanted to be Player A in my model).
So you need for someone to set up a model for you, then do a statistical analysis. I set up one scenario, of many, that could be done to illustrate how your model has to be set up in order to support you position. (Sorry you could not do the math yourself and figure this out since it was simple math.)
A model for random coin flips is not a poker model. Your theory, in a perfect vacuum, would produces profits based upon blinds stolen as you contend. But the profits are small and risky. Probability does not work in a perfect vacuum. There are short term variances in which you are not accounting for in your model. These variances can lead someone to gain a significant edge over someone leading them to dominate the session.
If the poker game was uncapped, and you could immediately buy in and match your opponent, then you could reduce the impact of the short term variance, but this only increases your exposure for what the stats show is minimal EV from the blinds. You can imply a lot of 'ifs' to make it fit your position. The game in not uncapped at Global Poker.
You have to present to me a model not for coin flips, but to support your assertion that pushing all-in, in a poker game with accumulating stacks, with a 50% or less chance of winning if called, will produce a positive EV. You are not accounting for the accumulating stacks at all in your modeling. Your statistically probability is based upon the events of the current flip being the same as the previous flip, but you are not accounting for the accumulating stacks and how it changes the monetary outcome of the flip.
Your confusion is concerning the expected outcome of the flip (did I win or not) as to the amount wager in the flip (how much did I win or lose and what is my stack in relationship to my opponent). You can win all the blinds in an orbit, then flip with someone who has you covered, now all of those blinds you won previously are now lost. The basis of your model is that you win the blinds. In the model I gave as an example, you would win the blinds 7 straight times, then enter the BB and lose all of them to Player B who had you covered.
There are ways to use the strategy and be profitable, but it is by no means by going all in on every hand. Position 3 bet raises in BB, SB, and on the button will allow you to show a profit in the game against folds. A profit much better than just getting the blinds. Targeting players with shorter stacks than you is also key.
The style you wanted me to showcase to exploit my theory just does not work; however, there is one that does. That is not the point of this thread at all and we really need to get back on point. But again, I think all you are trying to do is get me off point.