They have a rule that if they get too deep, they can recycle the money and move to a new table with the standard buy-in again. So you need 8 tables to be able to do that.

Durrrr bought them with his iron man medals DURRRR.

You actually need 1 respawning table. With 8 you could run out pretty quick in an aggressive match with the 30min waiting period.

Actually he bought the non "challenge" tables with the medals. There are 8 challange tables that he didn't buy.

I agree completely, but I'm not sure Full Tilt has the ability to do that on a cash table, I.E why they made 8. I think the 30 min recycle time is a global variable for all cash play.

LoL at Ziigg's chat re: Cole and Raptor

Yeah. Im guessing Patrik requested those challenge tables, since he is red pro.

I got the original figure from other forum, but rechecked with the odds calculator of cardplayer.com. As I mentioned, this was only for those 6 biggest hands, not the whole session. Anyway, here you really see the variance in PLO. 50k hands should be enough to eliminate it almost completely though.

The posts that Durr owned PA just demonstrate the ignorance of the posters. At this stage it is impossible to say anything. Based on luck neutral analysis of the first 3% of hands played, PA seems to be a bit ahead, but the number of the hands is way too small to make any conclusions.

Irony, irony, irony.

This 'luck neutral analysis' is only based on the EV of the all-in hands, which is an incredibly small part of the larger variance picture. Stop spouting rubbish.

And he thinks that 50k hands is enough to nullify luck variance, especially in PLO...LAWL

Heads-up, I think so too. I think durrrr and PA would probably agree. If one of them is significantly ahead after 50K hands, he is the best player (at least at 4-tabling online).

Maybe I missed it... Is there a time limit on completing this thing? Does anything besides 'honor' prevent a player with a likely insurmountable deficit somewhere along the way from stalling and/or refusing to play, so as to avoid paying the $.5 million or $1.5 million loser fee at the "end"?

lol, someone who has patience to teach simple math and statistics, please answer to this expert .

Quitting while behind means you lose the side bet too. They have acknowledged this as one of the rules. There could come a time when that may be the best choice for one of the players.

I might be reading your post incorrectly, but he's absolutely right.

Edit: that's assuming this 'neutral luck' is the same thing as the pokerEV graphs. But either way it doesn't say everything, not even close.

Wait, what? Reading comprehension FTL? I'm saying that 50k hands is NOT enough. If we run the EV calcs, we may very well find one player ran >+500k and the match result could be less than the EV difference.

I wrote that the sample was too small and said that based on that Tom was running above EV and Patrick had an edge. Now please tell me what is not true there? Ok, so it doesn't say everything, and I completely agree with that. Anyway with this statement we come to conclusion, that Patrick was then ahead in the hands where they did not go all in or even to show down.

Maybe Patrik got lucky in hands where they did not go AI, but I did not analyze those. As I said based on the sample.

I am eagerly waiting that you explain me the other variance factors, that turn my statement to rubbish.

P.S.
I personally have huge respect for both players and enjoy the match and do not have a personal favorite amongst those 2.

I'm interested in betting some $ in PA on this one, what is the line?

I understood you, and I just disagree. The showdown % in their HU PLO will be less than half, so what determined the winner the rest (majority) of the time? You won't know the hole cards and can't do any EV calculations. I'm saying IMO 50K heads-up is enough hands to determine the best player at the game structure being played.

LOL at Zig wanting to flip for 660k. What a sick ****.

Sorry, but maybe go learn some math...not to be mean, but the variability when two close matched individuals play is HUGE. Even a 60/40 difference in skill will require much larger samples than suggested by intuition. IIRC it takes something like a best of >200 games for a 55/45 team sport (like the world series) to statistically get over variance. So, the closer two opponents are in skill, the number of trials to shake out the better player is huge...and in HU PLO it's a f*$kload more than just 50k hands.

very unlikely it ends early.

These 2 need to play another session just so there will be something new to talk about here lol

I'm inclined to agree with you but I think it's a bit rude to say 'go learn some math' and then only quantify your claims by saying 'a f*$kload more'. We can't really gain anything from the baseball comparison as no one would know how many hands would be the equivalent of a game etc...

The fact that Leatherass can have 100k+ hand B/E stretches in 6max NLHE should say enough. Move to HU and variance goes much higher...move to PLO and it goes much higher. So, HU PLO for 50k hands is still uber variance.

Really? I'd argue the opposite. (But I agree w/ rest of post)