hehe.. thanks. That was pretty funny.

I heard a good one the other day.. something like "I would beat you so bad anybody who looks like you will feel it."
Just stick a "prolly" in there someplace, to make it sound like your own invention.

No.

I couldnt read it all and I thought you would've been seriously owned already. But you are talking nonsense. If theres 10k starting stack and the pro gives you his first stack, then you have 20k and he has 10k. You are at a big advantage...

Then you're talking about the pro quadrupling up with a flush draw... well maybe in 10 dollars online tournaments, not 10k live ones.

It is always good to have someone spew with draws etc. I seriously dont get your logic.

Whats wrong with that? Nothing to hate imo.

wow.. you doubled to 20K. Nice job.
On the very next hand, you're dealt AKs, and Jason Mercier over there in seat 8, who happens to have a mountain of somewhere near 150K in front of him, tries to move you all in again..
gl... seriously.

like it or not when you look at it like this, its hard to argue.

There is more than one way to look at it.
I haven't argued against the validity of the numbers, nor have I seen anyone else do so.
The math seems perfectly solid.

If I ever build a bot for online micro-stakes I will be sure to revisit this thread for programming ideas.

What is that system... The Martingale system. That one is hard to argue against, from the mathematical point of view. Casinos believe it works, which is why tables have betting limits.

Level jumped the shark imo.

it's 4am.. if you're searching for quality, what are you doing in nvg?

Jason has ATs so with your AKs you are a 71% favorite.
Flop:
Turn:
River:

Sorry guys but Joe and Mike er correct. I think this post proves it. What more evidence do you guys need?

Lets put our money where our mouths are..

Who among you would stake a one-bullet player in this tournament? You'll be committed to actually do it next year. You can pick the player.

I don't think anyone would argue that deep pocket pros getting the money in 35/65 because they have the bankroll to reenter multiple times is not +EV and +ROI OVERALL FOR THE REST OF THE FIELD. There is more money in the prize pool and the solid players will eventually get the money...but

Here is a scenario that actually happened back in the days when the WSOP had rebuy tourneys:

Daniel Negreanu (a notorious rebuyer at the time) would sit in a $1K event and just shove all in every hand in order to get as many chips on his table as possible...thereby creating some big stacks at his table and also creating an advantage over other tables who were not spewing and rebuying. (I think he stated he spent $23K on a $1K rebuy one time)

As 1938 Ford said...this is perfectly legal and within the rules..and it's also an optimal strategy for that set of rules. You get a big stack early....your table breaks...the rebuy period is over..and you can bully the smaller stacks.

The questions for me are twofold:

(1) Is this good for tournament poker overall?

I tend to think like some have mentioned that it's a negative overall....even for the pros. You are eliminating the very players that you want to face in the next tournament because they see that in order to "play" this format correctly you have to have 15 times the buyin available. Getting knocked out with KK vs T7os will make you think twice about what structures/rules you want to invest $1K (or $5K or $10K) in.

(2) Is there an unfair advantage for the pros who can afford multiple reentries?

If the rules of a tournament are established and stuck to after the 1st entry is paid...then no. If you know you only have one bullet to the event and you know that several players will be taking a high variance line and be reentering multiple times...then you have a choice...don't play the event.

If the rules are changed AFTER entries are paid and satty winners have tickets...then I think it is unfair to the rec player...you were expecting to only have to fade the craziness for a couple levels and now you have to do it for 9 levels or whatever?...that doesn't seem fair to me.

Ok...flame on with the "you are an idiot and you should stop posting now" speeches.

Is this being done because there are fewer entries in the 10ks these days and they need to find a way to jack the prize pools? What is the rationale behind this decision?

If so I think this could work temporarily in that regard. Clearly this favors the best poker players in the world and is -ev for everyone else. This will quickly eliminate any regular recreational players and it will significantly decrease the value of winning a prize package or satttying in. This is probably of little consequence as these players make up a small percentage of the field.

It will however draw in very wealthy fish, to what extent remains to be seen. Probably quite a few of them in the beggining. Top pros will obv love this.

HOwever, if this is instituted in the long run, I think you'll end up with field of about 50-75 of the best players in the world and some assortment of recreational whales.

They did this at the Deepstacks ME $2.5K buy-in this past week. After a few hours they had just over 200 players so they decided to extend the re-buy and buy-in. Then they announced that they were going to extend it the entire first day AND you could buy in the second day before the action started. Just changed the rules as they went along.

I thought it was great. I'm just a recreational player and for me, the more exposure I could get at a table against some of the full time players can only help my game.

There is a great deal of satisfaction in sending a guy to the rail....for the forth time in one game.

Amazing how many of them claim they made it all back on the football game that they seemed more interested in than the poker game at hand.

Sorry I couldn't get through the last two pages (50ppp) of this so sorry if this has already been answered. This math maybe isn't 100% accurate but will probably be pretty close.

Lets say theoretically we have the following: There were 100 entries already. We assume there are no other rebuys so sake of simplicity. All ROIs comparative to the field and without rake. I couldn't find the rake for this thing so I'm going to assume it is 5%. I am assuming rebuys are raked.

Player A: Solid winner 10% roi stack = $10k * 110% = $11k
Player B: Solid winner 10% roi = $10k * 110% = $11k
Player C: Losing player -20% roi = $10k * 80% = $8k
Player D: Losing player -20% roi = $10m * 80% = $8k
Total EV of the players: $38k
Total Buyin of the 4 players: $40k

The first one is the above as described.

Player A busts Player B. Player B rebuys. Other players still have original chip total.

Player A busts Player C. Player C rebuys. Other players still have original chip total.

Player C busts Player A. Player A rebuys. Other players have original chip total.

Player B busts Player C. Player A rebuys. Other players have original chip total.



Is it -EV for the field if 'good players' to rebuy? Doesn't matter who re-bought. Always depends who won the chips. If a winning player won the chips then it leaches ~0.2% EV from all players. If a losing player won the chips, then reverse leaches from all players about the same. (Ala net increase or decrease of roi by proportion of chips)

As a amateur I would love pro's taking chances against me they normally wouldn't. I realize that they have an advantage but beating DN or Vanessa in a few pots would make the experience more worthwhile to me as I most likely wont win the tournament anyway.

Can you confirm this is a joke? It must be, but I can't tell anymore.

When they start shooting you in the face when you don't rebuy at the Belligo, this analogy might start being relevant.

Even if they did, in the case of Russian Roulette, it's still essentially a math question: Is the quality of your life increased by enough from winning that it outweighs the fact that one time out of six you get shot in the face? For most of us probably not, but if a guy is going to die from cancer in a week or freeze to death from being homeless, the offer might start looking attractive.

For most people, however, the value of their life is worth more than any amount of money, so they would obviously not take this bet. It's kind of bad BRM anyway....


Just send me a PM and tell me you're a level. I won't tell anyone. I just have to know. I just can't believe someone could sit and think logically and genuinely come up with what you just typed.

If I had the bankroll and could pick the player I would absolutely stake someone in this tournament for one bullet. My chances of winning are less than staking someone with a ton of bullets, but (provided I get to pick a +EV player) my chances of winning go down by less than an equivalent amount of how much money I spend.

Simple question:

Assuming you have a bankroll that can withstand the loss (that is, you have no desperate immediate need for more cash) which bet would you rather take:

$1,000 for a 5% chance to win $50,000
$1,000 for a 52% chance to win another $1,000

Answer will be revealing imo.

Doyle Brunson Five Diamond World Poker Classic
(TV + Live Stream)

Dec 4 - 9, 2012
Bellagio
Las Vegas, Nevada

Players Left: 306 of 374
Prize Pool: $0
Buy-In: $10,000 + $300 = $10,300
Blinds: 150-300
Ante: 25

Chipcount
1 Jeremy Kottler 134,975
2 Randal Flowers 119,400
3 Russell Thomas 108,000
4 Gheorghe Gradinaru 107,425
5 Shawn Cunix 102,000
6 Dana Kellstrom 99,200


The Re-entries are no doubt raked.

There may be enough questions worth answering about rebuy tournaments to fill a book..

If you don't know who the idiots are in this thread, then you are the idiot.

I always liked rebuy tournaments because it allowed a poor kid like me to play a tourney with a much higher average buy in than normal.

"All of the examples above assume a stopping point, such as running out of money - and that is where the Martingale System really falls down. The system only works if you can continue betting if you lose, and in theory if you had enough cash to keep going on forever eventually you would recover your money. But lets say Bill Gates wants to try his hand at the Martingale System and sits down with $50 billion. The casino has an insurance policy against this - table limits."
http://www.goodbonusguide.com/casino...eory-myth.html

Notice that the only true fault in the Martingale System is not a mathematical fault. It's more a philosophical thing.. a conjecture.. a guess.
Nobody has an infinite amount of money.

Based strictly on the math, it works.
In real life, it doesn't work.

I know you're trying to support the math-side of the argument...
Anybody seriously considering playing the game should expect to be locked up for their own protection.

.

What part of that do you disagree with?

Statistical accuracy improves with the number of trials.
The more hands you play, the more likely some calculated value can be "expected", and the more valid is the supposition that the value will apply to you.
... but an older person will play fewer hands.. or will roll the dice some lesser number of times than a younger player (assuming they both play with the same frequency and they live an average lifespan).
Therefore the expected values for the two samples should be different.

To put it simply, everything becomes more risky as you get older.