Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Negreanu
They absolutely have mathematical incentive to ALWAYS play...
I've been wondering about this...
When Fishman folded Aces when he was up $140,000 or so, is this necessarily a -EV play?
On one side, in theory, every hand that the LC enters into with the pros is -EV given that they have it over him.
Additionally, not playing anything costed him $8-10 grand in antes and blinds, but all but guarantees the $50k NAPT passport.
Therefore, not playing nets him +$40,000 in equity when entering a pot should, in theory, be -EV.
But on the other side, the LC has additional 'free' leverage given that he cannot take away the initial $100,000.
What are your thoughts on this, does the LC
really always have an incentive to play?