| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Erland Gadde
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 10:00 pm Post subject: Stupid question |
 |
|
This is probably a stupid question, but there is one thing about Poker
I don't understand: Why doesn't the richest player win every time,
regardless of the cards, by betting more than the other players can
afford?
Regards,
Erland |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cjv1212
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 10:00 pm Post subject: Re: Stupid question |
|
|
because a short stacked player can still get a piece of the action,
equal to what he has in chips.
so if you have 1000, and I raise to 4000, you can still put the
thousand in, and the 3000 gets returned to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris in Texas
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 10:00 pm Post subject: Re: Stupid question |
|
|
On May 3 2005 4:51 PM, Erland Gadde wrote:
| Quote: | This is probably a stupid question, but there is one thing about Poker
I don't understand: Why doesn't the richest player win every time,
regardless of the cards, by betting more than the other players can
afford?
|
Almost all poker games are played with what's called "table stakes", meaning the
player can only play with the amount of money he has on the table before the
start of a hand. He cannot go "into his pocket" for more money during a hand.
Along with this, this means that he has a right to participate in a pot, even if
he is put "all-in". Any bets in the pot after he is all-in he has no rights to,
but he still has rights to the pot for all bets up to what his table stake was
at the start of the hand.
So, if player A has $1,000, player B has $700 and player C has $450, and Player
A bets the full $1,000 and both B and C call, then player C participates with A
and B in a pot of $1,350 which contains $450 from all three players, and players
A and B compete for the "side pot" of $500, which contains $250 from each of
them, and Player A takes back his uncalled bet of $300 since no other player in
the hand can match it.
Hope I wasn't too confusing, I'm on the phone and trying to type and talk at
same time.
Chris
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MysteriAce
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 10:30 pm Post subject: Re: Stupid question |
|
|
On May 3 2005 2:51 PM, Erland Gadde wrote:
| Quote: | This is probably a stupid question, but there is one thing about Poker
I don't understand: Why doesn't the richest player win every time,
regardless of the cards, by betting more than the other players can
afford?
Regards,
Erland
|
"Table Stakes"
Anyone involved in the hand can call for up to the amount they have in
front of them. If you have a million dollars in front of you, and bet it
all, but I only have a hundred left, I have the right to call for my
hundred dollars, effectively reducing your bet to one hundred dollars
(assuming you and I are the only ones left in the pot).
You cannot win a pot by "betting more than what I can call", because I can
always call for whatever money I have left in front of me, and if I win
you must match that amount.
~ MysteriAce
"I'm a lot like Jesus, but not in a sacrilegious way"
______________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bonkey
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 12:30 am Post subject: Re: Stupid question |
|
|
On May 3 2005 4:51 PM, Erland Gadde wrote:
| Quote: | This is probably a stupid question, but there is one thing about Poker
I don't understand: Why doesn't the richest player win every time,
regardless of the cards, by betting more than the other players can
afford?
Regards,
Erland
|
The only thing to add to the other posts here is. Poker is portrayed incorrectly
on TV and in movies. You are exactly right if it really worked in the way
portrayed in movies, then whoever had the most money would always win and there
really would be no game at all.
--Bonkey
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brewmaster
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 1:00 am Post subject: Re: Stupid question |
|
|
On May 3 2005 5:00 PM, bonkey wrote:
| Quote: | On May 3 2005 4:51 PM, Erland Gadde wrote:
This is probably a stupid question, but there is one thing about Poker
I don't understand: Why doesn't the richest player win every time,
regardless of the cards, by betting more than the other players can
afford?
Regards,
Erland
The only thing to add to the other posts here is. Poker is portrayed
incorrectly
on TV and in movies. You are exactly right if it really worked in the way
portrayed in movies, then whoever had the most money would always win and
there
really would be no game at all.
--Bonkey
|
However, say we are playing heads-up NLHE and you have 1000 in chips, and
I have 1 million. If you go all in on every hand, and I call with any two
cards, I am almost 100% sure that I will beat you for all your chips,
usually within 5 hands. Even if you keep winning, 1000 -> 2000 -> 4000 ->
8000 -> 16000, etc. You still won't be able to ever hurt me. Ergo, the
person with "the most money", if it is prohibitively more than the rest of
the players, SHOULD win every time.
-----
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Schmedley
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 4:30 am Post subject: Re: Stupid question |
|
|
"bonkey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| Quote: |
On May 3 2005 4:51 PM, Erland Gadde wrote:
This is probably a stupid question, but there is one thing about Poker
I don't understand: Why doesn't the richest player win every time,
regardless of the cards, by betting more than the other players can
afford?
Regards,
Erland
The only thing to add to the other posts here is. Poker is portrayed
incorrectly
on TV and in movies. You are exactly right if it really worked in the way
portrayed in movies, then whoever had the most money would always win and
there
really would be no game at all.
--Bonkey
I recall some history channel or somesuch in which the old west card games |
were actually played this way: if you could not afford to call, you were out
of the hand.
| Quote: |
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
XaQ Morphy
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 3:30 pm Post subject: Re: Stupid question |
|
|
| Quote: | However, say we are playing heads-up NLHE and you have 1000 in chips, and
I have 1 million. If you go all in on every hand, and I call with any two
cards, I am almost 100% sure that I will beat you for all your chips,
usually within 5 hands. Even if you keep winning, 1000 -> 2000 -> 4000 -
8000 -> 16000, etc. You still won't be able to ever hurt me. Ergo, the
person with "the most money", if it is prohibitively more than the rest of
the players, SHOULD win every time.
|
Tell that to Doyle. Doyle: 1.3 million in chips, Sklansky, 130k in chips.
I believe the blinds were 20k/40k.
Morphy
_____________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FellKnight
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 4:00 pm Post subject: Re: Stupid question |
|
|
On May 4 2005 8:08 AM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
| Quote: | However, say we are playing heads-up NLHE and you have 1000 in chips, and
I have 1 million. If you go all in on every hand, and I call with any two
cards, I am almost 100% sure that I will beat you for all your chips,
usually within 5 hands. Even if you keep winning, 1000 -> 2000 -> 4000 -
8000 -> 16000, etc. You still won't be able to ever hurt me. Ergo, the
person with "the most money", if it is prohibitively more than the rest of
the players, SHOULD win every time.
Tell that to Doyle. Doyle: 1.3 million in chips, Sklansky, 130k in chips.
I believe the blinds were 20k/40k.
Morphy
|
Little different when it takes 3 double ups to change the chip lead than
in the example above where it takes 9.
Fell
--
Join Party Poker! http://www.partypoker.com/index.htm?wm=2562206
My Blog: http://FellAtTheWSOP.blogspot.com/
----
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 4:30 pm Post subject: Re: Stupid question |
|
|
"I recall some history channel or somesuch in which the old west card
games
were actually played this way: if you could not afford to call, you
were out
of the hand."
Bob Ciaffone, who's done a lot of research into the history of poker,
looked into this and found out that it was an urban legend. Even in
the 19th century American frontier, poker was played by the tables
stakes rule and people couldn't be forced out of a pot for lack of
money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael Sullivan
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 7:31 pm Post subject: Re: Stupid question |
|
|
Erland Gadde <[email protected]> wrote:
| Quote: | This is probably a stupid question, but there is one thing about Poker
I don't understand: Why doesn't the richest player win every time,
regardless of the cards, by betting more than the other players can
afford?
|
I think people have explained table stakes nicely, but there's one
interesting nit that I want to bring up.
Even assuming table stakes (you can't force someone out of a hand by
betting more than they can call), the player with a bigger bankroll can
have an advantage -- it's just not usually enough of an advantage to
overcome a *large* skill difference.
When the skill difference is small but one player has an overwhelmingly
larger bankroll, that player has a large advantage in the classic
ultra-macho (Until you cry uncle) matchup.
It's similar to the tourney note posted earlier. If can afford to lose
1 million, and you can afford to lose $1000, I can just put you all in
every hand until you either bust or win 6-7 straight hands. If I adopt
this strategy (which is clearly horrible), I probably have a 75% chance
of busting you before you have enough chips for me to give a shit
(Preflop you will mostly be calling with only a 2-1 or 3-1 advantage).
After which, if I haven't busted you, we play real poker, and I still
have a much bigger stack than you do.
Now, if I have a big skill disadvantage, the match is probably costing
me money (because when I lose, I lose a lot more than the $1000 that I
win when I win). But even if I am a rank amateur and you are a
world-class pro, I will win this match probably 90% of the time. If we
are very close in skill, I will win 99.9% of the time (and have only the
tiniest of -EV) even if you are the better player.
This points up the danger of playing over your bankroll.
It also shows the foolishness of the protagonists in most classic
gambling movies. When Steve McQueen takes on Edward G, he's cruisin'
for a bruisin. EGR made his money playing poker, so he's clearly top
flight. If SM has a skill advantage it's a small one, and he'd be a
fool to think otherwise. But he has a *huge* bankroll disadvantage.
Getting into a match "Until the down player cries uncle" leaves him far
more likely to lose than to win (although his payday will be very big if
he wins). Basically if he *is* a better player he's making a reasonable
bet but on a very long parlay which he will actually win at best 10% of
the time. And if it turns out he's *not* as good as EGR, it's a lot
like spending all his money on lottery tickets.
This is the basis for the interesting catch-22 in the modern poker world
of a very good amateur (who happens to be a billionaire -- Andy Beal)
challenging some of the top poker pros. His original challenge was
exactly this old west, uber-machismo style, "to the pain," match. What
he knew was that he could back out after losing 50 million without
really feeling much pain or losing a lot of face ("nobody" expects him
to win anyway). But he could easily break whatever bankroll they can
muster with a good run at the stakes he was proposing (as long as he is
not completely outclassed, which he probably isn't).
Again, this is a bit like a martingale if you are weaker with a huge
bankroll. Your EV never actually gets positive, but the EV isn't really
Andy's goal here. He wants the recognition of beating a top pro, and a
very high stakes to-the-pain match offers a a much better than even
chance to do that if he's even close in skill to his opponent. Which is
why said pros (who don't want to lose to an amateur just because their
bankrolls are smaller) weren't interested in that match.
Michael |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Erland Gadde
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 12:00 pm Post subject: Re: Stupid question |
|
|
Thank you and all others for your replies.
One more question:
Can a player call for less than what he has on the table even if other
players have bet more than that?
Say A and B have 1000 dollars each on the table in the beginning. A
opens by betting all his 1000 dollars. Can then B be greedy and call
for only 500 of his 1000 dollars?
Regards,
Erland Gadde
Chris in Texas <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
| Quote: | On May 3 2005 4:51 PM, Erland Gadde wrote:
This is probably a stupid question, but there is one thing about Poker
I don't understand: Why doesn't the richest player win every time,
regardless of the cards, by betting more than the other players can
afford?
Almost all poker games are played with what's called "table stakes", meaning the
player can only play with the amount of money he has on the table before the
start of a hand. He cannot go "into his pocket" for more money during a hand.
Along with this, this means that he has a right to participate in a pot, even if
he is put "all-in". Any bets in the pot after he is all-in he has no rights to,
but he still has rights to the pot for all bets up to what his table stake was
at the start of the hand.
So, if player A has $1,000, player B has $700 and player C has $450, and Player
A bets the full $1,000 and both B and C call, then player C participates with A
and B in a pot of $1,350 which contains $450 from all three players, and players
A and B compete for the "side pot" of $500, which contains $250 from each of
them, and Player A takes back his uncalled bet of $300 since no other player in
the hand can match it.
Hope I wasn't too confusing, I'm on the phone and trying to type and talk at
same time.
Chris
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
