Flipping for time rake (1 Viewer)

[xt!]

I had yesterday off work, so of course I went to the casino to play some PLO.

Long story, short: we were doing $50/player flips to pay the time rake on each dealer change and raised it to $100 after a few hours. Each dealer was instructed to deal everyone in (even if away from the table, we all put the money in and we played a hand of showdown - the time rake came out of the pot) there were 5 to 9 players for each flip.

In a 12 hr session I won exactly 0 flips.

The question is: at what point do you say "screw it, I'm just paying $8 time!"?

I got a text from a buddy this morning saying "we did one more flip after you left and you lost again, you owe $100" lol

 

[jbutler]

for true expert advice in this arena, i would go talk to a roulette pro. but after a while you can't quit. you're due, right? math is math after all.

 

[xt!]

In case no-one noticed, this was just just a subtle brag about being able to degen it up playing plo for 12+ hrs yesterday.

 

[xt!]

That's kind of a valid point, isn't it, jbutler? I mean theoretically I was running way below ev for a long time, but the rule of large numbers would dictate a return towards the mean, right? Or maybe put another way, I'm paying 8 and getting 92 in Gambol on each independent hand with neutral ev, so why not keep going for it.

 

[abby99]

In the long run, the return would move toward the mean, of course, but how many 12-hr sessions would it take before you could rely on that happening?

I'm guessing the flip losses only put a small dent in your stack. If so, nicely done!

 

[xt!]

I lost a lot of flips in the game too and got in a big pot where i played poorly with kkxx against 55xx and aaxx on a ak544 board. It was a rough road, but I pulled out a $1400 win, which I was very happy with considering I paid ~$2000 in rake.

 

[jbutler]

That's kind of a valid point, isn't it, jbutler? I mean theoretically I was running way below ev for a long time, but the rule of large numbers would dictate a return towards the mean, right? Or maybe put another way, I'm paying 8 and getting 92 in Gambol on each independent hand with neutral ev, so why not keep going for it.

In the long run, the return would move toward the mean, of course, but how many 12-hr sessions would it take before you could rely on that happening?

yeah i started to formulate my response, but i was going to respond as Marsha has. it seems to me that the sample size is waaaaaaaay to small for regression toward the mean to effectively come into play.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

That's kind of a valid point, isn't it, jbutler? I mean theoretically I was running way below ev for a long time, but the rule of large numbers would dictate a return towards the mean, right? Or maybe put another way, I'm paying 8 and getting 92 in Gambol on each independent hand with neutral ev, so why not keep going for it.

I don't know, maybe you're just the Rob McKenna of losing flips...