My Journey As A Professional Poker Player (15 Viewers)

[Josh Kifer]

poker maff hurts my head.

If you're 40% to win a hand would it not matter if there were 3 , 4 or 8 players in the hand?

40% is 40% no? Which means you are losing more times than winning?

explain it like I'm 5 (buyins deep)

Okay. So when a bee finds a flower that it loves, it flys into it.....

 

[Josh Kifer]

Just imagine winning flips with 8 players at the table 40% of the time … you would be (even more of) a lucky bastard!

If this was the MLB, you'd be an all-star!

 

[MatB]

Just imagine winning flips with 8 players at the table 40% of the time … you would be (even more of) a lucky bastard!

ok so the amount of players matter. I think I get it.

If heads up flips and im 40% every time. No good? because then they are 60%

 

[Hornet]

ok so the amount of players matter. I think I get it.

If heads up flips and im 40% every time. No good? because then they are 60%

Correct!

 

[Anthony Martino]

poker maff hurts my head.

If you're 40% to win a hand would it not matter if there were 3 , 4 or 8 players in the hand?

40% is 40% no? Which means you are losing more times than winning?

explain it like I'm 5 (buyins deep)

You have to factor in the amount of money you win and the amount you put in yourself. The more players/money in the pot, the better for you if you're 40%

Because if you're headsup with 2K in the pot and you put 1K of it in, but you're only 40% equity, then in the long run you'll win $800 for every $1,000 you put in, thus winding up a net loser of $200 each instance over time.

But if there are three or more players in the pot and you have 40% equity, you're going to realize a net overall profit because of it.

 

[toothpic]

ok so the amount of players matter. I think I get it.

If heads up flips and im 40% every time. No good? because then they are 60%

Yep. With 3 people the amount you can potentially win increases so losing 60% of the time can still potentially be profitable.

If you're able to win 40% of the time with 8 people in the pot you have great odds!

 

[Josh Kifer]

 

[MatB]

I watched the whole thing. I learned so much.

 

[Josh Kifer]

I watched the whole thing. I learned so much.

Knowledge is power.

 

[toothpic]

Knowledge is power.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

With 3 people in the pot for the same amount of money, you only need to win 1/3 of the time to break even, so if your equity is 33.3% or higher you’re going to be profitable long term. With 8 people, you only need to win 1/8 of the time to break even, so if your equity is 12.5% or higher, you’ll be profitable long term.

 

[aggie]

With 3 people in the pot for the same amount of money, you only need to win 1/3 of the time to break even, so if your equity is 33.3% or higher you’re going to be profitable long term. With 8 people, you only need to win 1/8 of the time to break even, so if your equity is 12.5% or higher, you’ll be profitable long term.

With the caveat that “long term” means you could play a lifetime of poker and still be within a range of statistical probability that you end your career at a loss at those odds.

 

[Josh Kifer]

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

With the caveat that “long term” means you could play a lifetime of poker and still be within a range of statistical probability that you end your career at a loss at those odds.

Well 33.3% is the breakeven point for profitability in a 3 way pot, the higher the equity the more you'll be ahead long term, and the more likely you are to be ahead even in the near term. Yes, there's always going to be variance, but not taking advantage of positive equity is doing yourself a disservice.

 

[aggie]

Well 33.3% is the breakeven point for profitability in a 3 way pot, the higher the equity the more you'll be ahead long term, and the more likely you are to be ahead even in the near term. Yes, there's always going to be variance, but not taking advantage of positive equity is doing yourself a disservice.

100% agree. The question is, do you go all-in every time you’re a 39% equity favorite 3-handed because “long-term”? I’m not pro enough to answer that.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

100% agree. The question is, do you go all-in every time you’re a 39% equity favorite 3-handed because “long-term”? I’m not pro enough to answer that.

In a cash game, of course. In a tournament you'd have to account for ICM.

 

[Hornet]

In a cash game, of course. In a tournament you'd have to account for ICM.

So you’d flip heads up for $10,000 if you have 51% equity?

 

[aggie]

So you’d flip for $10,000 if you have 51% equity?

Imma wait and see the flop

 

[Josh Kifer]

Imma wait and see the flop

Run it 7 times plz.

 

[aggie]

Run it 7 times plz.

“Twice is nice, seven is heaven.”

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

So you’d flip heads up for $10,000 if you have 51% equity?

In a cash game, if I was rolled to flip for 10k sure. If you are hesitant to make the correct decision based solely on the size of the pot, you're not properly rolled for the game. I unfortunately am not properly rolled to play in that size game lol.

 

[Josh Kifer]

In a cash game, if I was rolled to flip for 10k sure. If you are hesitant to make the correct decision based solely on the size of the pot, you're not properly rolled for the game. I unfortunately am not properly rolled to play in that size game lol.

5 dollar flips! Who's with me!

 

[MatB]

5 dollar flips! Who's with me!

https://images.app.goo.gl/6ngGgbgpc5qEM3Kk7

https://tenor.com/view/bill-o-reilly-well-do-it-live-fuck-it-live-annoyed-gif-3584325

 

[MatB]

I can't post a gif to save my life, I hate the internet

 

[Hornet]

In a cash game, if I was rolled to flip for 10k sure. If you are hesitant to make the correct decision based solely on the size of the pot, you're not properly rolled for the game. I unfortunately am not properly rolled to play in that size game lol.

Yes, that’s exactly my point. The size of the game matters and at some point the small equity advantage is not worth what you’d have to risk to get it.

 

[Josh Kifer]

SUSTAINED!

 

[bergs]

You have to factor in the amount of money you win and the amount you put in yourself. The more players/money in the pot, the better for you if you're 40%

Because if you're headsup with 2K in the pot and you put 1K of it in, but you're only 40% equity, then in the long run you'll win $800 for every $1,000 you put in, thus winding up a net loser of $200 each instance over time.

But if there are three or more players in the pot and you have 40% equity, you're going to realize a net overall profit because of it.

You’re explaining equity to a person who I’ve known for over 5 years and I’m still not 100% sure the he knows the ranking of hands from one pair to a royal straight flush.

 

[Josh Kifer]

"I have a Royal Dutchman.... "
-MatB probably

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

Yes, that’s exactly my point. The size of the game matters and at some point the small equity advantage is not worth what you’d have to risk to get it.

well I'd have to go back to the hand in question, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't for 10k, and I'm also pretty sure Anthony is properly rolled for the game, so your point is moot.

 

[JustDogbert]

So you’d flip heads up for $10,000 if you have 51% equity?

I'm in!

FWIW - You don't have to be that deep stacked to win with even that small an edge...

Here's some #'s (assuming your opponent freezes up the same # of bets)

Bet's in Roll	Your Odds of Breaking Them
10	3-2
25	3-1
50	8-1
100	55-1

For the non-math types this is just the gamblers ruin problem, you can google either "gamblers ruin calc" or "risk of ruin calc" and play with the numbers yourself. - I just use my Excel file cause I maths like that

Edit: Had to fix the formatting, numbers got all crunched up.